representing the entire state, they have to understand -- you have a conservative estern maryland, liberal montgomery county and baltimore city and so on -- i think all ofhis is being reinforced and is coming on so fast, but the change in the media. it has become so targeted and fragmented that we tend to and reinforce only those views. we only have -- we do not have the nightly news that covers different perspectives. i think that is a real danger. i do not know what the solution is. that is where we turn to the academic community for research. one area where i would like to disagree, cordially, is the issue of federalism. i am not particularly alarmed about the role of federalism.

i think the are times in which a very strong national government needs to be there. i think without the national government stepping up on the issue of civil rights, for example, i think without the federal government stepping up on the issue of national environmental policy, even now, without the national government stepping in in a big way to deal with some of these institutional financial issues and organizations we have, that this country would be far less well- off. and we do need that. it is a matter of balance. i think the pendulum swings and because of the crises going on, the pendulum has swung under, ironically, mostly conservative president bush and under president obama. has swung. there is no question about it. in part, it has swung for good reasons. thlast point i would make -- i

still see the states is great innovators and starters of policy, questioning policy, and having poly spread dramatically. i look at issues, like medical marijuana, where many states right now authorized that. the dramatic change in the last five to six years in the gay and lesbian it general recognition, moving toward equality. issues i have been very involved with, started in one state spreading across the country. i just came back from australia, going to china. issues that spread to a worldwide effort. things like the extraordinary burst of activity on creating new transit systems, imposing taxes on themselves in states as diverse as north carolina or arizona to support that.

in every single case there, the federal government has actually scrambled to keep up with what is going on in the states and is starting to modify its policy on all five of those issues i had just mentioned. i would notespair and the role of the state. maybe it is less because of the enormity of national issues, i think that when these crises are dealt with, and they will be, there will be this tendency to spring back to more state- oriented federalism as well. >> i was going to weigh in on the federalism issue, as well. that is an ancient debate that probably took place in this hall, what is the role of the states and the federal government. it is an ongoing conversation. but i do think it is interesting, as you observed governor taft, that it was under a republican it governor that the education department took a stronger role. one difference here is that,

underhe obama administration, there is a carrot instead of a stick. i think that it is also very significant that the united states -- the federal government is called upon when the states cannot handle the situation themselves. and we realize there is great ariation among states' educational achievement, and that again, the united states, on most test scores, fell back behind our competitors and our colleagues, and we are the only country that really does not have national standards. i know this is a tough sell, having been governor. local control is ideology almost. but i think ii+t is an ideology that ds not always work and has to be reexamined. on other issues, the states are getting more power.

just in today's new york times, the lead of the paper says -- 11 states have passed restrictive laws on abortion, some of which will be tested in the supreme court, no doubt. but the states are very active. it depends on what your favite issue is. if you do not like with tte federal government is, you do not believe in federalism. if you do notike what the states are doing, you do not believe in it state action. but at its very best, looking up from on high, you say this is a creative tension that may be healthy for democracy. and the pendulum does swing, but it is an unsettled situation, which may not hurt our system, but sometimes it

goes to it in extreme in one direction and goes to an extreme in other directions. what i do find it disturbing is that the same people who really want to get rid of government, their mantra, still love their social secury and also will the government to fix the problem in the gulf. so, we realize some of this is pure rhetoric and some of it is a substance and one of our challenges is to distinguish between the two. >> i amrying to find consensus here. i think all four of us agree -- one of the great challenges we are facing is the polarization of the political process. i think a lot of that is driven by the media. we have seen a fragmentation or polarization, or as governor glendening said, we watch the

channel we agree with. i do not know what we can do about the media. i have tried for years, but i have finally given up. whatoncerns me is the primary process. there is a tendency in the primaries that we have to go to the right if we republicans and go to the left if you are democrats. most folks, most americans who are in the middle, do not vote in the primary. the democratic process is a two- step thing. it is not a general election alone, it is the primaries. we have to get people involved in the political process. if you cannot be a republican, the democrat. be one or the other. be in the process. primaries are where we are selecting most of our officials. too often we have seen people stay away from that. again, i think we all have shared that kind of concerned about polarization.

i think that is one of the challenges that, again, anyone who can help us figure out how we can get peoe engaged, particularly in the primary process, i think would go a long way to helping this nation and our states be able to reaah consensus, which on fortunate in the last few years, is getting to be a more difficult thing. >> all right. comments or questions from the audience? what i would like to tell people as we have microphones here. please use those i would appreciate if you say to you are and your affiliation before you ask your question. could we, please, focus on questions and not on speeches? thank you. [laughter] next. >> [inaadible]

[inaudible] >> i was a governor in the 1990's before the internet became a dominant factor. that came to political figures in -- much of it is driven by blogs and things on the internet that was mentioned. there is no way to guarantee that they are being factual. that is part of that fragmentation and the polarization.

