in its time and treasurer in odd extra issues rather than odd intra. it will look the same, work much the same, speak the same language. it will still be the most stubborn monolingual environment. italian is the price of admission. it will be a vatican that in terms of its personnel, it will reflect a better the global south. .

you a direct link to politics, history and literature. >> learn more about the nation's highest court from those who serve on the bench. read our book with conversations from active justices, and those who have retired. it is now available in hardcover and as an e-book. >> last week, the house armed services committee held a hearing about the misidentification of graves at arlington cemetery. this is just under two hours.

>> good morning. a hearing will come to order. i have been told we will be having a series of four votes on the floor in the very near future. if our witnesses will indulge us as we go over to vote, we will be back as quickly as possible to resume this very important hearing. today, our committee receives testimony about the management of arlington national cemetery. our witnesses include the secretary of the army, the inspector general of the army, and we welcome you both to the armed services committee. i am angry. period. anger is not generally a particularly useful in motion, particularly here on capitol hill.

however, the misidentification of graves at arlington cemetery makes me downright angry. this is the final resting place of our heroic warriors. mismanagement and neglect has resulted in a web of errors. how in the world could this tragedy be allowed to happen? investigations have revealed a dysfunctional management team operating without any oversight. we all know people who are buried there. people respect. people whose memory we hold dear. my next-door neighbor is buried every american, whether they have a loved one buried at arlington or not should be outraged. secretary, no you have already done much to right this wrong, but i cannot understand how the

army has allowed this problem to fester for many years. since 1992, the army has been aware of a level of leadership discord at arlington that would not be tolerated at any other organization. the situation cries out for intervention, but the army's response was to for their withdrawal from cemetery operations. the uniformed members to proudly conduct the honors ceremonies with grace and precision are not part of the problem. we are proud of these young men who continue to provide these ceremonies during these troubled times at arlington cemetery. sadly, notwithstanding the efforts of the army, the way forward offers many different and difficult challenges. given the 11 dead -- given the limited investigation up until now, the oversight we have

uncovered may be only a fraction of the problem. we must be sure that 100% of the cemetery and all of its operations is investigated, which i am sure will reveal a larger number of problems and then have currently been addressed. american military families have the right to expect that those who wear the uniform of this nation and make the ultimate sacrifice are afforded the utmost respect and dignity even after death. they deserve no less. >> secretary, a general, good morning and welcome. we look forward to your testimony. the recent revelations about the mismanagement and systematic barriers at arlington national cemetery are both shocking and heart wrenching. arlington national cemetery is hallowed ground, and its sacred hills said as the final resting place for thousands of our

nation's heroes. these young men and women should be treated with the utmost respect and decorum. to now land that the army was aware of so many problems for over 20 years and took no corrective action is extremely disappointing. with that, i commend you for conducting a comprehensive and thorough investigation into the matters at arlington. forthrightly acknowledging the army pose a mistake and taking the necessary steps to restore -- army's mistakes and taking the necessary steps to re store these hallowed grounds, to make sure that these errors are never repeated and that those responsible are disciplined appropriately. among the findings of the inspector general is the nearly complete failure of compliance

with army regulations for services and property procured by arlington national cemetery. the evidence provided goes far beyond inadvertent noncompliance but overworked contract in officers. i find these practices to be unacceptable, particularly the renewed efforts to ensure that we provide value of the highest quality to the war fighter and taxpayer. while the secretary has directed a review of all contracts awarded during the past five years in support of the arlington national cemetery, i believe the review must go further to ensure that the army stops responding to project failures in nearly a reactionary mode.

i hope that there will be an investigation into criminal contacts on behalf of the -- on the part of the army and contacting agencies. the cemetery's work load has understandably increased as more of our war veterans pass on, in addition to the casualties from iraq and afghanistan. what is surprising is that until this investigation became public, there was pressure to cut civilian support even further. this has had disastrous results. thankfully, the dedicated staff of arlington is able to carry out their mission despite inadequate manning and longstanding leadership failures, and they deserve our gratitude. i believe that there should be a complete and accurate accounting of all of the graves that remain

at arlington cemetery. this will require a massive effort and a considerable amount of resources and time. my concern is whether the army, with all of its competing missions, is committed to correctly identifying all of the individuals intered at arlington cemetery. thank you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony. >> before we get started, i ask unanimous consent that a statement from a reserve officer be entered into the record. that is without objection. i also ask unanimous consent that representative bobby rush be allowed to participate in the hearings and ask questions. without objection. mr. secretary, i understand that

you have a commitment. we hope that in light of the fact that we have a few lotze this morning, that you can give us a few extra -- a few votes this morning, that you can give us a few extra minutes. let us move as quickly as we can. >> let me assure you, in response to your very reasonable request, that we will do everything we can to provide as much time as possible for questions from committee members. i think you understand that i have a great appreciation for the role of this committee, and i want to do everything i can to facilitate and support it's very important oversight role, particularly in a matter such as this. i do, however, one to truncate my statement.

i had a rather lengthy one, and i thought it was appropriate given the very grave -- no pun -- very serious nature of this issue. but as time is an issue, i will try to be brief. let me assure you, for all of the anger you and every member of this committee feels comeuppance i share your feelings. when i became secretary -- this committee feels, i share your feelings. when i became secretary of the army, i learned of a review ordered by my predecessor come up a former member of this committee -- predecessor, a committee.ber of this comedia

in november, and was advised of the progress of that inspection. i ordered the expansion of that investigation to include information and technology insurance programs. i also ordered a full-scale investigation into a hostile working environment, improper hiring practices, and noncompliance issues. as i think everyone knows, on june 8th of this year, the report was submitted with findings and recommendations for improvements. you know the findings of that. i have tried to be as transparent as possible. we posted all of the reports

that a lot of these efforts and all of the attendant orders that i gave in response to those. in short, what was found was a system that suffered from dysfunctional management, alaska of coherent policies and procedures, numerous errors and accountability for remains, and numerous discrepancies between burial maps and grave sites. those needed immediate action. if i may go through the major point of those orders. i ordered the recession of general order 13, and ordered the creation of oversight of the cemetery. a program topr

provide oversight and leadership, and appointed one of the most capable senior executives to follow forward. i established a provisional oversight group to support the executive director in the restructuring of cemetery opprations and to make the corrections in deficiencies unveiled in the report. i ordered the creation of the arlington national cemetery advisory commission to provide independent oversight and regimented review of near and long term activities. as i know many of you are aware, former senator bob dole and other former senators have graciously agreed to assist us in the establishment of this key focus group. i reached out to my friend and colleague, the secretary of the veterans affairs department, the former chief of staff of the army, for assistance.

through the gracious support of him and the efforts of others, we are finding a better way forward. we are working to better insure that we have the right resources, personnel, and capabilities to meet the cemetery's mission. we do not know what we do not know, but we are working hard every day to find everything possible about what happened, particularly in contract management. for 146 years in the army has proudly served in the administration of this hallowed ground.

clearly, this report has found that in recent days, perhaps even recent years, we have lost that commitment and that record of success. i want to pledge to this committee, more importantly, to the american people and to the men and women who wear the uniform of this great nation and those who love and support them, that the army is doing and will continue to do everything necessary and possible to write these unimaginable, unacceptable, wrongs. we are on our way. i think we have a process that will hopefully solve many of the problems that have been unveiled andh respect to yesterday', set aside a better path for tomorrow. i yield back. >> without objection, the entire statement will be placed in the record.

general, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. distinguished members of the house armed services committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our investigation into the issues at arlington national cemetery. i ask that my further comments be submitted as a matter a statement in the record. that, would say now is perhap while there are very serious issues that we are all aware of the require significant action that the secretary has outlined, and like to make it clear and reassure people that the employees working under extraordinarily high operational tempo, lack of leadership, lack

of a forward vision and thinking, still managed to serve our soldiers, honor our families, and honor all americans with first class burial ceremonies and wreath laying ceremonies for senior members of our nation. commitment never faltered. our job is to ensure that those who have fallen so honorably have what they need when they needed, and to maintain the commission we have served for some years. i look forward to your questions. thank you.

>> mr. secretary, can we expect an audit of 100% of the cemetery gravesites with the use of technology and data that is modern and up-to-date? where are we on that? >> we have already begun to examine the record and the circumstances with the 211 braves that the inspector general identified. we have resolved 26 -- graves that the inspector general identified. result 26 of those so far.

-- we have resolved 26 of those so far. we intend to do what you suggested which is consult the burial masks against tombstones and actual documentation -- burial maps against too stunned and actual documentation that we have. -- tombstones and actual documentation that we have. to do that for all 330,000 graves is going to take some time. we have begun to identify the process ease by which we need to move forward to have that done as quickly as possible. i would say that through the generosity and graciousness of many private sectors, including

a consortium of northern virginia technology interests, we are exploring the possibility of assistance from the outside to facilitate and accelerate that to the greatest respect possible. there are some issues there with regard to accepting outside gifts, but if we can resolve that, we will move forward with that. as soon as the i.t. problems are solved, we will begin the process. >> mr. secretary, in the course of your review of the situation, have you encountered information that would explain why the army did not replace a leadership team, the civilian leadership team at arlington, because the army was obviously well aware of

the dysfunctional relationship between the superintendent and his deputy? >> we can speculate with some reason, but not so much uncertainty. i think it is important to show that the last inspection in 1997 did have follow-on that has not been widely reported. the commanding general after that report did indeed council the superintendent and deputy superintendent which, as i know you are aware, is the standard procedure for addressing those issues. there were also follow-up inspections, but certainly the inspector general is in a better position than i to detail them. there were some efforts. as to how it was allowed to continue for so long, i think one of the major issues centers around general order 13. i can speculate, but i think

there was a wealth of good intentions behind that order. i think what motivated it to some extent was an interest in providing arlington as much support as possible, but if the net effect was that by placing everyone in charge, no one it was in charge. there were no clear lines of the exercise of authority, and therefore the circumstances were allowed to continue. for whatever the reasons, it should never have happened. what we are trying to do now is take the steps necessary to set the path more clearly in the future, we send that order, restructure the administrative process, and make the lines of

authority clear from the executive director right to my desk. it is an immediate response. ptimam, may not be oct but it is an immediate response. as you know, there are questions for the congress and the president to answer. i can give you my personal perspective. i can think of any number of agencies, and there are several involved in that cemetery operations. i would tell you that, like the army, perhaps for different reasons, all of those agencies are stressed as well. while i cannot speak for the heads of those agencies, i am not sure that the fair thing to

do is to byrd and others because of the shortcomings -- is to den others because of the shortcomings of the united states army. arlington cemetery is a hallowed ground, and i believe that the army has helped to polish that reputation. clearly, that reputation has become tarnished, but we are committed to retaining -- regaining that reputation in the future. we will work as hard as possible to restore what we consider an army problem. i will note as well that this is the final resting place of veterans, but we are in a special circumstance where we

have to be -- where we have so many heroes entered during this era that are from the army. we feel that it is the responsibility of the military, particularly in times of war, to carry those heroes to their final resting place. we feel very strongly about that. i fear, as a former member of this committee for 17 years, that moving jurisdiction from this committee elsewhere would have certain considerations that would need to be carefully considered, with all due respect. but again, until we are ordered to step down, we are going forward. >> russ is very much. we are running out of time -- thank you very much. we are running out of time. >> as i alluded to in my opening

statement, i am concerned that new contracts may not go far enough. it is understandable that an operation like arlington national cemetery would not have a significant in house acquisition expertise and would rely on other army commands for contacting support. the cemetery relied heavily on the army corps of engineers. they should have added substantial debt and experience and experience. they frequently failed to verify the contractors receiving noncompetitive awards were capable of performing the work of the contracts.

they awarded contracts for information technology services to contractors who did not have any qualifications or training to perform it. most contracts contained no determination that contracts were fair or reasonable. whenever typographical errors, the numbers were rounded down to make a bit more advantageous. the list goes on. i find it impossible to believe that the army corps of engineers and the contract in center of excellence are reserved this sloppy work for just arlington national cemetery. my two-part question is, what steps is the army going to take to make sure that other contracts awarded by these two contracting offices, not just those for arlington, are in compliance with federal defense in theions and respeart

internet -- and are in the interest of the american taxpayer, and what new training is being put in place now to avoid further violations of this lot? >> the army is bound by requirements of due process to review the records before we take any disciplinary actions. i would agree with you fully the where we are right now should not be the end in terms of a review of the contracts, and i assure you it is not. what we need to do and what we are doing is to establish a factual basis and fill in what is currently missing, and that is a vast, of what would normally be considered required paper trail as to the structure of the contracts and how they are reviewed, and what procedures were used or not

used in the process. the acquisition and contracting authority for the army has been directed by need to examine those contracts that are being supported by the army auditing agency. we are very helpful -- hopeful that that will provide us a much clearer understanding of what failures were committed, what malfeasance existed. and as you heard this morning, the criminal investigation division is being provided all of those materials, and they will make those determinations. this is, for us, the beginning of a process. we have laid it out. it is already underway, and i promise you that we are going to pursue it to its fullest extent. >> may we resume with your

questions upon completion of the votes? we will recess until we return. >> we will resume questioning with the gentleman from texas. >> i want to welcome you to the committee. with you at the helm, i know that things are going to work out. general, it is always a pleasure to have you back here. thank you for your honest and frank dialogue.

with the significant number of a miss marked and unmarked graves, what is the army doing to reach out to the families of these deceased warriors and service members? what is the army doing to properly account for these unmarked graves? do you think that this problem exists in other areas of the cemetery? i know we are focused upon arlington, but we have cemeteries in many other places, morocco, africa, belgium. is this a widespread problem that we have? i know that you are going to look at it and take care of dit, but maybe you can respond o

my questions. >> as i tried to lay out very briefly, our first objective is the 211 graves that have been identified with matt discrepancies. we are currently working through the -- with map discrepancies. we are currently working through them. we have resolved 27. they have, until this point, been errors of miss marking on the socalled master roadmap. there is a three part record system to map the family member

involved against the headstone where they exist. where, for example, the map shows a grave but there is noo tone, we haveheads dow determined through a set procedure that the map was an error and that there were no remains in those grades. those graves will be repurchased -- there were no remains in those graves. those graves will be repurposed into the future. at the end of the day, i should tell you that it is our intent, upon implementation of a truly viable computer system, to run

matches on all 330,000 of those and where we find similar discrepancies, to begin the process of validating and finding out what the issues are with each one of those discrepancies. as to reaching out to the loved ones, on the first day reestablished -- on the first day of the announcement, we established a call center, a number for that call center. we have had 867 calls and resolved 169 cases. as we go forward, we are contacting each and every one of those persons who called and expressed concern, to update

them. we will continue to do that until we have worked through the entire list. we are not, at this time, calling people who have not expressed concernnto reassure them that there is no issue. for the vast majority of family members, our conjecture is that they feel confident, but where we do have expressions of concern we work with those people directly. we will continue to do that until we have answered every concern and every question. >> my time is up now, but my other question was going to be, as soon as you are finished with this, do you think that other cemeteries in foreign countries have any such problems like we have encountered here at arlington? >> i cannot possibly know that.

those cemeteries are operated, by and large, by the veterans administration. i can guarantee you that they will take lessons learned from our experience. as i mentioned in my opening statement, i am constructing an advisory oversight committee. max cleland is going to be a part of that, and being the great leader that he is, i know he will utilize these experiences and apply them in whatever way is necessary. >> i do not have too many questions. i have great confidence in the team that you will see this through to the end, and i look forward to working with you on how you will get that done.

if you have to disinter someone , will dna evidence be used? what do you anticipate? >> each casket is, in theory, a tag on the outside. there are more forensic ways to identify them. some families have contemplated this interment because they felt they had a very unique casket. ultimately, we were able to resolve the issue without going to that extent. if we are authorized, and it is necessary, we have not ruled out

the possibility of opening caskets. obviously, decomposition is an issue, but there usually are identifiable articles in the dasket of a particular love on one. should it dna evidence be requested, that is something we would consider as a last resort. >> are there barriers that you need relief from in order to make all of that work, assuming the worst case, are there things advance,o do in in anticipation of that? >> requires obviously, as well it should, that the designated next of kin, pursuant to the paperwork that the soldier

submit as part of their service to the military, to request that the validated up to legal sufficiency. >> there was a television? expose that claimed that had some material was discarded into a creek. have you been able to resolve with that was? >> prior to 1984, it was accepted practice in a government run cemeteries to use damaged gravestones for building material. in the case that you mentioned, it was for a bank and creaked stability. >> these were excess materials,

ones?tual headstand >> these were excessshead sounds. -- headstones. this was a widespread practice before 1984. i am not sure how they justified it. it seems distasteful to meet. as far as we know, it was not ill intent, just inappropriate use.