i did not know. i grew up in an era where you had three networks, and did they set about the samehing. -- they said about the same thing. as a republican, i thought there were slanted to the rht, i am sure -- -- democrats thought there re slated to the right. if you are democrat, you watch something else. if you are republican, you watch fox. i do not know how we stifle the freedom of the press. i do not know if we can do tt. i think it goes back to teaching students the importance of understanding democracy and government and the roles of citizens to play in that and to be more objective. i never thought about the comment that the governor made about debating and learning both sides. i always thought. i was not all lawyers. i always appreciate it that lawyers have that ability, much

better than those who did not go to law school, but that is an interesting suggestion. theres the two sides to every story and we appreciate both sides. >> i would like to follow with that. when i was governor, i thought differently than -- i covered pretty much from the center. worked with both parties. i did not think the partisanship was anywhere near as bad at the state level is back in washington. i think it is beginning to lot over into the state or reno, -- to lop over into the state. it kind of spills over into the state arena, and with these districts the way they are drawn, but you have to go to the right as a republican and go to the left as a democrat. one senator in a way to dealt with being able to carry

concealed weapons into bars and restaurants and the other dealt with expanding the battle against abortion and restricting consentges could wavaive of parents before a child gets an abortion. the third dealt with prohibiting illegal immigrants and receiving worker's compensation. i think it can be distracting from some of the real issues that state governments are facing. >> i would say that, in addition -- policy is complicated. we hate to admit that, but on the national level, if you take the health care debate. people just to pieces of it and blew that up. and the whole program was not ever fully explained to the public because each side just extricated what they hated or what they loved. so i think the public education

process got lo iand the media did not look -- do a good job of looking at a whole and what its real impact would be on the american public. i think, in addition to policy issu being dissected and blownn out of proportion, i think wt is most frightening is the personal attacks that can go viral. somebody mentioned something on the blog. how many people pick that up? it's on the national press and the networks. once it gets into the body of public consciousness, even if there are denials and evidence to the contrary, it never goes away. the danger of that as it keeps good people away from ever entering public life. >> that was a good example. one less quick thought -- last quick thought. i do not like what is happening. i think it is bad for the

political system, but i do not despair entirely because constantly throw the political process, the technology of the elections and of getting information out changes. i remember when the first really targeting voters based on computer statistical analysis of almost being able to tell almost precinct by precinct but block bylock where the vote would be and so on, i remember the robo calls had come out and to be able to target those as well. and remember bill clinton put a robo call in for me in the african american community where he was very popular. i watch the impact on campaigns and policies and i think there is real danger as you said, but i watch someone like barack obama step up and turn that into a powerful tool through their campaign. urgee f the reason he search

the public without anyone notices -- and 31 years, i wished i could give one speech like he does -- he was able to capture that and become a different type of candidate. i think there were always e a ttle bit of all lag, but those involved in policy i believe will catch up and i think that is where we have to look at what is the next step in catching up. >> i am with the university of illinois a springfield. in my time here i have had the opportunit to interned at the general assembly where i served as a staff analyst for the house republicans. i was wondering what recommendations he would give as far as the working relationship between staff and those in academia. >> again, i goack to what i said earlier. you need to identify the key

staffers. there is no doubt that that is probably the first -- the first person i suggest the academic community contact in staffers. that could lead you to have an "in" with the key elected officials. they need to know you have information. you will not have an agenda. you want to provide anthem information. if republicans ask you and want to justify something to the right, provide them the information. if they are democrats, give them the unfettered information, but ain, you develop that trust and experience. but i do think the academic community and the various 8 -- the institute -- i know we talked about it many times. who arehe key staffers. get them over to theniversity, get them acquainted with what you have the offer. most elected officials, they

like to come and talk at the university. there it is status and that, even though we might, in politics, question the egghead. there is still a status if you are viewed as someone who can talk in the academic community. i think there are ways you can get those staffers and those elected officials to the campus to get them aware of what you have to offer and then be sure you deliver the type of services they need. >> i think it varies -- speaking from a small state of vermont, i had a real awakening when i worked in washington where the staff does very much often control the decision making process. i think on democratically so. in vermont, we do not have a huge staff, so working with the legislators is the best thing. i would commend you on the

concept of internship. i think that is something that should be expanded, should be may be required. i do not know what your response has been it to the experience, but from my experience working with internes and seeing how they grow and learn, one of the ways we store up faith in the political process, not always but hopefully most of the time, is when people see these are a human beings. they are not those cartoon characters or caricatures, but you know, most of them tried to do a good job. and i think that exposure first into the political system is the best way we can educate students like you. >> i hate to mention is d word called lobbyist. heaven forbid that places like universities might have lobbyists, but they all do.

they all have government affairs persons whose job it is to bridge that gap, and i think that would be a very good conduit for bringing together staffers or legislators and academics. at kind of help you need? could you want to meet? that is what the government affairs people are there to do, to be of service. they are trying to build relatiooships, too. i think policy people and legislators -- they can be linked to experts in academia. >> hi. i'm from uc sa diego. i'm a political scientist, but every year i have the privilege of training tend tooscientists who work in the california leslature. last year, a physicist came to talk in orientation and said when you talk to officials you have to be one-handed. you cannot say one hand but on the other hand.

you have to have won a clear view of what science tells you. i was wondering what you thought about that advice? do like one-handed or two-handed scientists? [laughter] >> he wanted a one-handed economist. i think, again, it goes back to -- you have to give, often there is more than one answer. the same time you need to direct your information in a way they can walk away when they have an idea about what they can or cannot do. so, i would think maybe also give your recommendation at the en there might be different points of view but this is from my experience, what i think, in my study what i think. they can decide whether to listen to that or not. i think that is fair. i think that would be helpful to them to get what you think is the right solution. >> politicians hate uncertainty.