>> i sent a letter to the department of defense inquiring about the former director of affairs at arlington national cemetery. we received a report back in june. it was marked for official use only. the cover letter is also marked for official use only. will you share with us what you can share with us about the investigation? >> unfortunately, i cannot share much. we received the same report late last night after work hours. i glanced at it this morning. the results of the investigation, the bottom line was that the complainant was not reprisal against although she met the whistle-blower

standards for an investigation. i have not read the entire report in detail. inher than discussing it terms of how long it would take to complete the investigation. >> is it inappropriate for me to read a portion of the cover letter? bismarck for officially is -- it is marked for official use. has there been any action against the whistle-blower? >> not that i am aware of. she has an ongoing litigation.

>> i am going to have someone bring this letter down and have you read the paragraph i am referring to. maybe you can rephrase it in a way that is appropriate. while that is happening, some members are attending a hearing on the minerals management issue. it is another example of focusing on incident after we are very dissatisfied with what is going on. the army has very high turnover. what role do we have been at this? where did we dropped the ball in terms of missing these red flags? >> i do not want to characterize this committee as having dropped the ball. these problems were committed

under the watch of the army and our army responsibility. i would say, as we go forward, once we have had the opportunity to identify issues and restructure our cells, that it would be very helpful to have this committee, as part of its , to have usocess ies periodically due to the regulatory oversight hearings that this committee does so effectively. part of the problem that i think existed here is that, for all of the important that the army places on it, arlington national cemetery was a satellite spinning off by itself. i think part of the problem was

general order 13, but it goes deeper than that. we have a directing reporting unit. we have field agencies that operate somewhat independently. that has to be a part of this process and how we found ourselves and where we did. i am ordering the inspector general from this point forward to dubai annual inspection actions -- to do bi-annual inspections. >> i cannot comment on an inspection. there is still ongoing litigation that would be inappropriate for us to comment

on. i apologize that i cannot be more open. >> i think you already made a comment that may not be a full picture of what occurred. >> i want to thank those witnesses for your honest and sincere response. he mentioned the call center and the ever to work with families. -- effort to work with families. how does that work? if a family member calls and with concerned, does that get moved to the top of the list? >> we are trying to give priority in two places.

first, the 211 known problems are by and large not known to the public. we are responding to the nearly 900 calls with urgency. >> are the callers and generally concerned that one of their loved ones is one of the 211? >> generally. obviously, every family member has his or her unique concerns, but generally the problem is that one of their loved ones is intered in the section identified in the report. that is not exclusively the case, but generally. >> this is a vietnam-era area

of the cemetery where problems were identified. is that correct? >> we do not have exclusive areas where we have located remains. there is not a vietnam area. there is not a desert storm area. there are not specific sections. i do believe that one of the grave sites in the question was from vietnam. >> you have section 60 which is by and large iraq and afghanistan. >> testimony was submitted today by the reserve officers association regarding questions ity.arodyin

are you aware of the issue they are raising? >> i was not aware that they had submitted testimony. i can tell you just generically that we would certainly not want to tolerate any discrepancies in that treatment between a guard or reservists or an active-duty officer. they are both heroes. if the chairman would consider sharing those concerns, we would very carefully consider them. >> any written response you can give to the committee after this hearing about trying to eliminate any discrepancies would be something a lot of us would be very interested in hearing. >> we will take a look at it. >> secretary, general, thank you

for joining us today. i would like to begin by talking about what has been identified as being a dysfunctional civilian command structure at arlington national cemetery. the question is, knowing that there has been this dysfunction why did that continue? why was there a continued lack of response by the army or lack of an effort to fix that dysfunction with the civilian command? is it something that the army control structure was not set up to do, to identify, or to respond to? could you give us some idea as to how that was allowed to continue to occur? >> i wish i had all the answers to that, congressman. a lot of this is conjecture.

we're talking back to 1992. well over a decade, and many of the people directly involved are gone. there is no excuse why it happened. it was unacceptable then as much as is now, and part of the way forward for us is to try to restructure this organization writ large so that it does not occur again. i think i have taken an important step in doing that by rescinding general order 13. as i mentioned in my comments, i think there was real confusion amongst the various agencies as to who had exact oversight authority. in my judgment, the not well written a general order was a part of that.

there have been attempts to address this issue, obviously not effectively enough. the inspector general can walk you through the responses that were taken as we have discovered them. that is not to justify any of this, but just to fill out the picture. >> congressman, you're exactly right. what was identified in 1992 was a complaint by an employee that talked about the command climate, the management style at arlington. in 1997, when the military district of washington inspector general was commanded to do an organizational command climate assessment, that was further uncovered. the leader has several options once they discover a dysfunctional unit. in council the individual, and discipline them, or ultimately

relieve them if it is serious enough. there is evidence that the commanding general, in the 1992 timeframe, did in fact council of the superintendent and deputy superintendent. there is also evidence that in 1997, more counseling to place. i do not know what the written record was a back counseling or what the results were. there is no additional record of complaints from 1997 to the current time, of employees requesting assistance due to the command climate. that started to surface in the 2009, directly to us. there was also in 1998 review of

the 1997 assessment done again by the military district of washington inspector general. they went back and looked at the areas that they covered in the 1996-1997 timeframe and gave an assessment. there was some action. apparently not the right action. >> one additional question. are there remains in a 117 grave sites that do not have headstones? and if there are, have we identified them, and what are we doing to it and -- to honor them? >> those 117 or discrepancies on the map, as identified in the report.

in 27 cases so far we have found that the maps were inappropriately marked as having remains when our analysis -- including digging into the site -- revealed that there were not. that does not mean that we will not encounter the circumstances you have described in the future. but to this point we have not done that. should we, obviously we will have to take a number of steps. if the outside tagging is appropriate, we would contact the next of kin and make arrangements for appropriately internment in concert with their wishes. we've not had to do that yet. >> thank you to both of you for being here today. i appreciate your service. obviously, have to begin by

saying that i was deeply disappointed by reading that headstands from arlington were found in a river bed on the cemetery grounds. when i saw the photo that accompanied the article, i was particularly upset that there was a name on one of these headstones, of a world war i veteran from iowa. i am from iowa, so as you can imagine, it hit me hard. i was quite dismayed. there does not seem to be an explanation for how that had something to be there. i guess that is even more upsetting. i know that you have tried to answer to some extend the question about the current status of the headstands that were found there -- headstones

that were found there. could you elaborate on the that a little bit more? i know that you were answering that question earlier. what happens to those headstones? what is the normal procedure now? >> since 1994, when we replaced the head stone, what happens now is that they replaced head stone is broken in two and ground, so that discernable markings are no longer discernible, and they are disposed of in an appropriate manner. >> is it the case that we do not know yet why those head stoned ended up where they are?

>> it seems obvious that this was an accepted practice, as i mentioned, throughout all government agencies, through many government agencies that had cemetery operations and encountered excess headstones. ps i said, i cannot justify that. it was apparently acceptable policy. i find it hard how anyone could develop that as acceptable policy. i find it rather abhorrent, but it was acceptable policy. what we are encountering is that these headstones were used in a variety of ways as building materials. it is distasteful. we do not do it any longer. we are making every effort to extract those headstones from

the stream. . . >> it has been quite some time and we have been pretty successful in this country at sort of bringing america and around to appreciating our soldiers, our herrmann, our sailors, our coastguard boat

folks. vietnam was a low point as to how the american public looked at our military and to some extent our troops, as well, and did not appreciate them very much as a result of the about. we have been kind of making a long, slow comeback on that front since that time. i am very concerned obviously that what we have seen happen with these headstones -- it is a real problem, obviously. it does not reflect well and i think a lot of the american people will have concerns about this and they already do. i look forward to working with both of you to the extent with which we can do that as members of congress to remedy this situation and provide whatever resources we need to provide to make sure that this does not happen again. one final comment about the guard and reserve -- pleased to look at that report from the reserve officers association.

we have 2900 iowa national guard members who will be deployed to afghanistan and i think it is important that we do not tolerate any distinction between what happens with folks who have served active-duty versus those who have been in the reserve or the guard. i will appreciate you taking a look at that and look forward to continuing to work with you on that front, as well. >> we will certainly look at that and we appreciate your help. again, there is no justification for what happened. >> my son is one of those iowans, sir. >> i probably met him at camp ripley. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mchugh and those who have served with you regret that you are here on these issues. i have faith in you and i know you want the best for our

military. as all americans, arlington national cemetery is a national shrine with the highest honors possible for our veterans of perpetual care on sacred ground. as a veteran myself and also with immediate family members who are buried there, captive theremccrory, colonel mcleod is buried at arlington. his personal to me. all of us as americans and expect the highest standards of compassion for our veterans and military families. with that said, and you have addressed this but it is so important it needs to be restated -- the army inspector general report suggests a significant contract discrepancies even improprieties. you have indicated that there will be criminal investigation.

can you tell us how far and what will be done? >> the cid and to the extent they are available and it is early in the process, they are using those materials developed through the audit of the contracts. asalt, the procurement and contracting officer for the army is the lead on a contract review i have ordered. it is being supported by the aaa army auditing agency. those materials after they tried to develop to the greatest extent possible an audit trail will be shared with cid as are all the ig reports to try to make determinations if there is sufficient evidence to proceed

in any way against anyone in a criminal manner. this will take some time because as has been noted in the ig report, there is a paucity of identifiable material as to how much was spent, what was garnered for substantial millions of dollars spent in pursuit of not much to gain. >> i appreciate your looking into this because it is beyond incompetents. all of us expect much more. >> if i may also, congressman, as i did mention, we are not just stopping at arlington. we want to make sure that the direct reporting unit, the field agencies are subject to oversight. i know they will comply but we have to take lessons learned and where we find deficiencies and

our contract oversight process, we will apply those across the army as well. >> the veterans administration runs 130 national cemeteries. in the district, i represent the buford cemetery and the jackson cemetery. these cemeteries have not had such problems as had been uncovered at arlington. do you see a benefit in bringing arlington national said her terry -- arlington national said the -- cemetery under their jurisdiction? >> i have the highest regard for secretary shinsecki. he has been supportive to recognize -- rectify this situation. they run a very substantial network of cemeteries and they

do a fine job as well. i also mentioned that there are other agencies that run cemeteries also, the department of interior and others. they serve as memorials and active cemeteries to a certain degree. all of the agencies that run cemeteries have their particular challenges. there are reports as to certain deficiencies in these other agency cemetery operations. at the end of the day, it is rather unfair at best to burden some other agency with an army challenge. for 146 years, the army has been a major part in making this most special place in the face of the earth in terms of honoring fallen heroes. we view it is our responsibility. the military views it as a responsibility to carry those fallen heroes particularly in times of war to their final resting place and we will regain that legacy that has been built

for nearly one-half centuries. as i mentioned it to the chairman, as a former 17-year member of the committee, i do think with all due respect that it is important for this committee to keep jurisdictional oversight, but whatever the congress and the president decide we will follow. until we are told to step down, we will go full speed ahead. >> thank you. before i call on mister johnson, let me make an inquiry of the general. general, you submitted an inspector general report? >> that is correct, chairman. >> when did you submit that? >> we had two reports -- and inspection and the investigation, two separate reports. i have two separate divisions that have both of those functions. >> approximately what dates?

>> the investigation was submitted to the secretary on june 8 and the inspection was submitted -- was not submitted to him. when it was completed, from the first part of the year until april or may. >> as i understand it, there is another report, a department of defense inspector general report? >> the only department of defense inspector general report that i am aware of is the one that congressman spider mentioned and that is the whistle blower complaints by an employee at arlington national cemetery. that was opened in october, 2008 and goes directly to dod ig and and we receive the final result of that late last night. >> would the gentleman from arkansas wish to inquire? >> i appreciate the spirit you

peaked my interest. mr. skelton died yesterday afternoon as chairman of the committee and when i asked about, you said you had not had time to read it. you are attending a full committee hearing today on these terrible things that we don't like at arlington national cemetery. you are the inspector general for the army and you receive the report from the department of defense involving whistle-blower reprisal investigations, why could you have not found time to read this report and be prepared for questions about it? >> i did read it. i read it this morning. i got it last night. i have not had a chance to analyze the report that took almost 18 months for the department of defense inspector general to complete. that is the fact of it. >> then you said you've ventured

a comment about it which i thought was an incomplete, the ballot and when i asked you to clarify, you said you could not talk about it because you had not analyzed it. you said you were not adequately prepared to add to the committee's questions. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i share the outrage that you expressed as well as feelings of great empathy for the families of our fallen soldiers who are buried at arlington national cemetery as well as their loved ones, their spouses and that cemetery serves as a memorial and national monuments to

america's war heroes. i look at this situation very seriously. i want to focus on the work force at arlington national cemetery and the investigative report spoke on the fact that an unhealthy work environments exists and has existed at arlington national cemetery for some time. what i want to know is -- how many complaints of racial discrimination have been made, lieutenant general whitcomb, to

the appropriate authorities arising from employment at the arlington national cemetery over the last, say, since 1990? >> congressman johnson, i don't have the precise number of complaints. we looked at the hostile work environment which included racial complaints, paul garrity, and intimidation of workers at arlington -- vulgarity and intimidation of workers at arlington. that was unfounded. we found there was an unhealthy work environment at the cemetery. it was partly due to the leadership, the convoluted command that was talked about, the insular attitude by the superintendent to keep things at his level, the dysfunctional relationship between the superintendent and the deputy. we did not fight a hostile work

environment and those that would rise to levels that there were a number of these issues taking place on a regular basis. >> thank you. with the superintendent and adapted -- were the deputy superintendent and the superintendent of the same race? >> they were not. >> what race were they? >> the superintendent was black and the deputy superintendent was white. >> what was their inability to function as a cohesive supervisor unit? >> we could not determine that. it came out in 1992, the inability of them to work together. it appears that struck some kind of accommodation where they kept in separate lanes although what we found that what contributed to the unhealthy work environment was that those lanes dented to overlap. you are talking about a small organization of about 95

employees. that overlapped and caused an on help the working relationship and management at the cemetery. >> the inappropriate hiring practices in the instances of favoritism and nepotism which were also complained about, those issues as well as the use of inappropriate racial comments or vulgarity and intimidation of subordinate employees, those allegations were ruled to be unsubstantiated or not founded in fact. how many such complaints in those areas that i just enumerated were there and who or what agency or was it that actually investigated those

complaints? >> in 1997, the commanding general of the military district of washington last the equal opportunity management institute to come into a command climate survey. we do not have a record of that survey being done that survey would have been done as a standard practice and given to the commander or the senior leader in the organization that requested it. i don't know whether the commanding general received it or whether the superintendent would receive debt. >> this is still a problem out there at arlington national cemetery where black folks feel like they are being treated badly and differently from other employees and are there any

black folks other than the assistant superintendent in positions of supervision at the cemetery? >> sir, there is a mix of races at arlington. the comments and allegations were also not just one race. it works both ways. discrimination, comments against whites and blacks. it was not a one-way trip. there are several supervisors of both races. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. secretary for being here and general whitcomb, we appreciate your service. secretary, i know that they challenge like this is very

complex logistically. this is a significant undertaking to organize something as large and of the realities of the challenges on the ground. i believe that you and all of us are primarily concerned to as sways the grief and difficulties of people who have dealt with this and their loved ones are affected and those that they remember with such a love and honor that somehow that has been diminished. there are two things i think we should focus on. number one is to figure out what happened not so much to blame but to be able to reorganize and restructure so that it does not happen again my first question

is -- in terms of the structure, it sounds like some of the people at the top echelon were at war with each other. that seems to have filtered down and added to the confusion that may be at the base of what happened here that we are all concerned about. what has been done to restructure things? i know you've covered this to some degree before but give me they 101 of what needs to be done for a clear delineation of leadership in the future. >> thank you, congressman. i have taken several steps and certainly do not preclude taking others. the first step was to rescind the general order 13 which was the governing structure that in my view did just about everything but govern.

i have read directed the lines of authority. i have created a clear command structure at the top in terms of cemetery operations by creating the position of director -- executive director of army operations. i have placed one of our most senior executive service professionals into the post. that is an accountant -- miss katzcondon and she has begun to restructure below her so that the employees know that if there is a problem they know where to go to. she has created an actual process and paper that people can look at to understand when they encounter problems in their workplace environment or something that is operationally incorrect out into the cemetery grounds. they have a clear chain of command to go and report those irregularities up through. i have made ms.condon directly

responsible to me, the secretary of the army, and every day since this first came to light and i issued the publication of the inspector general's report, she and i have talked and we will continue to bet on a daily basis for quite some time. >> let me ask you then -- just lying in arlington national cemetery is a stark proclamation that the person there has been willing to give up all of what ever days they could have had remaining for our tomorrows, as it were. one of the few things that we can give them back is the honor in holding them to be the heroes in our society. what are we doing now to try to express' that to the loved ones that have been affected here and what are we doing so that informational it or logistically so that we can make sure that we

honor these men and women who lay down their lives force in the future? >> if one were to read the inspector general's report, you would find clear validation that when it comes to the actual operations, the things i go to on a weekly basis where the honor guards carried the fallen heroes to that final resting place, where the rifle companies fire that 21-gun salute and the band plays in solemn tones, the issuance "taps" and a caring of those families, that is at the highest level. we feel very proud of that but understand that all that went on below that diminishes this. we want to make this a fulsome operation. where there are challenges and concerns, we will make those rights. it will take time. this is a very laborious

operation. we feel confident particularly when we install and are on a fast-track to do it a working pieties system so that record keeping is brought into the -- working it the t ki it system so that record-keeping is brought into the 21st century. this is the most special piece of ground in america about thank you. i think you just gave us the key, mr. secretary, the electronic record keeping. going back some 146 years will be very difficult, i know that. hopefully, as complete as the

electronic record-keeping can be available will be in place so that your office can keep us advised from time to time as to the progress. on this that would be very helpful. rather than have a separate hearing every time there is a key milestone that is matt. >> we will make sure you are provided regular updates, mr. chairman. >> thank you so much. miss davis. >> thank you both. i appreciate mr. secretary you're serious attention to this matter. i wanted to clarify the funding issue and perhaps you addressed to but i wanted to be sure that it was clarified for the public as well. the funding for arlington cemetery operations is appropriately -- appropriated separately on the military construction of va and other

agencies appropriations act. this is dod appropriation. >> that is correct and what does that legally preclude the army from using army funds to augment the funding? >> it does. >> if so, then what legislative assistance do you need from the congress to provide a remedy for this limitation and is that the issue or is it something else? >> i am glad you asked. it is an important part of the desperate it does not in any way explant the other shortcomings that have nothing to it -- to do with funding. >> i would agree with that but in terms of the appropriations -- >> the army is severely restricted from quick fixes or immediate needs to install an infusion of money.

we are clearly going to ask you for relief and that. i will not say what that is right now and how we would structure that and obviously, committee jurisdiction comes into play although i think it is fortunate at least on the house size as you noted, miss davis, va and are do andd appropriations are run through the same subcommittee. it may not be all that difficult, but we very much would like the flexibility on a needs basis to infuse army money and we will come back to you with a plan on that theme you spoke earlier about the stress on all of the budget spread >> you spoke about the stress on the budgets. the public could be questioning where this would fit into the many, many challenges that certainly or budget faces as well as others. >> obviously, we have to make

hard choices every day. the operation at arlington, the caring of our fallen heroes to their final resting places is awfully important to us and we define rules. in the first instance, we need to have legal flexibility which regardless of other budget considerations doos not provide us with a chance to consider it. >> connected to that are the or manpower requirements. there have been questions about personnel that were raised. the 95 individuals who serve now that have a much larger number of families that are seeking their help and assistance and making those decisions to in turn their loved ones at arlington national cemetery -- are there enough people to do the job? >> by my instinct says no.

we will not operate on instincts. ms. condon under my direction has begun to conduct a report on personal needs. that will be done about the 27th of july which will give a hard analysis of the personnel situation and where inmates may exist. i suspect you are right. while the operations and tempo have increased for these individual dramatically, particularly through the four years in iraq and afghanistan, their financial support and cadre itself has remained fairly stagnant for it it seems logical to me that they need more help if i may -- nothing in this report suggests that those out in the senatorial -- that indeed

-- that those in the cemetery are doing less than a stellar job. they have kept the good faith of arlington with the families of the fall and we owe them a great spread of data -- gratitude. >> they are scheduling from 135- 150 funerals every week and keeping all that together is difficult. has there been any concern expressed as a result of what has occurred that people are reluctant to in turn their loved ones there? >> i am sorry, i did not hear the last part of your question. >> has there been any concern over reluctance as a result of this recent news to in turn loved ones there? >> not anything we have hurt, but they are human beings and it is natural for a human being to react in said ways when a place

that you have devoted yourself in such credible measure is called into question. that is why it is important the first day right after the inspector general and i concluded our press conference, condon and i held a town hall meeting. we're doing everything we can to validate that trust. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i was privileged for many years to set next to you here and it is good to see you across from us here. in thinking about this hearing today, i was impressed, i guess, with the concern that you all. are showing.

we are fighting two wars and this would appear to be a fairly low priority relative to these two wars we are fighting. yet, it is obvious from your testimony that you spend a lot of time and have devoted a lot of attention to this. i thought of a biblical text in thinking about this hearing. today. we have to pay greater attention to these two wars but we should not have left undone this cemetery. i want to thank you both for what you have done. i don't have any specific question. i am sure all the relevant questions have been asked. i wanted to express my appreciation for the concern that you have shown to this and obviously all the energies you

have expanded, both of you, in this area when we are fighting two wars. it shows the respect we have for our call and want to thank you very much for the statement you are making to all of our servicemen and their families and to america in general that this really is important. thank you very much for your attention, both of you. kissel mr.s >> i had wanted to yield my time boswell, but iel will yield it when he comes back. >>ms allen. >> thank you and let me express my gratitude to the both of you. you have had a tough challenge with trying to figure out a way out of this dilemma at

arlington park and i appreciate your swift and prompt action on something that occurred on someone else's watch. i believe we owe a great amount of honor and respect to era veterans who are in tow interedt arlington that once their loved ones are laid to rest, they get the honor and respect for their service. i have missed some of this hearing, i apologize, but in reading through the report and some of the words that have been used from felled, missed, all these different procedures and actions and look back at these problems and complaints started occurring back into 1992, almost 20 years, i have to say that i am thoroughly discussed. i don't know who was being

protected during that time. clearly, some was not paying attention with the complaint going on. i know you gentlemen are trying to resolve that situation. the personnel policies were obviously failing because there were lots of complaints during that time and the evidence was there. there was a lack of inspection about what was going on. when i was out in the private sector, i have a business -- business that i managed and we said that you inspect what to expect. somebody was not inspecting what they x -- what they were expecting in relations to arlington. now we go for it and how do we deal with this and reassure our families and our soldiers that they will be treated with the respect they deserve? my question is -- are we involving the families? i know there will be a national an arlington national

cemetery planning commission. well families be involved in that commission? -- will families be involved in that commission? >> i would not want to insulate the family to one part of this operation. my intent in creating the position of executive director of all army cemetery operations and making that person directly reportable to me is to insure that the families have direct access to the highest level. i can tell you that in terms of the call center we have established where families are able to phone in and express their concern and that there is a specific nature to that, we can begin to address a and mess condon is on the line entry calls herself. her intention is to move concerns and complaints to the

highest level, not to the lowest level. as happens every major military academy, boards of oversight, board of visitors in terms of west point where i serve 14 years are there to give an extra set of eyes upon the day to day operations and problems. we had occasion where largely parents of cadets who had issues would inform us of that and we would bring those. they are welcome to do that but i think it is equally important that we let them know they will not get lost in the structure. they are welcome to come to the executive director and/or may. >> i have one more comment. after reading the reports about infighting going on between the superintendent and the deputy

and of the length of time and the complex that were going on, i cannot figure out for the life of me why some someone -- someone did not do something about them. why did it take so long to make the personnel changes? was the law protective of these federal employees that we could not make the changes? >> it was the latter more than .he former paren i don't think anyone understood and did not assume proper oversight and supervisor authority as to these particular types of actions. there was a real disconnect between the cemetery operations and a regular oversight authority. i share your frustration but it still seems to me looking at for more than a decade later that even without clearly have expressed authority, somebody should have said something to

someone. it obviously did not occur and as the inspector general mentioned earlier, it seems that the deputy and the superintendent were able to reach some kind of not helpful but somewhat workable accommodation where they did not cross into each other's planes at least as much as they probably shut up. -- should have. the only thing i have the option to do was to relieve the superintendent of his command authority which i have done and put the deputy superintendent on administrative leave which i have done to clear out the conflict that existed. >> good. >> we need to go for to find out what else we needed. >> i thank the gentle lady. i understand you have to leave >> yes, sir.

>> we will be having the votes very shortly and let's try to squeeze everyone in and keep it as short as you possibly can. mr. kissel? >> a 1 to yield to leonardboswell. >> thank you and good to see you mr. secretary and general. i have shared you're paying. ain. this is unfortunate and unacceptable pthat this could have happened. i associate myself o mr.rtiz not to repeat things that have been said. i remember some of those times i had to write some of those long

letters. it is the same building. mr lantos used to be with us. another secretary, a guy named gates. he made it but, when the change took place there and my experience with you personally, it applies to you. you have the right tone. you really care. i know that. i think we all know that. you cannot undo what was done but you will make it go right as we go forward. i wanted to know that we appreciate that and u2, general. let's move forward. it is unfortunate added as extremely said current -- and it is extremely sad.

it is important for those who have served a command role parent. carry through and i know you will pardon we will fix this. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i yield back. >> quickly -- >> i was at another hearing with secretary of salazar and a few others and the word oversight was there. here i heard the use of it as well. i am very grateful for the work you are doing about this. my uncle, my father's twin is buried at arlington national cemetery. he was an air force colonel in three wars and it was a very solemn and beautiful burial service. i still love arlington national cemetery and i believe we can get this right under your leadership.

thank you very much. my question have to do with the fact that the inspection team found that the army does that have one single entity for managing army cemeteries. should there be one? >> we have created through the position of executive director of army cemetery operations a single authority. the primary day to day responsibility of that office will be to oversee arlington and the soldiers and sailors home sanitarium in washington. we have any number of cemeteries that are operated on the post camps and stations and most of them are historical because they have existed for some time. some of them still have backed of interments'. our intention is to -- the responsibility for those are

with the garrison commanders. i visited a couple of the last couple of weeks and they take it seriously, but it is our intention to put out command directives as to what we expect them to be doing in terms of inspections and oversight reporting methodology. as they go forward. i cannot tell you what w exact thoughtss are but we will continue to work with that. >> thank you for cleaning up the scandal. i yield back. >> i appreciate the efforts on the most hallowed ground in our nation. you wanted to get to the bottom of this issue and going forward so that we show respect to the true heroes is much appreciated. we know you care and will get it

right. i yield back. >> very quickly, as you go about restructuring and fixing some of the dysfunctional problems you have found, what efforts are made to reach out to the veteran community itself to include them in the efforts as you make those changes and make sure they have an ongoing role? is there a regular way to communicate and make sure their concerns are being addressed to them and to their families? >> family members have expressed concerns to us. we are reaching back to them and will try to move forward on what ever those concerns may be. some large american some have to do with specific gravesides and where the latter is the case, we are pursuing that. as for the veterans' organizations, they have been very active at arlington. %+ appreciate that. they have a vested interest and concern and they are welcome.

their interest and concern is directed toward proper record keeping and insuring that the pomp and circumstance and i mean that an unbiased way is continued and afforded to heroes as they are carried to their grave and we will continue to do that. with respect to and a citizen that has concerns who has a loveland there, the veterans organizations are always welcome with their suggestions. my experience with them over 17 years and this panel has been that they are very aggressive and rightly so and are supportive of those they represent. >> some sort of formal structure within the organization might be something worth looking into. i know they come at you in different ways but somebody assigned on the committee to specifically be designed to outrage may be helpful. >> we will look at that.

with respect to the new board we are creating, may be a de facto position by title in relation to that, we will take a look at that. >> can we squeeze it all end? >> thank you both for being here and your efforts to fix this. i recently got a call from a constituent whose brother was laid to rest in arlington in february of this year. as you can imagine, she had heard the press reports and simply want to know if this impacted our. i am trying to get a handle on what efforts are being made to contact those families who are impacted by miss marked cemetery plots and how do we get information to all those other families who are not impacted?

how do we make sure that information is also available to people who do not have been accessed? >> -- who do not have internet access? >> you can give me a call we will get to the bird never mission but in the family member in your constituency or elsewhere is not just welcome but encouraged to call. we will get back to the more they have a specific concern and we will try to work for those brett we are not at this time contacting members who have not expressed a concern. have an issue, we do not suit a -- see a need to raise levels of concern. where we do find an issue where even though the family member

has not contacted us, it has not happened as yet but we fully intend to contact the family member and deal with it in a way they are comfortable with. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. rush. >> let me thank you so much3. . thank you for allowing me to comment and be a part of this hearing. to all members of the subcommittee, a package for this opportunity. mr. secretary, good to see you again and general, good to see you. arlington cemetery is the gold standard for cemeteries across the nation. it is iconic. this respect and this honor -- if this is a mechanic for arlington, it can happen

throughout the nation. i'm a veteran and i am here today because there were reports and allegations and findings that arose at a cemetery in my district. it was a non-military cemetery. the chairman of the subcommittee -- i looked at cemeteries across the nation and i find issues with cemeteries across the nation. in response to the one in my district, i introduced new legislation that sets forth minimum federal standards and guidelines for all non-military cemeteries. disestablished -- this establishes a baseline.

these would be rules that would be written by the federal trade commission and and forced -- and enforced by the states. it would make information available to the consumers. it would apply to any creed whether they are buried or cremated. this would ensure cemeteries and contracts and families can be assured that their loved ones are being held accordingly. let me ask you one question.

you might not be familiar with the details of my bill. in response to my bill and other things we're doing in committee, certain organizations have argued that they should not be subject to minimum standards. these standards were based on state senator it laws and they would be financially burdensome. can you give me an opinion on whether or not these are sound positions or whether or not these organizations should not have the same base line of assurances that you have tried to give to military families? >> you of the past and excellently-crafted question but

i will have to respect fully dodge because as an army secretary, i am not in a position to lobby for legislation and a longer. i would carefully consider co- sponsor ship but i will say this -- if your bill is successful and although it does by cover military cemeteries, i promise you that by the time we are done, we will exceed all those minimum standards you set. >> i thank the secretary and general for being with us today. one thing we have learned out of all this tragedy and the problems at arlington cemetery is that you are on top of it and you care. you care and we know that the investigation will be thorough and you will do everything you can to restore confidence of the

american people, not just this committee, but the competence of the american people in the operation at arlington national cemetery. we hope you'll keep this committee informed of your progress and we look forward to hearing from new and we wish you well and we thank you for caring. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .

>> you were watching c-span created as a national service by the nation's cable companies. we will have a discussion on health care law by the national right to life convention. we will look at political parties. later, a discussion on preparations for the next possible terrorist attack. cspan is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. how prepared as the u.s. for another terrorist attack? tonight, former senators and former 9/11 commission member will talk about what can be done by federal, state, and local governments as well as u.s. citizens. this is from the aspen institute tonight at 8:00 here on c-span.

tomorrow "washington journal," a look at summer nutrition programs for children. also, the sat -- president for the center of education reform on charter schools and a look at the obama plan to prevent and and homelessness in the u.s.. that is to "washington journal on" starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the new health care law was a topic of discussion at the recent national right to life convention. three committee members talked about this. from pittsburgh, this is about one hour and 15 minutes.