we see this with a global climate change debate is a prime example. and they equate any accounts of uncertaiy with, well, it does not exist. and i think public policy people do not have a lot of knowledge about science, but we have to make decisions that affect people's health and safety, for example. is a nuclear power plan safe? when it should it be shut down? very complex questions. we still have to make that decision. one of the hardest things is to get objective, scientific information. you can get it from the nuclear industry or you can get it from the anti-nuclear people. supposedly the nrc is objective, but i think, again, it is a question that scientists have to, also, the interpreters of

scientific information in away that not only politicians but the constituents can understand that. so i think you can use both hands and you can have a certain amount of complexity and ambiguity, but somehow you have got to still have a point of vi and make it is clear and objective as possible. i do not know if that answers your question, but governors and legislators are faced with scientific questions. i am sure all of you -- whether water is drinkable, whether pesticides are dangerous, whether we should stop everything and really deal with climate change? and then the economic impacts. what decisionmakers have to deal with is not only what is right theoretically, but whether the consequences -- but what are the consequences of shutting down at eight nuclear plan or the

consequences of a gas tax -- shutting down a nuclear plan or the consequences of the gas tax. >> if i could and one other thought -- add one other thought. sometimes it is not really -- it sometimes is a matter of laying out what are the range of options that are really available? they may even be totally contradictory options. i remember when i was the county executive of prince george's county, a county at the time of about 850,000 people, about 65% african-american, 20% hispanic and asian, and then there was me. [laughter] but we had in the late 1980's when i was county executive, two major issues. one was, in the county that was that diverse the police force

was still about 80% white male, and quite candidly, there were numerous instances of police brutality, excessive force and so on. there was one but to rely -- particularly, totally unjustified case or remember. the bigger issue becam what are our options? how you establish trust with the community. ? then it became complicated, eve more so, because right at this time there was a massive outbreak of crack-cocaine- related crimes of violence. so when you are sitting as county executive and we were at the center of the washington metropolitan area, even more so than district of columbia, you are sitting there and saying, what are my options? you get people from saying massive police presence.

lock them up, throw them away. to others talking about intervention programs.+ some saying, get people off the street. others saying, no. it is about a more organized basis. it is about education. no, it is about enforcement. just to have the layout of options. wended up going with community policing and a mandatory voluntary retirement. i know it sounds oxymoron it, but that is what we did come up with in the police department to make change. when i first started lking at it, i did not know what all the options wer i am not all law enforcement experts. i am not a police administrator. even laid out -- even when there was in direct competition, was a very helpful to me. the university of maryland, the law enforcement institute there,

was one of the sources we relied on for this type of information. >> i am from the university of alabama. my question is this -- in the past 10-20 years or so, we have seen a proliferation of eight think tanks at the state level. my question for you is this -- what do think these think tanks could do to be more effective and what do think they could do to be more helpful to you in your roles as governor? >> i want to address the question, because i am not quite sure, but i would also make -- there are think tanks and there are think tanks. but when i say it that way, a lot of so-called think tanks are, in fact, major advocacy groups funded resources to change public policy, a very

specific policy. or the national level, the cato institute, the heritage foundation. these are not really, truly think tanks. these are well funded advocacy groups. on the other hand, there are groups -- they may have a more progressive or conservative philosophy -- that our great resources. i think of the brookings institution it for example. and there were included with ohio and the challenges of which is facing with the collapse of their -- of the economy. just because it says it is a think tank, it may be something else in disguise. >> in ohio, i'm aware of two think tanks that are not that well funded, but one is coming more from the right and what one is coming from the left.

one is funded by conservative, some business folks, primarily, i imagine. the other is funded by organized labor. you can really see that in the products they produce. they still may have helpful information. you can sift through the information and pullout something useful to come up common ground or solve a problem, where they may highlight an issue that needssto be addressed, but you really have to take it with a grain of salt. i think it was always frustrating to me as governor that there were not more objective the sources of detailed analysis about state policies on which i could rely. >> i think that is where the academic community could play a very important role, because i think we may not like the information it -- we view it as they have an ax to grind. i think also the academic community needs to be careful with their funding comes from, that they do not become an

advocate for whoever is funding. i think it underscores the importance of the academic community to provide this type of information in the public policy arena. >> i am from springfield. people do actually live here. i am a retired academician from the siu school of medicine. but i am worried about the extrem polarization we are seeing at the state and national levels, and this seems like a good opportunity for third parties to seecome in. however, the middle, which we

suppose some third-party candidates would come from, are they so disenchanted that they have given up on the political process, and do you think it states will make it easier for third parties to play a part in the political process? >> i d not think so. our history of third parties has not been, at least in modern history, very successful. i do think the pressure from third parties on the two major parties can be interesting. of coue now we have the two- parea party. the jury is still out whether it will be a sepate party are part of the republican party -- or part of the republican party. an interesting place to look is great britain, where for the