>> the democratic health care bill also known as obama-care enacted into law about 56 democrats and the senate and 219 democrats in the house without the support of even one republican in either house. the passage represents one of the greatest exercise of raw political partisanship of our nation, especially when one considers it is structured to establish the government to take over control of health care in our country. it determines the government to determine what health care you will be allowed to receive and what health care of you will not be allowed to receive. thus, if not repealed, it represents one of the greatest threats to our liberties and our

very lives ever enacted. in addition to the rationing of health care for everyone and the drastic cuts in medicare for seniors it contains, this law also contains provisions that will greatly expend abortion including government subsidies for health plans that provide abortion on demand. given that a majority of americans oppose using government funds for abortion and given that americans do not want their health care rationed, it is no wonder that the substantial majority oppose passage of this bill and a solid majority now favors its repeal. the national right to life committee as thoroughly analyzed obamacare, every page has been read, and we have with us today, mr. douglas johnson, the director of the federal legislative office who will explain how this lot will promote abortion and mr. burke

bauch, who will explain how the democratic health care law will regulate and russian your health care if not repealed. first, i want to give you some background and explain how this law will in some cases work within the current health-care primer and in other cases change it altogether. let's start by understanding how things worked up until the passage of this bill and will continue to work for 2010. people fall into one of two groups, the insured for the uninsured. if you are in short, you either have private insurance or you are in a government program. if you are privately insured, the most -- you most likely receive your benefits through your employer and the pay a portion of your paycheck for the premium. some are self-employed or do not receive coverage from their employer and by their own plan. prior to passage of a health

bill, those on government health care made up roughly 50% of those with insurance. before describing that, let's look to the other group, the uninsured. they previously received care either by paying out of pocket are going into emergency rooms. the federal statute requires hospital er's to give stabilizing care no matter what the insurance status. those on government programs were financed through a combination of taxes, out of pocket costs paid by patients, and by cost shifting. the uninsured were paid for partly by taxes but mainly through cost shifting. the privately insured pay for themselves often with help from their employer, usually from help from their employer. that is the current system.

here is how obamacare would change the framework. i'm talking about the framework of this. starting in 2014, most americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. the penalty will be phased in and could become as high as 2.5% of income or if you would pay more than 8% of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage. the rhetoric used by obamacare advocate is if you like your current plan, you can keep it. that is not true for many, many people write off the bat and not true forranybody, 2015. let's quickly looked at the group of people who have private insurance receive through their

employer. current plans don't have to be done requirements, however, existing plants will not be viable for long. they can only add a very limited number of enrollees. the first round of changes is deliberately very modest and likely to win public support. within six months, plans will have to stop certain practices like setting annual and lifetime limits, denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. children will be able to stay on parents' insurance plans until 26. insurers will not be able to deny coverage because of a person's medical condition or charge higher premiums and because of gender. also in 2014, all new plants and existing plants and make any significant changes in what they offer will have to offer the package of benefits defined by the federal government.

at those who purchase insurance on their own. if you want to attempt to keep your plan, you may be able to do so for a time, so long is your plan remains grandfathered. this will become a very difficult task. you can keep your current plan or you can buy coverage through new state run insurance market places called exchanges starting in 2014. a health exchanges something meant to function as an organized marketplace. in its most harmless form, it was conceived to be a place where people like to compare prices, features and other aspects of health care. under obamacare, each state must set one up or have one set up by 2014. exchanges did not bear risks themselves. they are not insurers. they allow private insurers to compete for business. however, this concept will be subject to rigorous state and federal plan requirements. the government will tell plans

that if you want to compete in the exchange, you must do x. the changes will come on line in 2014 and allow an increasing amount of people over time. the first exchanges will only be available to the uninsured. those with insurance purchase on the individual markets. next, small businesses and ed did subsequent years, larger businesses will be able to put employees and to the exchange. americans who want an option other than the current plan or don't want insurance all will be able to enroll a new program under which the federal government would have to multi- state plans run by the federal office of personnel management. the federal government would said payment rates to providers. you would be able to use your subsidy toward these. the uninsured will in theory be eliminated to a set of subsidies so they may go into an exchange and by plans. or to state medicaid expansion.

medicaid is a program under which state and federal governments jointly pay the bill. many of you remember the outrage regarding the cornhuskers kickback, a special deal sought to gain one particular vote. it would have been worked out for the federal government to pay more than nebraska's share. this deal was one every state wanted because every state is worried how to pay for a medicaid expansion would to barely cover its population is now. now, let's focus on the largest group of those on government programs, medicare recipients. i will explain briefly the structure of medicare. traditional medicare has medicare part a, hospital insurance, part b, medical insurance, and the newest member, part b, which covers a large portion of prescription drug costs street -- part d. medicare beneficiaries were

given the option to receive benefits through private health insurance plans instead of through the traditional medicare. these programs are known as medicare advantage or partc. about 20% of seniors are in these programs. all seniors in the medicare program and cannot qualify for assistance they some sort of cost share. basically, medicare pays for medical necessary care and a majority paid for the provider for individual services. in fact, the government does not pay health-care providers the full amount of the cost of treatment under medicare. this has led doctors who treat medicare patients to in effect cover costs from other private insured patients to make up the difference or they just stop taking medicare patients. recently, usa today published in article reporting that the number of doctors refusing new medicare rates is setting a new high. just six months before millions of baby boomers begin enrolling

in the government health care program, it reports the american academy of physicians says 14% of respondents did not produce big in medicare last year, an increase from 8% in 2008 and 6% in 2004. the medical association says 17%, more than 9000 doctors surveyed, restrict the number of medicare patients in their practice. among primary-care physicians, the rate is 31% already. the president of the family doctors told the paper that physicians are saying they cannot afford to keep losing money. the problem will undoubtedly be made much, much worse by obamacare. it relies on deep cuts to medicare to finance extending subsidies and coverage to others. under current law, the rates paid to the care providers are supposed be cut already in order to keep medicare solvent. in truth, congress cobbles

together expensive bills yearly to make sure those cuts do not take place. obamacare but ollie failed to address the reoccurring problem, but as mentioned, would drastically cut medicare further. prior to a recent vote, a reporter asked the senate majority leader, harry reid, whether the democrats could say health care reform is paid for if you pass a quarter trillion dollar dr. fix and don't pay for it. that's a good question. as more and more doctors stop taking patients under traditional medicare, increasing numbers of the elderly will want to move to the medicare advantage alternatives. most of whose plants are managed care. because of this, the national right to life was instrumental in creating an option in the medicare program known as private fee-for-service. seniors had the legal option to add their own money on top of the government contribution so that their plan to offer adequate reimbursement rates to

secure insurance for senior citizens that would not rationed care. the option was described as seriously threatened under obamacare. it is paid for under a combination of increasing taxes and dramatic cuts. medicare will be cut by billions of dollars. these cuts target medicare advantage, which contains the one program set up now to help insure care is not rationed. also, families making more than $250,000 will pay thousands more in medicare payroll taxes starting in 2013. the tax deductions for high medical expenses will be reduced. with this brief outline of how the health care system works today and is paid for and the structure that will exist after

implementation of obamacare, i will turn the program over to douglas johnson to discuss how this bill will promote abortion. [applause] >> i am a federal legislative director for the national right to life committee. that is a complicated piece of legislation. there are a lot of facets to it and our time is limited this morning, so i encourage anyone who wants to delve into these facets to visit our web site. there is a wealth of material there on all of these aspects. if you have any specific comment or question on anything you hear during these presentations today, send us an e-mail.

on thursday, i saw an article in the pittsburgh post-gazette which quoted a member of the house of representatives that represents the district in which we are meeting today near pittsburgh. his name is mike doyle and he is a democrat. he said i don't believe national right to life ever wanted health care bill to pass. they have aligned themselves completely with the republican party in this debate and -- he is correct on the first part of this statement. we certainly did not want this bill to pass. or one like it. we think we have very good reasons, which we will summarize this morning. but he has it a little backward when he says we aligned with the republicans. the way we look at it, the republicans in congress turned out to be aligned with us

[applause] they turned out to be aligned with our perspective on this legislation and as was mentioned, not a single republican voted for this on the last go around. of course, we saw welcome support from democrats as we tried to reshape this legislation or block it from reaching the president's desk. but we found it too little such support. at the end, when the final crunch came and the pressure was on from the white house, not much support at all. those are just fax. no republican voted for the bill, none in the senate, none in the house, not a single one. in the senate, every single democrat voted to advance it and that is exactly the minimum number they needed at the time. in the house, 87% of house democrats voted for this. 87%.

just enough to pass the bill. those are just facts. so the congressman is correct. we did not want this bill to pass. we made the secret of it and we're going to tell you why. but our objections to this are not unique to the national right to life with respect to the abortion component, for example. let me quote the president of catholic bishops who said we, as catholic bishops -- catholic bishops opposes because there is compelling evidence of would expand role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortions and plans that cover abortion. that is the aspect and going to talk about for these next few minutes. the bad news is the abortion policy we ended up here is very bad law. it is far reaching and complex legislation that modifies many

different programs, it creates many different authorities. indeed, it confers on the secretary of health and human services alone over 2500 different authorities and requirements. it lacks the kinds of safeguards we know from decades of experience are necessary to prevent abortions subsidies and abortion expanding administrative actions. there is some good news. thanks to the hard work of the pro-life movement and the to nations efforts of pro-life activists, are true friends in congress, some of the pro- abortion opponents in the original bills did not survive into the final law. i will touch on that. but with respect to those that did, and they are multiple, there are ways that the worst effects can be headed off and prevented by proper actions both by the state legislatures and remedial action by a new congress if we get a congress

that is so disposed. before i get into the specific problems and remedies, allow me to step back and put this discussion in a more historical perspective. two years ago this week, at our national convention, we had a general session on this same topic. we warned about the battle we saw coming over sweeping health care restructuring legislation street during that presentation, i talked about how certain pro- abortion groups in this country have been preparing for a long time to use that type of legislation as a vehicle to substantially expand abortion access in this country. in roe vs. wade in 1973, the u.s. supreme court overrode the u.s. normal democratic representational government note

of policy-making and imposed an abortion policy on all 50 states, among the most privileged -- among the most permissive in the world, allowing any state to allow abortion for any reason into the six months and broadly defined health claims into the seventh month and later. it is true in recent cases the court has allowed some limitations along the margins, but abortion remains generally legal for every reason. you might think the abortion advocates and the abortion industry would be satisfied with that. it is after all, substantially less protective of the unborn child then the policy most americans say they would favor when they are askkd. but the pro-abortion advocates have never been satisfied. their literature is replete with complaints about what they see as enormous obstacles to access to abortion and say these obstacles prevent many abortions from occurring.

these are smart and resourceful people who apparently spend a good deal of their waking hours worrying that some unborn children who are good candidates for abortion are somehow slipping the noose. what can they do about that? they have put out studies that talk about what they have called the unmet need for abortion. although they do not say it this way, what they say is they think there ought to be a lot more abortions. and that there would be if they could just get rid of some of these impediments. to the extent they succeed in advancing that point of view in public policy, it will in fact substantially increase the number of pubs -- number of abortions performed. the overwhelming majority of new abortions, like the ones that occur now are ones essentially as a method of birth control. time this morning does not allow citation of the data to support the statement, but it is readily available.

there are very large studies of women seeking abortions, thousands of women at abortion clinics that find only a few% even make any claims of health- related factors or whenever. the overwhelming majority give reasons of situation, lifestyle and so forth. one of the ways the pro-abortion forces have always sought to expand abortion is to have the government, both federal and state subsidize it. there is a lot of mpirical evidence that when governments cannot subsidize abortion that you get many fewer abortions among the populations that would qualify for subsidies. time does not allow us here to go into the data, but this is not a controversial proposition. it is accepted by analysts and commentators on the pro- abortion side. they think it's a bad thing, we -- they get a good thing, we think it's a bad thing.

by conservative extrapolations from their studies, there are over 1 million americans alive today because of the hyde amendment, the congressional amendment that prevents medicaid funding of abortion. [applause] we think that is a good thing. they think it is a bad thing. we should remember that there was a time in this country when the federal medicaid program did pay for abortion on demand: after roe vs. wade. you might say congress voted to do that. congress never voted to do that, but there is a medicaid program already that pay for medically necessary services and the supreme court said abortion is legal everywhere and physicians performed abortions and got paid by the federal government. within three years, the federal debt run was paying for 300,000

elective abortions a year with federal tax dollars just three medicaid. to make a long story short, the federal court said the was the proper construction of the law. this illustrates an important principle -- when you have a general government health program, in most cases, it is going to cover abortion unless the legislative body explicitly says it cannot. it will end up being included as a medically necessary service. the only way to prevent that reliably is to write into the legislation that it may not cover abortions. certain politicians, they have pretended it times that if it does not explicitly mention abortion, you don't have to worry. they know better. congress did robust the use of certain federal funds for abortions.

this is not a permanent law that covers the whole federal government. it is a patch that is put on every year to the funding bill, the appropriations bill for the federal department of health and human services. it expires every year. it has to be renewed every year and is subject to attack every year. moreover, there are many other federal health programs that give funds through the pipelines. programs for the military, federal employees, american indians, many others. each of these federal programs did pay for abortions and in each case, we were able to go in and get through legislative action, stop it. over many years, pro-life members of congress working with the national right to life and other pro-life groups have constructed a public policy

damn -- you have heard of the hoover dam, this is hyde dam. it holds back a huge flood of federal dollars for this program. there are 10 or more additional laws that make up the structure. that may sound like a patchwork construction, but it has been strong and there's a unity to it because the policy is pretty uniform. there are no federal funds for abortions with very narrow exceptions. no federal funds to pay the premiums of health plans that cover elective abortions. we will refer to those as the hyde amendment principles for shorthand. what we wanted to do on the abortion aspect of this is preserve the hyde amendment principles with respect to any new programs created or expanded

by this legislation. in that, we were not regrettably successful. they want to demolish the whole damn. they want to demolish the federal probe -- onto demolish that and with federal money comes federal promotion, rrquirements and things that would expand abortion in different ways. the pro-abortion side may serious attempt to blow the whole thing up in the first two years of the clinton administration. you will remember that bill and hillary clinton's health-care legislation, among other things, mandated funding of abortion on demand and mandated abortion- providing sites in every region of every state. that legislation failed. the pro-am -- pro-abortion

factor was important. after that failure, the pro- abortion side looked their wounds and waited. they knew another opportunity would come eventually. as the 2008 presidential campaign ggt under way, these pro-abortion groups started to pressure presidential candidates on the democratic side for commitments to include what they called comprehensive reproductive health in health care restructuring legislation. i am sure many of you have seen the video of senator barack obama's appearance before the planned parenthood action fund in 2007. the planned parenthood federation of america is the nation's largest abortion provider. planned parenthood clinics provide about 300,000 abortions a year. about one-third of the income that flows directly into planned parenthood clinics is generated by abortion. if you have not seen the video,

you can view that on our website. it is about three or four minutes long. at that time, mr. obama was seeking the democratic presidential nomination. he got a warm reception because as a state senator and u.s. senator, he had never supported anything pro-life. he had always supported the planned parenthood agenda. for example, he steadfastly opposed bands on partial birth abortion. in illinois, as the committee chairman, he personally killed a bill to recognize all babies born alive during attended abortions as legally protected persons. he had called for repeal of the hyde amendment. as he appeared before this gathering, he was asked how reproductive health care would be handled in his health care legislation. of course, reproductive health care in their lexicon includes unlimited abortion.

as mr. obama of recognized well and his campaign acknowledged subsequently, mr. obama replied -- "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care. it is basic care. it is at the center and at the heart of the plan i propose. essentially, what we are doing is to say we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they do not have health insurance. it will be a plan that will provide all essential services, included -- including reproductive services." he also said -- "we'll subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care. that is going to be absolutely vital." so he described their and

committed to something and to settle to the hyde amendment principles, a complete break from the principles that have been hammered out over decades. and of course, he won the election. in january of 2009, we had a new president sworn in on record that is sweeping legislation would be a top priority and he had committed, albeit in code speak, that abortion would be at the heart of it and there would be a mandate that would apply even to private insurance plans. in other words, they planned to enact a health care bill that would use the force of federal law and federal money to force abortion on demand into every nook and cranny of health-care delivery system. so what happened in the year after that? the obama administration and the congressional democratic leadership set out to deliver what had been promised. they know very well the polls show most americans don't favor

any such policy. they are opposed to it in lopsided numbers. so they adopted a strategy of stealth and outright deception. when the initial bills were unveiled in the senate and house in the spring of 2009, they had all the major components required to blow up the item in the dam and in east the flood, including the authority for the secretary of health and human services to declare what medical services would be deemed to be essential services and therefore essentially mandated for just about all health plans, public and private. the national right to life movement in congress fought back hard. i think somewhat to the surprise of the administration and abortion at the peak -- and this -- advocacy groups, abortion became a major issue on the legislation. for many months, the president and his spokespeople and chief allies in the democratic

leadership in congress attempted to deal with this chiefly through a series of deception or attempted deceptions. the first line was abortion, what abortion? do you see abortion in here? they know better than this. they know very well and of these programs they use to pay for abortions actually mention the word abortion. it is covered under a general authorities unless congress explicitly mentions it, to limit it. they understand this as well as we do. we flushed them out because when this was considered in five different committees and pro- life members of the committees would offer amendments that said they cannot pay for abortions, the committee chairman allied with the white house, slapped the amendments down and they had committee members arguing that we have to treat abortion like anything else. they forgot they were supposed to save what abortion?