first time you have a coalition government, the first time in 80 years, with the new democrats and the conservatives. and we were in england about a week ago, and all the taxi drivers were totally informed on this new phenomena and pretty excited about it. i thought to myself, could this ever happen here, could we ever had such a coalition? i cannot quite picture i.it. but i would hope that those who get disenchanted with the polarization will go into the existing system and moderate it. it is a really relatively recent phenomena that the parties do not spk to each other. i mean, you really do not have civil discussions anymore. they want to attack before they

know the facts. and i think we just have to get people to run for office under those party labels who bring a different approach. now, this may be pie in the sky thinking, but i think it is healthy toave diverse opinions on pushing the parties in different directions, but i do not see a real third-party having the efficacy of the major parties. >> i do not think i've ever seen a third party that comes from the middle. usually the third party comes from one extreme or the other and puts the emphasis on it. i'm a great believer in the two- party system. i am not real excited about having some minor party being able to hold a government hostage, like in some european or in israel in happens. one of the genius of the american system is the two-party system.

even if you had a change in party, he did not have a 180 degree change in the way the country went or the way the states when. we have seen more of a polarization which i think undermines the effectiveness of a two-party system. i would echo whatovernor kunin said, get involved. work within the parties and try to get them to reach consensus and not go off to the right or the left. >> hello. my name is jame. s. and i am a general citizen. >> the most important person here. >> supposedly. as a person of my age -- i am in my latt 20s, early '30's -- how is it that we can communicate to you as a legislative bodies our

interests? because it seems like things get modeled up with private interests, lobbyists, things like that. personally, i am actually -- i live in arona. i, myself, i am not a supporter of the legislation that went through earlier. i think that is something that is not representative of the entire state of arizona, either. i think there is a serious lack of trust, serious lack of doubt, that our will, our ideas, and our communications with you are actually being followed through on. what comments you have on that and what is the best way we can communicate to you what our will is as the general populace? >> >do not underestimate your own power and organize. that would be my second answer.

you as a single voice have some power, but if you can organize a like-minded souls and form coalitions with other people, who may come from a slightly different place but could agree with you fundamentally, then you gather strength. you know, this country changes very quickly. it really goes through rad swings on issues like immigration. and there have been substantial soal and political change. and it only happens when people speak up. it only happens when people fight for and are passionate about it. you take the gay rights movement. 10 or 15 years ago, that had no clout. they were voiceless. while it differs dramatically from state to state, in vermont,

we passed civil unions and gay marriage by the legislature. overrode the governor's veto. i did not think tt would of been possible. it was a grass-roots activism that reach the voice of the public. he will not get everything you want. it will not get it right away. but, if you are persistent and passionate, you'd be surprised what happens. >> i would reinforce one quick point on that. politics is indeed a group process. i teach a course on parties that really emphasize first of all, the major role for parties and the major role for two parties. but it is a group process. coming together as a group is really the way you have the most influence. most of the people, and especially by the time you get to be governor, are pretty good -- have a pretty good feel for

the pulse of the community. they do not get there without having this. i have seen is some come from total scientific polling, electronic our reach, toome level good intuitive feel of what is going on. in every case, the real effectiveness comes down to roots. and even the lobbyists that are so perverting the system at the national level, in addition to the influence of money, one of the things they normally try to bring to the table is the claim maivepresenting organizations. i think it needs to be counterbalanced by good groups at the local level. the passion i've spent the last decade on has been the effort against sprawl, the

sustainability and environment issues. what i find in state after state is that groups are coming together demanding a lot of change. in ohio, there is half a dozen groups now that have formed statewide coalitioos -- greater ohio, i think it is called. even while the nonsense of the immigration law was going on, at the same time the voters were voting to oppose the tax on themselves to support mass transit in the state. and what happened there? the transit advocates were really well organized. it was a great campaign, a brilliant campaign. they came in as a group. on one hand, youave the state legislature headinghe is one way on limmigration. on the other hand, you had the people talking about additional taxes to support mass-transit, in the opposite direction.

butt that was a very well organized effort. we work with them a little bit. it happened, by the way, in a half-dozen different states. it is the group process that is really affected. >> on that particular issue, i would suggest you reach out to attorneys the present emigrants, because they may be already kind of organized, try to figure out strategies, putting out an effort to change the law. >> even as an individual, there is no doubt you are much more effective as part of a group. it is not just campaign money. in the indeed, it is of vot. if the group has a lot of folks and that means a vote, they have as much clout as people with the money, because that is what used the money for, to get votes. as an individual, you still can have an impact. i have spent a little time in arizona. you can go to a legislative hearing or a candidates night.

there is not a big crowd. maybe there will be more this year because of immigration. there are very few people that show up. one person showing up that is well informed and state their position in a very effective manner can have an impact. the other thing, you'll find that the elected officials, their hearing works a lot better during the campaign season. i know that for my own personal experience. so do not underestimate the value of going to a can of its night and standing up, being informed in a very -- go into a candidate's night, standing up and being informed. most elected officials, if there will be successful, they will work really well during the campaign. some people wait until a bill is on the floor of the house or the senate. it's too late then. there's too much going on. you can have an impact, even as an individual. if you can get a group together, there is no doubt that is more effective. >> i have one more question.

in addition to working for your particular issue, we also work for campaign finance reform, because it does need a level playing field. the ordinary citizen does not have the same clout, even though we hav given you this advice which we believe will help, but until we can reverse the recent supreme court decision b congressional action and have some serious campaign finance reform, individual voices do not have the same volume as those with the big dollars. >> i will have to jump in and say -- and the individual can spend any amount of their own money, too. he d not have a level playing field. i do not think there is some of the other -- i do not thi some of the other limitations work. but anyway. >> one last question.