so that collapsed. 3 clear thattwas not going to work. then they shifted to a more sophisticated strategy of deception, a phony compromise. this took the form of an amendment crafted by henry waxman, the wily chairman of the house energy and commerce committee, although delegated to a different committee member. this amendment was a clever con struck. i think it mentioned abortion 14 times. it was crafted so as to deceive the unsophisticated reader into thinking it actually contains substantial restrictions on federal subsidies and mandates for abortion. the actual legal effect was to explicitly authorize the secretary of felt and human services to subsidize abortion through least two big federal programs -- the premium subsidy

program that will talk about war in a minute and the new public option which would be a big federal insurance program run directly by the federal government, like medicare. the white house and congressional democratic leaders proclaimed this to be a compromise even though the pro- life members of the committee voted against it. they said it would prevent federal funding of abortion. they said this was because the money that would be accepted by the department of health and human services would be from enrollees in the program who -- therefore, when the department pay for abortions, as of the private funding of abortion. many elements of the mainstream news media, including some of these so-called fact checkers swallowed this claim. pretty much all of the money the

government spends, they collect from us, right? they collected from us and then they spend it. people pay premiums into medicare but when services are rendered companies in the bill to the government and the government pays the bill. nobody disputes that. under this house bill, the abortionist would have been performing elective abortions of millions of people enrolled in this plan. there woulddbe sending the bill to the federal department of health and human services, getting a check back from the federal department of health and human services for abortions. that sounds like federal funding of abortion to me. but they said that as private funding. in fact, the president said anyone who suggested otherwise was misleading the american people. this goes beyond playing with words. this is a political hopes. a lot of unsophisticated analysts bought it and a lot of people who knew better pretended

that they bought. we hammered away at this for months and there is a breakthrough in november when speaker -- when house speaker discovered she could not avoid a vote on the issue, which she intended to do. once the issue was forced into the open, a hoax collapsed+ and the house backed amendment that would carve out the phony leg much -- funny language that would put a ban on federal subsidies. no republicans voted against the amendment at when the votes of 64 democrats, one-fourth of the house democrats. unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. the empire strikes back. president obama attacked the amendment, claimed he did not want federal funding of abortions but say the a memo went too far, although it merely inc. the principles of the hyde amendment and

incorporated into the program. when the house bill arrived, the democratic leader put it in a drawer and wrote a new bill behind closed doors in his office. he could have put in any abortion language he wanted. he could have said they took abortion language out and it would have stayed in. but that is not what he did. the president did not want that and abortion advocacy groups wwre screaming about the house amendment. so he put in language that was an awful lot like the waxman language and create procedural situation where you could not get out without 60 votes. we did not have 60 votes in the senate and it turned out really had 45. time does not allow me to go into the machinations and maneuvers occurred after that. suffice it to say the bill came out of the senate in december on a party-line vote was very bad on abortion policy. that is the bill that ultimately became law with the support of 87% of house democrats and not a

single republican. what did we end up with on abortion? did we lose everything? we did not lose everything. the hard work of the pro-life movement did blocks of the initial problems with the legislation. for example, the authority of the secretary of health and human services to issue abortion coverage mandates is more limited than the original bill. the proposed insurance plan to be offered directly by the federal government, the so- called public option, which would have sent the checks to the abortionists, that was dropped. state legislatures were given certain authorities which i will talk about a little more. overall, the bill opens up some long cracks in the hyde amendment dem. we fully expect this administration will be busy trying to pry open those cracks every way they can to regulate -- through regulations, administrative decisions, all the way political appointees can shape policy, especially when they shaped something that has of the big authorities conferred on them by congress.

the people who want to do this have got the tools to do it right now. they have the levers of power. those cracks are going to get bigger the longer they have them. the bad effects are going to compound greatly over time if all of this is allowed to unfold as they wish. but that is not inevitable. the next congress could and should step in to diffuse these abortion-expanding time bombs and restore and reinforce the hyde amendment principles. some of the major provisions don't take full effect until 2014, including provisions related to the insurance exchanges. the whole scheme whereby plans that cover abortions would be eligible for federal subsidies and the plan will collect from every enrollee a separate

abortion charge. we call it an abortion surcharge. but there is a way for a state to protect itself from that. there is authority in the final bill for a state legislature to pass the final law that says plans to sign up for the exchange cannot cover abortion. we are encouraging state legislatures to do just that. while they are at it, they might as well apply a policy to all insurance whether it is on or off the exchange that abortion cannot be included routinely. if people want to buy, it should be entirely separate so only people who want abortion coverage are paying for it. you may say my state legislature has already passed this kind f law and it will not affect directly. it is good they passed the law, but you are still paying federal taxes. federal taxes are going to support the program which will be subsidized -- subsidizing people to get the abortion subsidies to buy insurance and

other states that do not pass phe laws. so there is still a problem. there is another problem with this program with the office of personnel management that will be overseeing what are called multi-state plans which will be available in every state. the losses every one of those plans will not cover abortions as long as the hyde amendment is in effect. this implies they can require the of plans to require abortions. that means we would have a federal agency directly overseeing the plans that cover abortions, another break from hyde amendment principles. there is a whole cluster of issues here. we do not have time to go into the details of each, but there is over $9 billion for community health centers in this bill. there is an organized efforts -- organized effort to get these communities centers to provide

abortions, particularly with the abortion pill. obviously, we do not want these federal billions going to support what could become a new network of abortion providers. that is a concern. there's a program to set up high risk pools. this is one of the first provisions to go into effect. this is for people who have not had health insurance for at least six months and who cannot get it because they've got a pre-existing condition. a lot of money involved and the language in the bill to say the money cannot be used for abortions. the federal government is supposed to be sending out this money next week, on july 1st. in about 30 states, the program will be administered under plans it will submit and get approved by the feds. i understand the commonwealth of pennsylvania has already submitted its plan and does not cover abortions. the federal government --

[applause] will the federal government approved a plan? stay tuned. we will be watching. other states about one to handle this, so the feds will be running the club ran directly and they have not said whether they will fund abortions. -- running the program directly. the president said he did not want to fund abortions with federal funds, so we will be watching. there are these cracks and we have to be vigilant. one of the problems is right now, with both houses of congress in the same hands as the administration, the same party, there is nobody with an inclination to scrutinize these issues. to exercise oversight from the legislative branch. that is a concern.

as i conclude, i have to say a little more about president obama's the executive order on abortion. it finally passed after a block of house democrats agreed to support it in exchange for an executive order that is claimed to prevent funding of abortion. in reality, the executive order of little substance. it was a public relations gimmick. we were not the only ones who thought so. let me tell you how "usa today" reported it -- both sides in the abortion debate came to a rare agreement. the executive order on abortion signed by president obama, they said, was basically meaningless. the story then says -- the executive order is a transparent figleaf. it also says the planned parenthood that attrition also a

symbolic gesture. with respect to these programs, the executive order either merely restates problem or asserts there is not ample legal authority in the bill to do or is completely silent as on the question of the high-risk pools. in conclusion, the congress enacted a very bad law with respect to abortion policy. the pro-abortion side did not get everything it wanted, but they got a law that gives them the tools to push toward the same goals step-by-step. they will do so to the extent they are allowed to do so. we will be watching. we will put the public spotlight on actions we believe are objectionable. however, ultimately, what we need is new legislation. we need legislation certainly to address many aspects. with respect to the abortion

problems, it is possible for a new congress to go in and fix these things by adopting something like the protect life act introduced by joseph hits in april as 108 house sponsors. we strongly support that. we need to replace the patchwork construction with a permanent government-wide prohibition on abortion mandates and abortion subsidies. there are other problems with this lobby on the abortion problems and on these we will now hear from our next speaker. thank you. [applause] >> you just heard about how these 2409 pages promote

now one going to top about how this legislation -- and going to talk about how this legislation, if not repealed, will seriously endanger, seriously limit your ability to obtain a life-saving medical treatment for your family. we're going to be talking about rationing in the obama health- care law. let's start out by asking yourself whether you agree or the federal law should limit what privateecitizens can choose out of their own funds to spend on medical treatment to save the lives of their own family. let's repeat that -- do you think the federal law should limit what private citizens can

choose out of their own funds to choose -- to spend on medical treated to save the lives of their own family? that is exactly what these 2409 pages do. you might ask why would the president and majorities in both congress want to limit what you can spend on your own funds to say -- to save your life. there's a fundamental ideology at stake here. the ideology is we should not have a two-tier health care system in our country. in other words, we should not have a situation in which people who can afford to pay for health-care get good health care and people who cannot afford to get health care get inferior health care. it is important to understand if you don't like the idea of a two-tier health care system, there are two ways to address

it. the basic question is -- do you tryyto even things out by helping those who cannot afford adequate health care or do you get by limiting the health care available to those who can afford? both of those things are going to even out the two-tier system. the obama healthcare does some of a -- you heard about the subsidies that will go into effect in 2014 to subsidize the uninsured people to drive -- to buy some of insurance. but it is a lot of b -- limiting the health-care available to those who can afford it. understand that this is not what you are going to hear what you have heard from the president and his allies. what they will tell you is all

of the limits they're placing on what people are allowed to spend for their health care and all the billions they're cutting out of medicare are actually not going to lead to any limits on treatment at all. the reason they say this is because they say health care right now is provided inefficiently. there is so much waste. if the government only tells people to stop spending money on it and tinkers with the system to make sure inefficient health care is not provided, we will be able to get great an even better health care for much less money. what they rely largely for this is something known as the dartmouth at less. this has been put forth by a number of individuals at dartmouth college and widely trumpeted.

the nominee to administer much of the new health law has said that he thinks this research is the most significant piece of quarter-century. d in the last what is the dartmouth alice do? it compares what different hospitals spend per patient on those in the lass months or years of life. it claims, based on this comparison, at some hospitals spend much less with the same outcome -- the person dies. silly to limit payments at the most efficient hospitals without harm. this position has been trumpeted as the basis -- the outgoing director of the office of management and budget year or sec, says the fact of the reagan

university at the university of los angeles, one of the premier institutions in the united states for health care, it spends more than the rochester mayo clinic. he's is one of the cost twice as much and we have no idea what we're getting in exchange. we can no longer afford -- there is a fundamental problem with this analysis. interestingly enough, it has been greatly brought out by the "new york times." in an article in december of last year, it was pointed out with respect to the difference between the mayo clinic and the

rival rating clinic, the hospital that spent the most on heart failure patients had one- third fewer deaths after six months of initial hospital stay. how can this be? what is going on here? the difference between what is known as looking forward and looking back. with the dartmouth at less does is it looks back and takes people who abide and counts back six months or two years and says when you look back, the amount of money we spend on this patient died was so much. you compare that to different of. if you look forward, you look at somebody who has a certain problem like a heart condition and you see how much money is being spent on that person and then you find out if that person lived or died.

you have to understand what is going on here. doctors can make predictions, but we do not have an automatic indicator that tells us so-and- so's going to die for sure. if somebody has a heart condition, we take that person in give the person treatment, sometimes the treatment is successful and sometimes it is not successful. so we're putting money into treating people who may live for may die, depending in large measure but not exclusively upon how effective the treated this. when you look forward, when you look at groups of people who have the same condition, let's say a heart condition, and easy and much money was spent in one hospital and how much was spent in another, then u.s. companies survived, it turns out, surprisingly, when you give them more health-care: they are more

likely to survive. as the "new york times" pointed out, the dartmouth atlas does not lead dow care that improves life. if one spends less on each but all five died, hospital saves patients could right word because only compare cost before death. surprisingly enough, the thing our intuition would tell us turned out to be correct. you cannot just wave a magic wand and say we're going to cut health care and everybody's going to get better health care. how is it that the health care plan, and health-care law will wind up cutting what people are allowed to spend out of their own money, we're not just

talking about what limits the government will spend out of your tax dollars, we're talking about limits you will be allowed to spend out of your own private funds, there are four basic groups we will focus on. understand, this is a complex and carefully written bill and it is carefully written to confuse you. a lot of these things, you will not have heard about. but if you go to our web site, you will see the documentation for all of them. sometimes you have to follow a convoluted path through the language of the bill. you have to understand there is a definition year and the definition reads something else applies to another portion and is carefully written in order to confuse you. but we have untangled that confusion from the documentation

of our website. first, there is the independent payment advisory commission. it provides for the imposition of so-called quality and efficiency standards on doctors and hospitals that are designed to prevent you from being able to get health care they deem inappropriate and too costly. second, there are medicare limits, not just on what tax dollars are going to be providing for older americans, but also what older americans are allowed to spend themselves. third, there are limits in these exchanges that we talked about. on what people can choose to pay for health insurance. fourth, there is a really, really devious program known as shared decision making, which is designed to convince you that you really do not want medical

treatment. but go through these and turn. first, the independent payment advisory commission. one of those nice bureaucratic sounding names hidden away in the bill. nobody is going to pay a lot of attention to it perhaps but look at what is charged with doing. its aim is to push private, that means you were health-care spending down. listen to this carefully -- so that it does not keep up with the rate of medical inflation. the targets that are set in the bill are that the commission is to come up with ways to prevent you from spending enough money just to keep up withhthe inflation of medicare cost. this commission, starting in 2015 is to make recommendations to achieve this every two years

and then the enforcer is the federal department of health and human services. the federal department of health and human services, based on these recommendations, is going to craft what they call quality and efficiency standards for medical care. they are going to say under what circumstances is it appropriate for somebody to get an mri? under what circumstances is it appropriate and efficient for someone to get a party by press operation? under what circumstances is it efficient for someone to get a kidney transplant or dialysis? if there are circumstances in which it is not efficient, meaning unless we limit this, you are going to wind up spending to keep up with medical inflation, then the treatment will not be allowed under these quality and efficiency standards. if you are a health-care provider, a doctor, hospital, a

long-term care facility, you have to abide by these standards imposed from washington, designed to bring down what people are allowed to spend on health care, below the rate of inflation or you will not be able to enter into contracts with the qualified health insurance plan. it is going to be very difficult for non-qualified health-care plans that are grandfather did to exist for very long. so you are not -- you know the story of a frog in the pot of water? if you drop the frog in the boiling water, the frog will drop out. but if you put frog into cold water and turn up the heat and gradually goes to boiling, a frat -- the frog will be boiled alive. that is what is going to happen -- it's going to go in slowly,

you get the goodies up front, and then you will have the independent payment advisory commission designed to step-by- step limit through these quality and efficiency standards to be imposed on every doctor and hospital to be able to get health insurance payments that they have to abide by that limit and micromanage treatment decisions about the care that you get. remember, it does not matter -- i really what my grandmother to get this beating too bad you're not going to get reimbursed for it, but here is the money. if the doctor except the money and gives the treatment, in violation of the efficiency standards, the doctor was a contract, loses the ability to get health insurance from anybody else. you cannot go out and say i would be willing to pay more for health insurance because the

health insurance will be more likely to get my grandmother that feeding tube or more likely to get my sister the stints that is needed for her heart condition. because all of those health insurance policies will have to contract with doctors and hospitals that are subject to these treatment and efficiency standards. that is the single most dangerous part of this bill. but it's not the only one. you have heard about the hundreds of billions of dollars being cut to medicare -- robbing peter to pay paul. this is supposed to be used to subsidize people who are not insured. will the government allow senior citizens to make up any of this difference from their own funds? understand that before this law

takes effect, there is a program still in effect this year under which older americans are permitted to add their own money if they choose on top of the government payment in order to get insurance plans are less likely to ration. that exist because of the national right to life committee and what they were able to accomplish several years back. these are known as the medicare advantage private fee-for- service programs. under the obama health law, the department of health and human services is given absolute discretion to know standards to reject any medicare advantage plan. that means -- this is specifically written to override the provisions we put into the medicare law that guarantee your right to add your own money on top of the government payment to get health insurance less likely to ration. that is the section they amended

to say, override, and say actually -- health and human services can say no, you cannot be offered up plan. so they can say you cannot have that option. health and human services can limit or even eliminate the ability to at your own money to obtain health insurance that is less likely to rush your care if you are a senior citizen. .

now, they just do not want this to be the situation where a you do not get these inappropriate treatment of the one you to like them. there is a significant amount of money put aside in this bill. the non-government groups will come back for these asian

decision making aide to. they're going to decide which treatments are best for them. at sounds harmless, maybe even helpful, right? they are also going to establish regional share decisionmaking resource centers. they're going to develop and disseminate best practices. the doctors will be brought in to be educated. now, let's look at some of the groups that are likely to get these contracts and where they are coming from. the groups that grew up in this legislation and got it put in. one is the foundation for an informed decision making. if you go on there website they

have a little box that says did you know. every 15 seconds its cycles through a series of little factoids. let me tell you what some of those say. in this site it says, "did you know more care does not equal better outcomes"? did you know that many people with stable heart disease, medications are just as good as stands or bypass surgery? most men diagnosed with early prostate cancer will live something else, so why should we have to treat them? patients in idaho falls are 20 times more likely to have lumbar fusion surgery than those in

bangor, maine, but they have no clear difference in their quality of life. here is one out there. about 25% of medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life. you don not necessarily know someone will die in 60 days. you're trying to save them, right? but the money in and they survive and some you do not. let's look at another organization. this'll be telling you avoiding unnecessary care with health wise consumer health information. toward the end of life, too many people receive an effective

expensive medical treatments. are you seeing a pattern here? the whole point of this shared decision making program is that the health care we will no longer be paying for really is not all that useful. when is it that is behind all of this? if we could have the power play back up. -- power point back up. what is behind this? let's go back to the nominee to put most of this law into effect. overriding individual self- interest we can reduce per capita costs.

the decision is not -- the man who will be am -- be in charge of this does not blink at all in using that word. let's address this argument. we really do not have a choice. we have to ration health care. the number has been rising. by 2008 it was about 17.5%. they say if this keeps rising, the amount of money we are spending on family budgets keep going up and it will crowd everything else out. but you have to understand that during that same time.