>> good evening. i am alderman in springfield. i had the pleasure of working in governor edgar's administration. was one of his staff people that suggested, what i was age 24, that i should think about going into politics. it was not until i was 51 that i actually began to think about it. as i thought about it, it was a very daunting task because i had never worked on a campaign. i had never experienced running in an election. so i just kind of stepped out very cold. most of the political pdits did not give me very good chances of winning, but i did the old fashioned way. i knocked on a lot of doors.

to this day, i still have a diffult time asking people to donate to a fundraiser. all that said, in in terms of -- in terms of minorities and women getting into politics, howoes that happen if you do not have an opportunity or classes that actually teach you how to become a part of the political proce if you are not political, so to speak? if you are not running, i mean, involved in helping to run campaigns? because i thinkhere is a disconnect. from the time i was in the governor's administration until the time i decided to run, i was very busy. i was raising a daughter. i was working.

and it was not until she went off to college that i said, this is the time i can do this now. >> so your question is? >> how we get more women --? >> how do we do it? >> you did it. i think you'll be our role model for others. what classot ask, do i take to run for office? [laughter] women are hard on themselves and very specific. i have to know everything. i have to pass the test. there is no test. there is no classic for running for office, except working for a candidate, volunteering. and as you observed in the edgar administration, you saw government at work, which is the best class you can te.

i wrote a book. when in more than men often have to be asked to run. thee have to put themselves affforward and say, hey, i'm great. vote for me. sometimes the women that varies from one part of the country to the other are not in the loop as to who will be the kennedy, o denominate. so you at -- will be the candidate who denominate? you have to be in the room. they are still in the tradition of the smoke-filled room. men self-identify. they enjoyed themselves. women, most women -- anytime you generalize there are exceptions, like sarah palin it -- but most women have to have somebody else say, you are good. . .

the portraits on the walls. when i was first elected, one of my way of calls is i walked into the executive office of the governor, and all these somber mailed portraits of things like ebenezer -- [laughter] i felt the portraits stilts. what is she doing here? here?

minorities are often newcomers to historical establishments. it is how we form our pictures in our minds of what they should look like. the importance of women and people with different life experiences regardless of gender is that we bring different experience into the decision-making process. that sometimes changes not only the questions that are asked, but how they get answered. >> i hope you all agree with me that this nation is very well served by having four former governors of the quality that we saw tonight. [applause]

>> in a few moments, members of congress mark the anniversary of the start of the korean war. in a little less than an hour, discussion of the economy and whether there will be a double- dip recession. after that, we look at how the gulf oil spill is affecting one community and looking at how they prepare for a terrorist attack. a discussion of summer nutrition programs for children with the president of the food research and action center. jeanne allen focuses on charter schools and government policies and a plan to alleviate homelessness. live on c-span every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the c-span video library has every c-span program from 1987,

but did you know that includes every author who has appeared on booktv and our own in-depth programs? is booktv, your way. >> learn more about the highest court from those who have served on the bench. reid c-span's latest book. candid conversations with all the insiders, providing unique insight into the court, now available in hardcover and as an see both -- ebook. >> three u.s. representatives, charles rangel, coble, and john conyers. this lasts about 50 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> good morning. today we are here to remember those who perished in the conflict. please stand for the presentation of the colors.

>> ♪ 0, say can you see by the dawn's early light ♪ was so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming ♪ ♪ whose bright stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ over the ramparts we watched were so proudlvaliantly streami♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ is approved through the night

that our flag was still there -- gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ jose does that star spangled banner yet wave yetoh -- oh, say does that star spangled banner yet wave for the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing. >> let us pray. the internal lord god who loan spreads out the heavens, we gather on prayer and rigid we gather in prayer on this 60th anniversary of america's forgotten war, to seek your blessings. bless the families of the fallen as well as the shrinking for of aging korean war veterans. remind them and their families that you have kept a record of their sacrifices.

bless the korean people, whose peninssla was cut in half along the 38 parallel. ease the current tensions, and bring reconciliation and coexistence. hasten the day when the barriers that divide north and south korean will be overwhelmed by the forces that unite. lord, you have not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of perseverance. allow the light of your troops to shine and spread, to restore and he'll -- heal, to eliminate

and rebuild. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, the hon. charles rangel. [applause] >> madam speaker, i cannot thank you >> i cannot thank you the not for making sure this great nation of ours has the opportunity to thank some of hae that it is not us that you yonor -- and we humblin

acknowledge that it is not test that you honor. we can talk about america and what happens when that flag goes up and everything that we believe in is a part of that flag. those of us that went to korea did not o there just as members of the marines are part of the navy. we went there as americans. the only color that we knew was the flag. it was read. it was white. it was blue. it represented everything that we were and everything that we hoped to be. and so for the families that really made the sacrifice as they lost their loved ones, some

came home not to be forgotten, but sometimes not even to be remembered. we thank you for taking this time to pay tribute to all of the young men and women to went to a far distant place. i was 20 years old in the barracks of four los, washington in 19 -- of fort lewis, washington in 1950. someone said that the u.s. was going to korea to stop a police action that would stop the communist takeover of korea. i had no idea where korea was, but i was so anxious to get out of fort lewis. [laughter] a police action actually sounded pretty attractive. but when we got there, we understood that here was a democracy that was being invaded by the communists.

here was a place that communist china thought was so important to them. it was not only until we left and saw the land that had been flattened out that the hopes and aspirations of the korean people made a democracy that the old world and the region respected. in terms of being america's friends, they have not forgotten. i would ask my korean-american friend from york who never stopped saying thank you to please stand and if they do for coming down here, not to celebrate, but to remind us that your great nation is our greatest partner, a great trading partner, and we thank you for your friendship. in conclusion, i would say that, if you know anybody -- because we have reached that ge where there are not that many of us left -- that you could just walk up to and say thank you, we'll understand.

we understand that is not just for our sacrifice, but our bodies and their friends that we left in south korea, many who were taken as prisoners, many who died in that prison. it was an honor to serve with howard coble. john conyers was a young officer in korea and of course, sam johnson never stopped defending his country, whether it was korea or vietnam. of course, senator specter was prepared to go korea on this day, but our leadership in the house and the senate created this opportunity for us to think our korean friends, in a very special thank you to our korean angels who i hope you'll be able to see perform and provide the spirit and we will

be able to say "god is good." [speaking korean] [applause] >> united states representative from north carolina, the hon. howard coble. [applause] >> thank you. it is tough to follow you charlii. i've made no significant contribution to the war effort. the good news is that south korea continues to be a friend and ally. the bad news is that north korea continues to be a threat, upon which we must maintain a consistent and sharp lookout. i appreciate the presence of the democratic and republican leadership. i appreciate as well the presence of all of you who took time to be here to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the

korean war. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, united states representative from michigan, of the hon. john -pconyers, jr. [applause] >> to my leaders in the congress, that my colleagues, friends from literally all over the world, arm service members, present and former, and all those gathered here for the 60th anniversary, this is an experience in everyone's life in the service that goes into an

active area of military engagement that transforms their lives. their philosophy and their attitudes toward change. -- are changed. i, too, was that washington. we would wake up in the morning and the battalion had been moved out and everything was gone where the barracks were. they had been shipped off overseas to korea. the thing that i will never forget is that some of my classmates at fort lewis, at the biltmore engineering school, i never saw them again after that

graduation. many of them were shipped to korea never to return. i was among the lucky ones. i dedicated myself because of that military experience to the question of force and diplomacy in our foreign policy activities. it is my deepest believe, as martin luther king, jr. said, jobs, justice, and peace, if you had to sum up the career and life and legacy of the one person that influenced me, with all due respect to other influences, more than any other person i have ever met, known, and worked with.

on the question is how do you get the peace? it seems more clear to me a that you cannot get to peace without a full employment plan, without justice, which includes economic and political justice, and then you can inch toward peace. funny, in these several thousand years, we are still struggling toward that objective. and so, it can be said that a military presence and force is sometimes still required. now, as a legislator, privileged among the 535 men and women in a

nation of 350 people to be a part of making laws and guiding the destiny of what i think is unquestionably the greatest government and nation in recorded history, in terms of accomplishments and power, we are in a peculiar and challenging situation. how do we make sure that there were not only no more koreas, , and anyre vietnams of the other wars?

some are military actions within countries that make it more difficult for us to determine what to do. how do we make in this grand idea of an organization that contains all of the 232 nations on the planet earth, 6.4 billion men and women, scores of nationalities and religions and races and creeds? to make, to be able to serve with my colleagues here being honored, it is a reminder today

that it should and could be the goal all of us if we are to make the that we'll understand opportunity and the challenge at this moment and on this day. i am so honored to be here with all of you. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the united states senator from pennsylvania, the hon. coral inspector. [applause] -- the hon. arlen specter. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i remember june 25, 1950 the vividly. i was one of 2000 rotc cadets that checked into the air force

base to fulfill a six-week training obligation between our third and fourth years in college. and there we were, 2000 of us, in khaki, and the war had just started. the conclusion throughout the barracks was backed we would e -- was that we would be on our way to korea. we were already in uniform. but that was not to be. we were sent back to college because they wanted to win the war. [laughter] i spent two years stateside as a special agent with the office of special investigations. i have a deep reverence for veterans which arises from the

first veteran i knew, my father, harry spector, a russian immigrant who served in world war one and was wounded in action. in the tough days of the depression, he was looking for to the $500 bonus promised by the united states government to world war i veterans. the government broke the promise, not in an unusual way. i believe it is hard to figure out motivations and the have become interested in coming to washington to get my father's bonus. that is a figure of speech. as we focus on the events of the day, what is happening in afghanistan, what is happening

in iran, i believe we ought to renew our efforts in a very intense way at negotiations with a little different tone as we approach our adversaries around the world. it has been acknowledged that you do not make haste -- you don't make peace with your friends. you make peace with your enemies. the north koreans among others with more dignity and more respect. koreansited the north ambassador at the united nations in 2007. there is no investor here. i said, "how can we have better relations?" he said, "you can start by being a little more courteous and understand our position." but how do expect us to respond when you have warships off the

coast? you call a zero nation. you have overhead satellites watching your every move. -- watching our every move. those things are necessary, regrettably. but it has caused me to rethink how we conduct our foreign relations. i think that negotiations are not a lost cause with anybody. if you can bring khaddafi, the worst terrorist in the history of the world, into the family of nations, we ought to keep trying with countries even like north korea. that would put us in a position, hopefully, one day, not to have 7500 of our troops in south korea, given the obligations and commitments that our nation has and the grave difficulties we face with the deficit.