they -- during the same time, we have been spending a lot proportion -- a lot smaller proportion on food. the same on clothing and shoes, okay? the same amount on housing but they have been getting bigger and better. put those all together. the essentials -- food, clothing, and shelter. we have dropped from putting about 50% into these to putting about 30% in. let's put that together with what we have than spending on health care. you will notice we have this black line that has gone to about 50%. the reason that we have been able, on average, to put more money into health care is because we have increased productivity and we have to put

less resources and other things. we have more resources available to save our own lives. there's no reason why that trend will lead continue. let's be very clear. doug johnson quoted the representative as saying the national right to life committee did not want the health care bill to pass. right now, we have cost shifting that in perfectly covers people who are uninsured. the national right to life committee years before this bill came down proposed a way about how we can use this more rationally in order to get health care. the fact is we could achieve greatly improved health care without rationing. the fundamental point is, are we condemned here? not so.

the american public remains strongly opposed to this bill. this is of june 14th, 2010. the worst elements will not go into effect until about 2014. what does this mean? we have the opportunity if by 2013 if we can get a repeal president, and a majority in the house of representatives and in the senate than we have to ask, what about the fact that 41 senators can filibuster? if we had 60 senators we could update -- we could achieve that. even if there is a majority in 2013, some of the pro-loss centers might have a second thought when they see this major change. possibly they could use the technique with only 51 votes in the senate for reconciliation.

we are not helpless. women need to do now is educate americans about the grave danger this poses to the lives of our family members. the resources are available on our website, www.nrlc.org. [applause] >> who are watching c-span, created as a public service by the nation boxing give companies. coming up, and look at the role of political parties fallen by a discussion on preparing for another potential terrorist attack. later, in discussion on the economy from this morning's "washington journal." this week on "the communicators," using technology to promote government here and around the world with tim o'reilly, kate monday, and

california's director of internet services. that is tonight on c-span2. this college recently organized a panel analyzing the role of political parties today. former white house chief of staff steve for getty are among the big analysts. from ohio, this is about 90 minutes. >> if you look at our last panel, we will be looking at the present and the next panel is about the future. this is about the health of the political parties or about the health of the political parties and the health of the political party system. we have here a group of panelists of the best sort from different disciplines you can get into this topic. we are awaiting one panelist who

will be joining us shortly. i will introduce them now. congresswoman pryce can dress when she arrives. i will start with bill who is a chair in the brookings institution and has been a scholar of things contemporary and all the things thinking about issues related to political parties, has written interesting work on a party polarization which is the subject of his paper and his speech today. he has been in practical politics in the clinton white house as deputy assistant for domestic policy. he is also someone who has worked on a number of campaigns. he sees this from the political perspective as well as the academic perspective.

next, the founder and executive director of the campaign finance institute in washington one of our leading institutions to give us accurate information about how much information and the parties and candidates raise, the implications, and following the changes we see from cycle to cycle. he is a professor of political science at the state university of new york in albany and has offered many important works on campaign finance reform, money politics, the bipartisan campaign format, days after reform. he is one of the authors of a book that has gone through many editions on congress. next in order is congresswoman deborah pryce to is a former republican member of the house of representatives who represented a high of's 15th district in the columbus area.

-- who represented ohio's 15th district until 1992 -- until 2008. during her time in congress, she was chair of the republican caucus as well as chair of the financial services subcommittee. next we have the president and founder of a government relations firm in washington, d.c., who has spent a significant amount in government serving as president clinton's deputy chief of staff, the head of the house democratic campaign committee, has run elections here in ohio, a native of ohio, and if parents of a kenyon student. lastly, paul beck is a professor of political science at ohio

state university, one of our country's leading experts on political parties and the author of a well-known text book that has gone through many editions as well as published in all of the top journals among others. we're going to start our panel to our first paper writers. we will hear from the rest of the members of the panel. then we will turn to you for your questions. there should be a microphone in the audience at some point. we will have time to put that together. we will ask for your input int towards the end of the session. thank you. >> thank you for the invitation,

john.. i have written a long paper those with the data, charts, tables, numbers. do not worry. that is not what you will hear. i will give you a very short narrative comparing in the affected the world of political parties that i grew up in in the world of political parties as i see them today based on the data. i was a boy in the 1950's, a college student in the 1960's, a graduate student in the late 1960's and then a young assistant professor. the party system during that time was entirely different than

the party system we have today. there were lots of liberal republicans. there were lots of conservative democrats. there were people in the congress that got along both personally and professionally across party lines. they were friends with each other. although there was consternation between the two parties, there was a loss of cooperation on major legislation whether you are talking about medicare, civil rights, the list goes on and on. that world is gone. what i want to do very quickly is described the condition of the two political parties today and having described the

condition run a rough balance sheet. what are the gains and changes that occurred and what are the losses? let me begin by the parties in congress. there's a remarkable fact about the house of representatives and the senate and the united states today. according to standard political science measures of there is, for the first time, in political history 0 radiological overlap. zero. that is to say in the senate the most conservative democrat scores higher on the liberal scale than the most liberal republican senator. in the house of representatives, 435 strong minus a few deaths and retirements come you would think there'd have to be some overlap but there is not.

the most conservative democrat is scored as a slightly more liberal than the most liberal republican. if you begin to define the center as the overlap, the center disappears. this is a very striking development. this has brought all sorts of consequences with it. as a document in my paper, there are fewer closely contested house seats. there are many more seats where the winner gets more than 60% of the vote. there are fewer splits between the presidential vote and the hope -- and the vote for the house for the senate. in the most recent cycles,

nearly 80% of the contested seats have been captured by an individual representing the same party as the presidential candidate who won the state in the election year. what you have is a much closer alignment between house and senate elections. if not parliamentary it is semi- parliamentary. we have a system of divided powers and institutions. there is much more alignments and executive branch elections then there was when i was a boy. here again are some huge changes. to begin with, there has occurred what i call

asymmetrical polarization. in the electorate, it is an overwhelmingly conservative party. if you look at those who call themselves republicans at the grass-roots levels, three- quarters of them call themselves conservatives or very conservative. only a quarter call themselves moderate. there are no self identified liberals left. it is a 40-40-20. 40% call themselves liberals, 40% moderate, 20% conservative. as you might imagine, this leads to complex coalition no problems. i voted to the consequences for

enter and intra-party relations later. another important feature of the electorate today as opposed to the electorate of even 25 years ago is that there are fewer people in the electorate that call themselves moderate and more who associate with the extremes. one political scientist has recently written an absolutely terrific book and some absolutely terrific articles using data from the national election studies. in 1984, the winner. -- the year in which ronald reagan defeated walter mondale by a small margin, 41% of the electorate when asked position themselves at or very near the

modern bid point of the radiological scale. only 10% associated themselves with the left and right extremes. you had a people and that was 10% of the electorate. tech data analysis for word to 2004. in 2004, the 40% of moderates have shrunk to 20%. symmetrically the 10% who were to the left of the right extremes of the bell curve in 1984 had grown by 13% to 3%. what was a ford wanted vantage for moderates over the extremists -- what was a four to one advantage had shrunk. the old bell curve is a lot

flatter than it used to be. that has consequences. there's also a much closer alignment than there used to being between partisan identification, and ideological identification, and your voting patterns on the other. republicans are much more likely to cast their votes for republican candidates, democrats for democrats. these are not comparisons between parties but across time. there is some evidence that this polarized picture that i have painted tends to rise with education information and political engagement. you might think that has become more educated the become more nuanced in your polltical view, more tolerant, more moderate.

it turns out to be exactly the reverse. your higher level of education the more you prize your kind of coherence of policy and ideologies. education and the ideological thinking go together, at least in american politics. all of this has a geographical consequences. i have talked about house of representatives and the conventional wisdom is that it is because of gerrymandering, smart people with laptops to draw district lines so as to ensure majorities for one of the other. first of all, the most recent political science scholars suggest that the increased districts is attributable to only 10% to 30% to gerrymandering. secondly, there's been a rise in

supermajorities such as counties and states which clearly are not gerrymandering. not counting lines are remarkably stable and nonetheless the percentage of supermajority counties have soared. as a show in my paper, the match of supermajority states have soared as well. in part this is because there is evidence of the voters voting with their feet. as opposed to one generation ago, we had an increased desire to live around if people like this and things like this. build a ship called this the big sort. -- bill bishop called this the the sort. now, is this partisanship mindless? is this just team a comic team

have been thinking? welcome, congressman price. is this just team a, team b thinking? the show substantive differences between the two parties. i have written extensively, but let me give you one example. take a core question about the role in government in modern america. there is a cost the question, do you think the government should do more to solve our country's problems? or do you think the government is already doing too many things that used to be left to businesses and individuals? when you put that question to democrats, 72% say government should do more and 22% say they should do less.

i could reproduce the winding for dozens and dozens of survey questions. this polarization is about serious things, things of substance that matter for the current policy. now, let me get to the final section of the consequences of of of these and let me just give you a brief at balance sheet during double entry bookkeeping with some positives and some negatives. because it is include the following. as compared to a generation ago, the political parties offer much clearer choices. there is a clear relationship between the choice to make and the policy you get. you cast your vote and you were

not really sure what would come out at the other end. now there is a greater correlation and the power you voted for. in part because of this increased clarity of choice, average voters reports that american politics seems more intelligible to them. they think vanished and what is going on more. they think they'll understand the differences between the parties. that is what one would expect. there is more party discipline and the unity. political parties in various ways are more responsive to a particular party than they used to be. it turns out that contrary to expectations there's a positive relationship between increased

polarization and increased polarization. polarization turns out to be good for participation. whether it is good participation is yet to be told. so much for the positive. what about the negative? i find a lot of negatives in the current situation. i think there have been negative consequences for political discourse. not only has there been a loss of shared frames of reference but i am often reminded of the "that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, everyone is not entitled to their own facts. we now have two political parties whose elected officials frequently operate on the basis of completely different factual understanding of how the world is and how it works. this polarization has promoted a

zero sum mentality that has made it much more difficult for presidents to a point and staff their demonstration and has had the effect of politicizing judicial appointments in a way that i think is harmful to the judiciary. this strategy of the pure opposition means that in order to enact legislation need a supermajority of the majority. if the majority will vote in lock step, and limited her high percentage of the majority in order to prevail. that -- it tends to empower small majorities in the news the legislative center of gravity. polarization also means that

nothing is settled. if i vote is taken and the policy is proved, the battle continues. it may move to a different venue, but the battle continues. the single most important thing is to have that fixed rules. you hear people say they're not concerned about what the rules are but whether or not they can rely on them. will they be there tomorrow. will they change the day after tomorrow. i think these are graver than anything i have touched off. there are some very large problems that absolutely require to make progress.+

the looming fiscal crisis is an excellent and -- an excellent example of that. it turns out that pitched partisan warfare diminishes public trust and confidence in of their men governing institutions. that is the point on which i want to end. some mistrust is so extreme our free institutions. here is what james madison had to say in federalist no. 55. as there is depravity in mankind which requires some distressed,

so there are other qualities in human nature which justify confidence. republican government presupposes the existence of these colonies in a higher degree. the inference would been that there's not sufficient virtue among us for self-government. can we honestly say that today's mistrust between citizens and their burma remains within bounds? can we judge our party system healthy if it fosters and exacerbates this mistrust? if we knew had a change it, would we choose to perpetuate a situation in which the very process of self government stands in such disrepute? these are not the questions of a major academic looking back with

nostalgia. they are the concerns of a citizen looking forward with alarm. our adversaries around the world will never be able to harm us as much as we are now harming ourselves. if our party system remains as it is, the process of self destruction will only get worse. thank you very much. [applause] >> i start out by talking about the strength. [inaudible]

first seven talk about strength -- first i will talk about strength. i would like even give unifil overview of strength. i'll start with one aspect of strength and move on. the first aspect is money. one of one said there are two important things about politics, one is money and is the other, well i forgot the other. i will not go quite as far as that, but i want to say a few words about money maybe because i write about it a lot of. i will then to the subject of health.

i direct the people in the room to the three tables on your tables. ipod describe them briefly for those seeing this on video. the first talks about the democratic and republican national committee's from 1999- 2008. the column on the left, that is all we will do today. the others talk about how much money comes from different types of donors. there is a black line of all three tables. and that separates the year 2002 and 2004. that is there because that is the air the mccain, fine gold law came into -- mccain-feingold

law came into effect. a lot less people privy to the killings of mooey would kill the parties. that line that you compare pre- and post-feingold monies. they raised more. the second table is pretty much the same as the first except it is about the four congressional campaign committees. the one exception here is the republican committee in the house which had a major drop in 2008 after would from being the majority to the minority party. the third table shows with the

party money means in a natural party election. the political parties were able to spend even more money. two months of the election cycle. they spent more in these districts. this is quite important. it is not unusual to see note $1 million expenditures in targeted campaigns. again, the republican house committee did have some problems, but i would argue that the parties were stronger after mccain-feingold. should we expect that to continue? some say they expect the recent supreme court decision for citizens united, the one that unleashed independent spending,

they say they week -- they expected to weaken the political parties. i cannot believe it. i will be happy to discuss that in the question and answer session. i expect the political parties to remain strong in the political arena despite citizens united. what about other aspects of party strengths? with respect to government, legislative scholars agree that parties play a much tyrol now than in a few months ago which includes the voting, a greater role for the party leaders, a decline in the role of committees. as for the electorate, scholars disagree about how much the

voters have become more polarized. we all agree which agrees to a collective polarization. party identification is a better indicator of voting being here today than it used to be. in all of the cleave discussed aspects, parties today are stronger. let's turn now to the relationship between strength and health. before we do that, i will start with some definitions. i do not think youucan talk meaningfully about a healthy party system in the abstract. parties are, by definition, partial. i therefore define a healthy party system as one that helps

the democracy as a whole represented citizens well in govern well. different party practices may be more or less healthy in different contexts. to follow what i think is a great tradition, i will begin at noon definition of healthier presentation with james madison in federalist 10. as everyone will remember, madison argues that any system of representation, and system good or bad, will, "refine and enlarging the public view." a system that functions well will encourage them to, "sacrifice partial to serve the true interest of the countty." in and help the system the effect of the inverted over the

good of the whole. in other words, a healthy party system and a healthy democracy will be one which, at a minimum, the institutions help create states. that is not all of that i would want in a healthy party system, but it is an essential component. with that part of the definition clear from now i turn to the question of health. i think a good entry point is competition. competition today is having two phases. most of the time they represent districts which are safe from inter-party in competitions. for many of these incumbents, the only serious competition might be in a primary given the typically the small turnout.

the typical and come in has to worry more about the intensely partisan activists supporters in the weaker supporters which may swing from one party to another. there's also a second phase to the competition which is for majority control of the chamber which has been incredibly competitive. a long time ago, we were taught that competition for a national majority should produce a coming together. the search for the median voter was supposed to lead to moderation. it does not work out that way when you have a single member district and multiple decision point. instead of a pair looking for the median voter, you've seen incumbents hold in opposite

directions. they want to be a part of a majority. there pulled in both ways and they are pulled. in the paper, i've talked about getting serious about reform which is a day. everyone knows that virtually everyone in government knows that this is a terrible problem. it is threatening a big budget crisis. the solution will require some kind of mix. if a member from a safe district decides to be willing to work for a cross party compromise,

then that question has to be prepared to think about million- dollar -- $1 million expenditures. some of the mirror images if you are a moderate from origin -- if you are a moderate or someone who goes along with the party in the general election, either way it will be a tough vote. it is much easier just to give benefits without thinking about paying for them. in past generations, there was space within the institution as well as the overlapping opinion. you could find some common ground with each other.

they had ways and were willing to think about ways to provide cover for the members in the name of the common good. now there's often no policy of a lot. where there is overlap, the leaders no longer seemed to be wanting to give institutional awards. instead, the rewards are being used to reward partisanship. what is to be done? so far, stronger parties are associated with governing. the role that strong party organizations play in general elections is largely healthy.

we live in a time where communications, technology, and fine campaign -- and campaign finance law are able to drive politics further away from the liberation. because those groups can effectively spend millions to attack an incumbent, the need to have someone with deep pockets to help embattled candidate to respond. i do believe parties to the crucial in modern elections. however, i do not believe all forms to be healthy. for example, the strength and the tories in one respect by making them richer. i see soft money as the equivalent of the steroids

producing this that helps build up bulk. the evidence is overwhelming that -- again i can discuss them more if you want. for example, i would like to see the law change to the parties make unlimited coordinated expenditures with candace provided that the coordinated spending cuts from small french ablutions. whether you agree with that recommendation or not, the theoretical point is this. party strength has many different pieces to it. while strength may be good or useful, it is not always useful. strengthen hellfire to different concepts. -- strength and health are two different concepts.

these are ones that serve healthy democracies. any serious discussion of health us to take you beyond parties to look at the structures in which the structures work. that conversation will probably require another conference. [applause] >> we will now turn to our three remaining panelists. each of them will give us about seven-eight minutes on the current health of the party system. they may say something from the two presentations or their opponents. we will start with congresswoman pryce. >> thank you very much, john. i am sorry to have arrived late and missed the very beginning

of william's presentation. they were both very excellent. i stand in of when john invited me, he did not tell me i had to speak after two smart people. he also said do your best to keep it to 10 minutes. he has not been around a lot of politicians either, i guess. i guess i better get started. first of all, i am not an academic. i thought steve today are purely observational. i have the scars to show it. the political system i lived for the past 16 years of my life are exactly the years where so much has changed. we saw the huge influx of pac donations and the gravity of the

nation's and the coffers filling up with a campaign committees. we have seen the institutional as asian of campaign professionals, fund-raisers, communication experts. we have seen consultants of every variety. it is a huge industry now and it was not 20 years ago. but we have seen the mccain- feingold bipartisan campaign reform. and did have some republican support. among those members in the northeast were members prone to pressure from the new york times. because of the campaign finance reform, the 527's, the swift boats, the moveon.org's and the

influence of neighboring. i think we have moved to a more candidate centric type of election process. here is where the strength of the party comes in. now a candidate can become a candidate without the party. the party does not really have to condemn the candidacy of for the man or woman to get on the ballot. this feeds into probably the most important change. the event of the 24-7 news cycle. 20 years ago there were three networks -- abc, nbc, or cbs. since then we have cable, talk- radio, blogs, twitter,, the news at night. and is everything you can think of.

it needs to be said. feed it veracious the. therefore, i think the party has diminished significance in terms of the power it exerts in electoral politics. the party no longer controls and all. i think the party has a 40,000 foot view of things. it helps to manage, coordinates, services candidates. it no longer hold all the strings of the puppet. there are so mann more complex aspects and more complex players than it used to be. i still think the two major

political parties have a big role. they also have a great challenge. i will throw out to you some of the things and i agree wholeheartedly with what has gone before us tonight already. the challenge i give two parties is let's talk about the disappearing middle. i was a moderate republican in name only. i was the spineless one, the fence sitter, the squish. that is my favorite word.. it is a disappearing breed. the republicans have very few seats in the northeast anymore. we have two senators from may and that is it. look at where it is going. look at john mccain. the republican firebrand.

he was our namesake, our night. he is holding on for dear life in the state of arizona in his own senatorial primary for the republican nomination. why? because he was a little too far to the center and -- especially on immigration which is a matter that is very important to people in arizona. and in utah. -- then it's in utah trying to forge a bipartisan health care bill in oregon. then we have senator linda gramm -- senator graham trying to work with john kerry on climate change. those are just the republicans and just a few of them. we also have blanche lincoln from arkansas, a democrat, a fine senator. she is having an uphill battle because she is from the state of

walmart. she is not liberal enough. bart stew pack -- bart stupak announced his retirement today, another moderate democrat, a pro-life democrat. he has been much in the news in the health-care debate. the center is diminishing. but our parties can do is to harness the forces of the tea parties, the michael more's, the wings that want to fly in different directions and tear this country apart. they need to be harnessed to come back to a more reasonable thoughtful middle ground. the extremes are really winning. depends the numbers you look at, with 39% of the country is it considering themselves independent. why are we letting the wings

tear us apart. there has to be a way to bring us back home. i think the parties are the best way to do it. do not ask me how when we get to the question and answers section, because i do not know. it has to happen. now coming to the extent that the parties are a little light in the seed in appealing to the masses and exerting as much power as they used to an electoral politics, i think it has been mentioned that they have never been more powerful in the process of legislating and the governing. -pyou only have to look back the weeks ago to the health-care debate. health-care reform, i thought, was gone. with the give and take an opportunity, the appeal to party loyalty, there was a miracle. lazarus has risen. that happened in the president

appealed to the instincts of his crew. nancy pelosi used every tool in the toolbox in the rules committee, the house. harry reid used every maneuver that he could in the name of the democratic party. they got it done. look at the discipline on the mitch mcconnell held every single vote. it is incredible. there is mystery in this for me. it is very intriguing because the greatest of capital stock we have our in our political leaders. we really have to pay attention to what is happening. that is where the strength has right now. the effectiveness of the party's right now, in governing and we

need to really corral all of the unrest and political heir. whenever is out there, we need to realize that the only place that real solutions are forged are in the middle with the moderates that can reach across the party i'll and then that -- that cannot be apolitical sen the way it is these days. i know that is longer than 10 minutes, but dinkey. -- but thank you. [applause] .

>> i participated in the game a different way, perhaps not even participating as immersed in history and context and the constitutional foundations with which the parties have developed. from a personal standpoint, i have enjoyed it and found it in lightning and stimulating. thank you for that.

i want to talk about why the parties are not only healthy but are still relevant and important. i am going to be so in about 80 minute snapshot of why we so desperately need them. the reason why is because the parties are the keepers of the ideological faith on both sides of the political spectrum and both sides of a debate and argument in america. the reason that is important is because certainly, in 20 years i have been involved directly in american politics, it is a fact of life now that the volatility of the political marketplace has never been more compressed and more direct. from 1990, i took responsibility to run the democratic senate

campaign committee and we started in 1991. the environment -- and going to be 20 years of history in two minutes. the central thematic foundation is whenever anybody thought 18 months before an election that occurred two years later, whatever that was 18 months out, it ends up being wrong. if you bet on the opposite of what conventional wisdom would assume 18 months later, 90 percent -- 90% of the time the exact opposite has occurred. in 1991, george bush the first was over 70% on job approval rating at the polls. many democratic candidates considered running and refused because a look like it was impossible to defeat him. a whole range of people who the party establishment believe we

should put forward. out of those decisions comes the bill clinton candidacy in a field of candidates that most of the prognosticators would have guessed could have never won an election and could never overcome the advantages president bush had. as we know, bill clinton gets elected and its new generation of political leadership. al gore and bill clinton looked terrific together and all the excitement leads to an enormous amount of legislative accomplishment through 1993. people forget that they created a mythology about what happened in 1994 and the election, but by the end of 1993, there were half a dozen enormous political accomplishments. hillary clinton, by the way, had just finished extraordinary round of hearings, introducing e health-care package enter job approval rating was at 90%.

10 months later, 1994, the contract with america, new gingrich's the speaker of the house, an unprecedented, unbelievable political than that occurred -- that occurred 10 months later. 1994 happens. the republicans are in charge. the republican revolution is about to occur. everyone in america imagines bill clinton is cooked. he has been devastated at the polls and the republicans are in charge of everything. 12 months later, the government is shut down and six months later, the seat -- he is the odds on favorite to win the presidency and defeat bob dole. you think all is good in the world and everything is going to be great from a democratic perspective. in 1997, we signed a balanced budget agreement and everything looks great. in 1998, there is information about other activity occurring in the white house.

we have an impeachment proceeding. at the end of 1997 leading into 1998, we deal with impeachment and the president's job approval rating declines somewhat. everybody thinks this is the end of the clinton -- the end of the clinton presidency. instead, he keeps his eye on the ball and preserves his job approval rating and the public does not have an appetite for everything that just occurred. bill clinton not alone survives the democrats win democratic governorships in the south that had been taken over since the 1980's. bill clinton ends up winning seats in the third cycle of his presidency. every political prognosticator in the world who predicted his demise was absolutely wrong. 1999, 2000 because of the most prosperous times in the country's history, but -- budget surpluses as far as the eye can see, economic growth beyond

expectations, bipartisanship, working together, camaraderie and its cetera. what happens? al gore wins and elektra -- winds and election but ends up not be given to be president because the disputed supreme court decision and, defying expectations, a republican begins to occupy the white house. there is a lot of unanticipated events treaty would think the controversy election would point to what has occurred, as i have been repeatedly told, a midterm election after the beginning of a presidency, there's usually erosion in the president's support. 9/11 occurs 13 months after, all of the historical expectations do not occur and george bush increases the majority with him. the 2002 elections, everybody says how can this have happened, but it does. in 2004, you think we are in a controversial war and the public

appetite is dramatically against it. democrats are in a well- positioned place to take back the presidency. george bush defeats a guy in 2004 and has won the medal of honor in vietnam and has doubled down on the war and defies expectations and is reelection in 2004. at that time, every prognosticator -- i hope none of you in this room, but i suspect some of you -- there is a realignment in 2005. karl rove says there's a new republican majority and republican leadership will be extended in perpetuity. what's the matter in kansas? 18 months later, we went 30 house seats and the democrats are back in charge of the house and senate. who in the world ever heard of barack obama in 2003? he is fighting for a seat to the

democratic convention and gives a quite nice speech in 2004. before we know it, the conventional wisdom is hillary clinton will be the nominee of the party. i am working my tail off for her and we think all of the punditry in the democratic party and conventional wisdom is she will be the nominee. she's an amiable force in democratic politics and barack obama raises about $300 million over the in the debt. he becomes the nominee of the party and wins the presidential election. somebody rounds of these people and asks them for advice. this is good cocktail conversation, but good gravy, we have to think about what is going on in between. the reason this happens, the reason there is the capacity for this to occur is because there are a bunch of folks sitting in a room somewhere who constantly believe they had a chance to compete in american politics.

those people resigned it. the -- resided, they existed in the party apparatus of the democratic and republican parties. when anybody thought they were out of luck and conventional systems of the could not win. are they healthy today? for all reasons that are just described, for resources that can be applied to the effort, one could argue the parties, we certainly have the capacity to provide resources. have we been able to take advantage of technological innovations? have we been able to participate in 24/7 news cycle? the answer is yes. the obama candidacy and presidency suggests what was developed on the back of howard dean in 2004, he took it to another label -- another level and was able to compete with the institutional resources which typically exist on the

republican side of the aisle in greater measure there is an expectation that a party should lead in the president should lead. does he have the capacity to do that? i was fascinated by the discussion last night as if everybody should have been surprised. barack obama got elected and there is a great debate for 20 minutes over the meaning of health care. i thought -- there was a billion dollars in two years of a campaign where barack obama literally told everyone in america, these are the three things and going to do. everybody is in shock 12-month after the die is elected, everybody is in shock that he is actually trying to do the things he said he was going to do if he got elected. if anything, the world should have been horrified if he did not try to do the things he said he was going to do -- what does that have to do with the

political party? the big challenge for political parties today is if you can win an election, articulate a vision, keep faith with the electorate about what you are supposed to do big question is can the party help you deliver on the promises you have made in the campaign? can help be executed strategy and advance an agenda yet articulated to the public? from a democratic point of view, whether you agree or disagree is geologically with the orientation of that effort, they kept their promises, and lived up to the expectations and they were able to deliver on the agenda item they promised the american people. for that, they are to get credit. i would like to conclude and the only other things -- there are couple of challenges for the parties there were talking about as we go one for the next 24 hours. the first is the piece that

debra represented in suggested -- it has become tougher and we spent a lot of time talking about it, the ability to reconcile differences within parties is getting exceedingly difficult. we talked a lot last night and this morning -- consider the rise in the importance of the net roots movement in the democratic party. it had a similar effect in how the party had to reassess -- had to rethink what their agenda was going to be and deep grass roots population of is going to represent in its politics. those kinds of internal factors and those kinds of internal political movements are very difficult to be reconciled. the democratic party -- we have the dlc types and the third ways and the blue dogs and a variety of iterations on a theme of what it means to be a democrat.

reconciling that, coming up with a common vision, providing it to the electorate in a coherent way is exceedingly difficult and a challenge we ought to discuss about parties. the other piece is what the internet represents. the last 50 years of american politics, in particular, were dominated by the technological innovations that applied to television. i pose the question this morning because i think we have seen evidence of that -- it has become more and more clear that the potential of the internet both for providing information, putting people in rooms together, for meeting, a gathering, talking and participating in politics, it is a phenomenon we have just scratched the surface about. its potential to affect politics for the next decade or two may be as transformational as the

advent of television was in the 1960's and we ought to spend some time talking about it. [applause] >> i want to start by echoing the thanks my colleagues have given both to the conference organizers and to kenyon college. it has been a wonderful conference. i have learned a tremendous amount and had to revise a lot of live remarks and focus on what i would like to talk about in the minutes i have here. i am not going to dwell on a lot of things, but i would like to dwell on some with the think have not been covered. let me start with a personal story. every year, i go in for my annual physical exam. the doctor says to me that you are alive, and you are robust,

at least pretty robust because you were able to walk into the office yourself. he said now, let's get into the details -- your blood pressure is too high, your cholesterol count is too high and so on and so forth. thooe of you who are at my age or approaching it understand what i'm talking about. in thinking about the health of the parties, we can give an overall assessment and that assessment is the parties, particularly the major parties are certainly alive and robust trade they are doing very well in many ways. but, the rest of the story has to do with the details. in some of the details, they are not doing so well. i would like to spend some time talking about those details. maybe before getting into that, i should paraphrase dickens to

say that for the parties, these are the best of times and in some respects, the worst of times as well. their health is robust, they are alive compared to what? probably more robust than they have been since the 1930's in the united states. there was a time in the '60s and '70s -- david broder wrote about this in a book called "the party is over." it is very dissimilar to what we find on the stage today. they are less robust than they were in the 19th century, particularly the latter part of the 19th century. if you look across the democratic world, in many political systems, astronomers are party than they are in the united states and healthier. parties everywhere, in most places, are probably less strong than the were not so long ago.

there are international factors affecting the standing of the parties and we tend to neglect those when we think about things in the american context. when we look at the life signs of the parties, the way to a think about this is to think about the functions political parties perform for democratic political systems. deborah pryce touched on this in an eloquent way. the party's nominee candidates for office. they control the party label. our party is certainly control the party label. on the other hand, they have less control than they had a century ago in who gets to where the party label. -- who gets to where the party label. even though they don't openly support them during the primary campaign, nonetheless, the candidates they prefer sometimes do not win.

sometimes, there are divisive primaries that tar the candidates running for the nomination so badly that they cannot win in november. we all know examples of this. this is a year where there may be more contested primaries, seriously contest, then we have had in some time. that illustrates the problems the party has been -- the parties have been trying to control the nomination process. i was in italy said years ago, giving a talk on the 1984 presidential nominating process and i was describing the nature of the american primaries. it is very complicated and members of the christian democratic party in this audience were sitting there very patiently and one of them says why would any party to it that way? just the wayt it's we do it and nobody else does it that way.

in the nomination function, the parties today not have the kind of control over who carries the party label that they had a century ago or maybe not so long ago even in recent decades. second, the parties perform a very important function in the election area, in supporting their nominees for office. the national party organizations, as we have heard, provide unprecedented levels of for office. more importantly, they target their money strategically. they did not always do that treat in congress, they are targeting and its -- targeting candidates in seats that are marginal or contested where the money might make a difference and putting a lot of money into

it. if you look at state organizations, state organizations are considerably stronger than they have ever been in this country. they are better staffed. the staff is better trained than they used to beat. they tend to have more resources and devote these resources to candidates particularly in statewide elections. on the other hand, local party organizations may be weaker than they have ever been. in many areas of the country, they do not exist or only exist if supported and propped up by the state organizations. that has an interesting implication. in the old days, the kinds of resources the party had to provide for its candidates had very little to do with money. what the parties provided at the

local level where there were strong on a regular basis was grassroots campaign workers who would support the party ticket. candidates from the bottom of the ticket to the top of the ticket. probably less emphasis on the top of the ticket. the local parties have atrophied. those kinds of campaign workers have pretty much disappeared. what you have in their place are two kinds of campaign workers. one kind to are attracted to particular candidates. they will work for, and let the case of to the snake, barack obama, but they may not work for anyone else or they may not work for barack obama again if he does not fulfil the kinds of aspirations and dreams they had for his presidency. the other kind of campaign workers are caused workers.

they are there because they believed in a particular issue. they believe that can it represents their side or position on that issue. should that can it began in his or her support for that issue, they are gone. the candidate knows that. the can it knows those activists are very much there, working for the candidate because of what he or she stands for, not what here she is or is likely to be as an elected politician. electioneering has also become much more centralized. much more directed from washing d.c. than was ever the case in the past. as a third function, parties engage in making policy. i won't go into what the others on the panel have talked about it except to say they're more coherent ideologically today that have been in some time. there are more programmatic,

more distinctive, problematic with one another, more responsible in some senses. but are they too polarized? that's another question we will deal with. the fourth function parties perform is to educate and socialize voters. they play a very important role in giving that. on the other hand, they -- i don't want to say that -- they don't play that role alone. there are many other actors today, many players on the stage, who in many ways have louder voices than the parties have. that has been a profound change from what we knew just 10 or 20 years ago. what i am saying is the health of the parties is very much tied to the kind of competition they have out there.

the competition in electioneering now is unprecedented activity on the part of interest groups, unprecedented amounts of spending by people spending money independently to affect campaign's about coordinating it with canned its or parties. citizens united, the recent supreme court decision, will have some impact on that but that was already happening anyway. i think it will maybe exacerbate that trend. there's a lot of competition for voter education and socialization. you only have to look at the bloggers and talk shows a variety of other places to see how extensive that this. that has fundamentally change our politics. i will close with a question -- i have said the parties in general are more robust, so they have changed and are not robust in every respect in the united states, but as others have said, does that make for a healthier

democracy in the united states? to echo what has been said before, and not so sure about that myself. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we have a microphone here for those of you who like to ask questions. i will try to pose a question -- i tried to think of one that might apply to all five and i think i have one. there has been a certain amount of talk about polarization and a lack of a medal in both parties and the difficulty of moderates and the role of outside groups that competes with parties often. i question is this -- are the parties being strong enough? do they have enough resources to combat outside groups, many of whom are more polarizing ideologically. i would focus more on congressional races.

do you feel the party has the resources to compete? do they have the will to support candidates in the middle? parties are sometimes hands off of the primaries and not willing to defend moderate candidates. even if parties have the will to support candidates might be supporting parties in the middle of the spectrum, does it work? you see the case of a number of people who are anointed by the parties before supposed to be the party pick and and that being challenged by more ideological or populist figures from either side. are there resources enough to compete with outside groups? on the will lead to support moderate candidates? if they are, does it work? -- are they willing to support moderate candidates?