as yet, we have not been able to conference a supplemental appropriations bill. so today is a good day for a little reflection, a good day to pay tribute to the men and women who served in the korean war and all of the wars wwich have provided the freedom for this country. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the republican leader of the united states house of representatives, the hon. john boehner. [applause] >> madam speaker, my fellow leadership colleagues, my colleagues, honored guests, welcome to all of you. first, i would like to thank the previous speakers for their service. it of always good to hear my

good friend charlie rangel tell his stories about the korean war. i also want to thank my colleague sam johnson who is a real hero, having flown some 60 two missions of of the skies of korea. 60 years ago today, koreans world -- korean soldiers crossed the parallel that started a war that technically has not ended. the cease-fire of july 1953 ended a bloody struggle that made korea the main battlefield of freedom against communist tyranny. reports of that invasion 60 years ago or still burned in the memories of many americans, just like the news of pearl harbor. even president truman and his military leaders were surprised as they had little reason to expect an invasion on this front

during the cold war. but they responded quickly. they put in place the leaders, the troops, the ships and fighters and bombers and tanks and everything needed to face the communists and say, "this far and no further." america was joined by 21 allies to preserve south korean as the from line of democracy and freedom. in the end, 628,000 allied soldiers gave their lives in the struggle, including 36,000 americans. we remember them today. there is an image that captures exactly why the sacrifices made in that war were justified. if you go to the google birth, you can pull up a satellite image that shows the world as it

appears that night from a satellite. the pictures of the korean peninsula are very striking. south korea is lit up like the east coast of america. when you look north, it is pitch dark. there are no lights. that is because there is no freedom. communist dictators have ruled the north koreans with an iron fist, content to watch their people starve and weather. north korea's actions in recent months only underscore that the regime remains a threat to the region. we must a vigilant for north korea as we have every day in the last 60 years. korean war memorial opened here on the mall in 1985. it is one of the more distinctive memories in washington. on a plaque, these words are

inscribed. "our nation honors our sons and daughters who answered a call to defend a country they never knew and people they never met." of today, we remember those events of 60 years ago. we recall the tenacity of the south korean people and we honor those americans who have lost their lives defending their countrr. made their sacrifices -- may their sacrifices be a never- ending reminder that freedom is not free. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the majority leader of the united states house of representatives, the hon. steny hoyer. [applause] >> madam speaker, my distinguished colleagues, leader

reid, leader mcconnell, leader boehner, heroes who served for all of us when i was a child, i thank you for your service. charlie rangel is a hero hours and all those who fought and died and who were wounded and came back our heroes of hours. i want to make knowledge those of you to wear the uniform today, who wore it the successors to those we honor 60 years later. thank you for your service and thank all of the hundreds of thousands that you represent and everyone of the branches of our armed services. to this day, like those in korea 60 years ago, you keep us safe.

give them our love and respect and let them know that not only do we remember the korean conflict, as it is euphemistically referred to, but we remember them this day, this hour as they served in harm's way. [applause] we have heard the korean war called the forgotten war. i would ask, "forgotten by home?" not by the americans to start and shivered through the korean winter, not by a the people who love to the 37,000 who never came home, and not by history. that puts the korean war at the start of a half a century struggle to shift, to spread -- to check the spread of communist

tyranny. it is a war that sits uneasily in our memory. it is because it was a war of shifting games and uncertain and. -- shifting aims and uncertain anends. it was a war that went on and on and on. that is all the more reason for us to remember today. the war cannot out with a justice of its purpose for the heroism of those who fought it. we find reasons not to forget. whenever we look at the satellite photographs that john boehner show correctly pointed out, as those satellites crossover that korean peninsula, they see the darkness of dictatorship and the holy light

of freedom dramatically displayed on that peninsula. it was american lives that kept thinklights politalive and we our south korean friends for remembering this day and every day. whenever we look to the faces of our veterans and hear their insurers, we cannot and must not forget. -- and hear their stories, we cannot and must not forget. their memory will last forever. with that resolve, they will be remembered much longer than that. god bless our country that is blessed so well by those who had the courage to serve in danger's

hour. [applause] %> ladies and gentlemen, republican leader of the united states senate, the hon. mitch mcconnell. >> i mentioned a couple of years ago to my friend charlie rangel , the book "the coldest winter," if he had read it. i am paraphrasing his response, which was essentially, "once was enough." it was an extraordinarily difficult conflict. today, we honor the men that fought that war on some of the worst train and the most challenging conditions that american workers have ever seen.