>> since there are five people need to respond, made -- and going to be a more terse answer that your question calls for. the main thrust of party perform over the last 30 years has been in the direction of the crease democratization. that is responsiveness -- increased democratization that is responsiveness. the forces that make up the grass roots of the parties. the consequence as others have pointed out is the gatekeepers of the old gatekeepers are gone. parties are much more structures for assisting candidates once they are nominated then vehicles where the leads select the

nominees. that latter process has been profoundly democratized. i happen to believe that democratization has been a very mixed blessing, speaking as a democrat. somebody put me in front of a consul with two buttons and -- and for the console with two buttons and but may is the decision about presidential nominees will have and i was a young man, and the other one is today, i would press a without hesitation. that's one of 100 reasons nobody in washington listens to me. >> the other point -- i agree completely. the other point i would make is that in campaign finance reform, the parties have bben disadvantaged and the interest groups because certainly in recent years, independent spending has been damaged.

the competitors to the parties have been given stronger voices and their ability to spend unlimited amounts of money while the parties are still limited as to how much they can spend in a campaign. they can find ways around this, but straight up, there is an advantage to the interest groups, which is ironic in some ways the given the spending of interest groups in the american system. >> i never thought i would say this, but i disagree with you. political parties are allowed to make unlimited expenditures and they do. it's been more of a competitive congressional districts including interest groups in the general election. i believe it is unfortunate they have to do it independently of their candidate. it is a silly show raid. can it ought to be linked.

i don't think that for the major problem was. i think the parties are in fact strong enough that outside groups in general elections have been coming in to support the moderates. with very rare exception. where the of such groups have an advantage is that they tend not to get into primaries and this is especially true of republicans to cannot defend their incumbent particularly well. when chuck schumer said they were going to recruit people, they backed them up. the republican congressional committee has not done the same thing. partly it's a matter of resources, but it's also a matter of skittishness. they are nervous about the bass group's on the right, more so than bass group's a ball -- bass group's on the left. that is part of the

asymmetrical material bill was talking about. if they have the will, will it work in the primary? it's tough. in general, people have to be able to persuade the groups that have a collective interest in being in a majority and it is not clear that all the groups on those fringes really sure that interest. they're not there to govern. >> if our parties were more engaged in the primary process, the general election to be a lot cheaper because they would have candidates that could win a lot easier than some of the fringe candidates we allowed to win in primaries right now. we would save ourselves a lot of grief and a lot of money. >> let me turn to questions.

>> the question is on the topic of money -- i know is looking at this interesting chart that the individual contributions going from -- this is to the dnc and rnc, from presidential election to a presidential election and midterm to midterm show an upward trend as you get further along. but there is a glaring exception -- the 2008 amount of money to be democratic national committee. there was not a lot of money going to barack obama. the more candid-centric election of 2008 and a number increasing for the democratic national party, the contributions of $20,000 or more in a cycle. could he speak to those factors.

>> somebody give the student a very high grade. all of the elections except the two dozen a democratic election involve a certain similarity of conventions. national committees are more important provincial elections and in midterms, so you expect those to be higher. you expect they should go up. in five of the six cases, publicly funded candidates. the parties play the role of making large independent expenditure and the candidates raise the money for the party and the party makes independent expenditures. in one case, the democrats like to designate, the candidate is raising money for himself.

the candidate cannot raise money over the $2,300 contribution limit. the party was helping to raise $20,000 contributions. if you look in the full paper, if you look at the difference between how much did a obama race in those months and how much less to the democratic national committee raised, they are about the same. this is the small donor money. these numbers are all abouu the same as each other. fundamentally, what is going on is the party is performing a different function in 2008. you have to look at party and candidate as a joint team. >> that is absolutely key steadily from a fund-raising

perspective of a tactical and grass-roots perspective. as soon as the nominee is known -- the obama campaign was extraordinary in many ways. it was a cultural and political phenomenon. $770 million is an extraordinary number for our times under any circumstances. what is interesting from a party perspective is that hillary clinton also raised to under $45 million in the primary. so at the numbers together and there's a billion dollaas before you can and neither candidate in the race and there were other four of them. those contributions directly to candidates and associated. it is an extraordinary occurrence. i think technologically, there was a phenomenon howard dean tapped obama grew enormously that help to produce this result.

it will have an effect on partiis in the future, depending on the kinds of candidates they can produce. >> if you take a look at the number in the chart, the democratic national committee in hard money alone in to decimate , even with a candidate using private money raised more than the democratic national committee in the last election with soft money. >> we have to take to last questions and we have to make them brief. >> and a senior political science major here and i will keep it very brief. my question is directed specifically to those of you who mourned the collapse of the middle in american politics. i think bill kristol made a surprising and salient remarks last night when he said health care reform makes all lot less

sense without a public option. the point being compromise may be a political necessity or be -- but a vice. the services politics to a degree when we last left and right as a means of describinn the state of politics because i think it discredits people that have a thoroughness of vision. but this is just an opinion. it seems to me the real problem is a lack of collaboration. in a system with a seemingly engrained partisanship and polarization, how would you foster collaboration with people who have real clarity and the distinction between their position? >> i'm a political science economics major here. my question is aimed at mr.

back. you spoke about the health of individuals who worked on campaigns and political ideologies. however, you spoke about individuals do -- if their ideologies are no longer accepted, how do you explain the fact people in political fund- raising or individuals to become legal consultants such as the individual sitting to your right continue to exist today if they go away after their ideology is neglected or as their candidate loses? >> one has to distinguish between and people who are voluntary activists. there are a lot of voluntary activists who care deeply about the and will stay there over the

long run. there are also a lot of them who are in and out. they are in and out depending on who can't its baby and what issues are motivating them. and was trying to make a comparison between now and the good old days. what mayor daley had to supply two candidates were patronage workers in the city of chicago whose livelihood depended upon the party staying in power. they were there regardless of who the candidates were. that kind of resources can no longer be provided by the parties. james t. wilson said this year's ago -- he was looking at motivation for party activity.

you think you're going to get something material at purposefully, you think you're going to get cause satisfaction. the other kind is material where you think you are going to get some data like a job. there has been a dramatic shift in the kinds of motivations' driving party activism today compared with the past. i happen to think that is a good thing in many ways. but it means something different in terms of the parties can provide to candidates in election campaigns. the parties can provide -- the columbus democratii party says we will have 300 people will allow them not on doors for you. you don't have to pay them a penny. that is gone.

in its place bell is a much more capital intensive kind of campaigning and a much more cause and candid-oriented campaign that is different from we had in the past. it may be more polarizing as well. >> the question of political moderation is important and valid. it is certainly not my position that the middle of the political spectrum, to the extent that categorization of people make sense has a monopoly on the substitute with them.

i was making to other observations that drive my bottom line. number one, there are some issues in american politics that cannot be resolved without a substantially greater measure of cooperation across party lines than we now see. case in point -- something we started talking about at the beginning of this congress and i suspect we will talk about until the end -- the fiscal crisis that is about to overwhelm the government of the united states and all of the state government and municipal governments. the majority leader in the house came to brookings about six weeks ago and delivered a great speech. the first paragraph and like this -- don't think what happened in greece cannot happen here. if we do not change course, it

will. he is right about that and there is no way activists, liberal activists in the democratic party or conservative activists in the republican party can solve that problem by there is no single party solution to that problem. clarity of vision is not the point, cooperation across the political spectrum is the point and we don't have that right now. number two, there's a clear relationship between the level of clinical contestation that exist today and the abysmally low trust in our political institutions the citizens of the ad states are manifesting. if you discuss this efforts, the system in which 80% of the citizens hold their governing institutions in contempt is a fundamentally unhealthy system. that is not the case when i was your age. it is not an accident because political parties to not relate to each other the way they do

today. there is a causal link between polarization i regret and the contempt for government spread across this country and i find that as a citizen almost impossible to bear. it is that and not the alleged monopoly of wisdom in the center that are articulated. >> let's think our panelists and we hope you'll join us at the reception. [applause] >> up next, a conversation on preparations for the next+ possible terrorist attack. that is followed by a discussion on the economy from this morning's "washington journal." later, a look at u.s. trade with china and a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the korean war.

>> this week on "the communicators" -- using technology to promote an open government. it is the government to point though expo. -- government 2.0 expo. >> how prepared is the u.s. for another terrorist attack? if former centers during heart and jim talent and a former 9/11 commissioner talk about what can be done by federal, state and local government and u.s. citizens. from the aspen institute in colorado, that is tonight at 8:00 eastern time on c-span. on tomorrow's "washington journal" a look at children's health programs and charter schools across the u.s.. also, a look the obama administration pause plan to prevent and and homelessness in the u.s.

that is tomorrow on "washington journal" starting at 7:00 a.m. >> now a foreign perspective on terrorism strategy. the discuss how u.s. allies of the the so-called war on terror and the international will to launch a multinational response to a major terrorist attack. this forum was part of a two day conference of the homeland's security issues posted by the aspen institute. this is about one hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> it the issue of terrorism knows no boundaries. therefore, counterterrorism must know no boundaries and borders.

it is not sufficient that in a forum on homeland security and counterterrorism that we hear only from one foreign perspective, we need international cooperation. to complement the remarks we heard earlier today, we will hear from two other perspectives that in one way or another represent the international point of view. i have titled this session "a view from abroad." we are pleased to have robert siegel moderate this -- he is the senior host of npr's's evening news magazine "all things considered." he has reported from western europe, eastern europe and israel. he concentrates on domestic stories. before joining "all things considered" in 1987, he served as the director of npr's news and information department, overseeing the news magazines. he joined in 1976 as a associate

research and appointed public affairs editor in 1977 and senior editor the following year. he opened npr's london bureau where he worked as a senior editor until 1993. he is well known throughout the country and here in aspen and i'm delighted to have you here. >> thank you and thank you for inviting me and organizing this conference. it's a delight to be here. should this be replayed on aspen public radio, a special hello to listeners and supporters of our station. the title is extremely broad. but i think analysts beside me bring a bit of experience to the questions at hand that is quite remarkable. henry crompton was either an officer or station chief for the cia on four continents. prior to 9/11, he was urging

more attention be paid to osama bin laden in afghanistan. post-9/11, he led the chase of osama bin laden that ended in the escape at tora bora -- richard barrett serve as the british foreign office security service and secret security service in among other places, turkey and jordan and is now at the un in an office that advises the security council on these matters for the past several years. since both of you have thought longer and harder about al qaeda than nearly anyone i know, to ask a little bed about something beside our central focus -- is what you imagine the

view to be of two individuals -- a sum in london and -- osama bin laden, do you think these men, knowing as much as we know -- it's almost nine years, he's still around. the american public is souring on the war in afghanistan and the allies did not seem terribly interested in joining them. we're going to win this thing and one big strike and people say we triumphed. or here we are stuck in the tribal areas of northern pakistan and we can only get loan wolf but jobs with u.s. passport to are incapable of detonating a car with their shoe or their underpants? what you think? do they feel they are winning this thing or they are losing it? >> from their perspective, they

think it's an existential struggle. it is about their identity and it defines who they are. it divides the world as they would like to be as perverse as that by be to us. they are in at for the long haul. they will continue to fight until they are captured or killed. that's important for us when we think about the strategic value of any leadership. -- and the leadership. there is frustration and confusion within the ranks because of the decimation of al qaeda leadership, except for those two. the ambassador earlier noted that you are the number three guy in al qaeda, your life expectancy is measured in months. it's not a job anybody really wants. that creates a lot of confusion. they have had enormous setbacks since the the mile of afghanistan as the major safe haven for them. many attacks have been disrupted.

perhaps 3000 operatives in the last nine years have been captured killed worldwide. so they are under stress. the reason we and our allies have not been able to capture or kill either one of the to is because they are in hiding. they have restricted themselves and movement and communications and that burden has fallen to the no. 3. so i think it is a mix -- they are determined, for ttem it's an essential conflict, but they are under enormous stress. i might add if you look at public opinion in the muslim world, the support for the ideology that al qaeda professes is dropping. it hit a high mark at the wedding party in jordan and did you get pugh research bulls and others, from that point on, it started to decline and i think osama bin laden knows that. >> i absolutely agree.

there are in for the long term and must think we are still there. but nonetheless, the that is closing and if i were a some of the blood preparing my state of the union address, i would say we have not had such a good last couple of years, but we are determined and resilience and just like opportunity but opportunity will come our way if we stick it out. so far as bread recognition is concerned, they've done exceptionally well. here we all are in aspen, colorado just talking about them although it is buying years after the tax of 9/11. the tax of 9/11 were quite extraordinary and even exceeded their expectations in terms of impact and the increase in their fame. they do the very real vulnerabilities and i think the are aware of those

vulnerabilities. certainly on the areas of legitimacy on their credibility and relevance, they have seen a deterioration of that position. a very important point in jordan where the attacks on the wedding changed public opinions from the support of al qaeda as being good guys and like the robin hood of our world to revolting criminals involved in things we cannot possibly support. i think that is something which is spread right across the muslim world and the burning desire to lead a mass movement is probably a little bit compromised by that. now they cannot quite see where that is coming from. >> before leaving the al qaeda leadership, are they important

beyond the symbolic role right now? if al qaeda were decapitated val, i think been -- with al qaeda or decapitated now, or in december, would that be the end of it is or is it not a movement to ban on the charismatic leadership? >> the leadership is of critical importance. if you look at successful counterinsurgency campaigns and this has many parallels, there are three strategic objectives. he must nullify any leadership -- kill them, capture them or undermine their legitimacy. second, deny them safe haven, a place where they can recuperate, organize, plan, train and deploy. third, and this is the big one, you have to address the very local conditions that the enemy exploit. you have to do all three. decapitation alone would not have ended this war. it would have been a major success, but that's only one of

three strategic goals. from that perspective, we still have a lot of work to do. there are others willing to step forward and they have repeatedly. it is a movement, they have affiliate's, it is a dynamic network that continues to learn, adapt and change. we have to change with it. >> how important is that? >> let's talk about the merits of decapitation but what is interesting is as far as al qaeda is concerned, they believe in decapitation. if you look at their activities in iraq, they've been very much involved in removing tribal leaders, removing leaders of the awakening movement and so on. in pakistan, the same. removing tribal elders opposed to al qaeda and taliban and removing imams the speak against them.

there is no doubt that if you look as movements around the world, they really spark when there is a charismatic leader in charge. osama bin laden clearly has that charismatic appeal. he has become a figure on a t- shirt. he's a good-looking, noble sort of person and that personnel will survive his death. nonetheless, to remove him from the scene probably would ultimately have a positive effect in terms of counter- terrorism. i would say the reverse with zawahiri. if you watch the videos, which i hope you don't because they are tedious to the extreme. he sits there and wags his finger. the longer he is around, the better it is for us.

>> he said the reason we have not caught them is because they are in hiding. to a great many americans and the ambassador address this, there is -- it is a puzzlement. how was it we are presumed -- they're presumed to be on the soil of an allied country and the country has now mobilized. they have been there since late 2001 or 2002 and cannot be found. is that despite a truly vigorous and effective counterterrorism effort? >> there is absolutely no doubt that pakistan is very concerned about the situation with the taliban. we have to make some distinctions here between not only the pakistan taliban and the afghan taliban but within the taliban itself from tribe to