we remember the assault on and on. most of all, we remember the men who fought, for their courage and their sacrifices in defending freedom against their enemies. many of these men work already heroes who had fought the nazis, fascists, and the japanese just a few years earlier in world war ii. they came from places like oklahoma, kentucky. lieutenant commander john and was one of them. he was a football star and he served in both wars and he gave his life for his country on march 9, 1951. for his valor, he posthumously earned the navy cross. three years ago, he earned a permanent place in the aviation hall of fame. sometimes we fight wars with the

outcome causes people to wonder whether it was worth it. yet nowhere is the contrast between freedom and oppression more apparent than on the korean peninsula today. the korean war is on display 60 years after the men we honor today endured that brutal fight. the people of north korea have endured a dismal level of fear and want for entirely too long. courageous american men and women are still fighting battles against fear and oppression in places like iraq and afghanistan. in honoring the veterans of the korean war, we also honor them. the struggle to defeat al qaeda and the taliban are difficult. they have made great sacrifices. many of the lessons in korea remain relevant today. in his classic book on the

subject, a writer said that communists understood that the united states had the will to react quickly. and the american people learned that the post-world war was not the place they had hoped it would be. we disregard the communist threat only at extreme peril. the same could be said about al qaeda today. this is why u.s. forces are hard at work whether it is the example of the soldiers who fought in korea or those that fight today, america's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines give us of the reason to believe that the day that all people can enjoy freedom. in a dangerous world, they give us hope and they deserve our

profound thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, majority leader of the united states senate, the hon. harry reid. [applause] >> as it has already been noted, america's sacrifice in korea deserves a more prominent place in our consciousness. we come together today to prove the cliches and the conventional wisdom wrong, to prove that this war is not forgotten, to share the stories that keep the memory alive. the stories i know about korea are many, but center around my friend michael callahan. other than my wife, i have never

had a close friend. he was my high school teacher. he was my mentor. he taught me how to box in the ring. he helped me to get to and through law school. we serve their stick together. and is nevada's governor am indiana's lieutenant governor. before any of that, mike served this country as a marine, a member of the nine states airforce, and a member of the and and states army so that he could see combat in korea. he became a platoon leader. he became a sgt. like every hero of that war, his cause was not fame. it was freedom. in the bitter cold winter of 1952, what has been called the world's coldest war, but e ran

headfirst into enemy fire and brought back his men from the trenches. with mortar round and other rounds hitting his group, his left leg was hurt very badly. his hip was badly broken. but he kept going. he turned a telephone wire into a tourniquet. he took command of his unit and refused to leave before the emmy laughed. he took, silver stars for his courage and swell as a bronze star and a purple heart. he left behind his left leg. but that does not stop michael callahan. by the time the winter turned into summer, michael is back home, getting an education so he could teach kids like me. mike is not here today. he died six years ago.

but the courage of that six decades ago and my fellow warriors is very much present today. their heroism lives on in each of our honored guests here today. they will continue to live as long as we share them. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the hon. nancy pelosi. [applause] >> today, way markets solemn anniversary for our nation, for the people of the republic of korea and for the world. we honor those who fought with bravery and valor in the korean war. in the words of a resolution

passed in the house last week, we recognized the noble service and sacrifice of the united states armed forces and the armed forces of allied countries that served in korea. we are privileged to work alongside five korean war veterans who came home from the war and continued their public service in congress. we have heard from today from john conyers, chairman wrangler, sam johnson, who has been reference and is a great american hero, and senator arlen specter. we are honored to be joined by the former speaker of the house. he is the chair of the korean 60th anniversary memorial committee, speaker dennis caster. dennis, thank you. [applause] byythe chief of staff of the u.s. army, general george

casey, general, will come and thank you for being with us and for your service to our country. and the ambassador of the republic of korea, welcome to you and your distinguished delegation. the korean war, as has been said, has often been called the forgotten war. but today and every day, we must remember them and their full measure of devotion. all of our veterans deserve our respect and admiration as we honor our korean veterans. the story of the korean war is a story of heroism and selfless acts of patriotism. at the memorial day concert, this year, we heard the moving story of private first class charlie johnson who gave his life saving nine others. as one fellow soldier carried by johnson to safety later

recounted, there were not many men who made it out off of that hill. if charlie had not been there, i do not think any of us would have made it. mary white hester, a flight nurse, she volunteered for the air force and became a flight nurse, tending to the wounded and caring for the injured. her story is the story of many women who served honorably in the korean conflict. lieutenant colonel frank mercy, two years ago, he met a man born in a small town in south korea he is now -- in south korea. he is now a researcher at mit and he thanked the colonel saying that his life is only possible because of the american soldiers who fought in korea. the offensive continues. these are stories of commitment, passion, and courage, of men and women who serve because that is what the country asked them to do.

hearing my colleagues, leader boehner and leader hoyer, talking about the picture of the satellite of the brilliance of south korea by night and ho dark and never been free and light is in north korea, that picture is reflected on the ground in north korea as well. i had the occasion to visit some years ago on an intelligence visit. while i had seen the overhead and we continue to see it, the contrast only grows greater over time. we saw on the ground the same thing in the faces of the people. in seoul and south korea and other places there, the vitality and the entrepreneurial spirit, the sparkle, the industry, the children are so alive. in pyongyang, where we visited,

the capital of north korea, there was a poverty of spirit, a dullness, the propaganda machine network. what we saw in our hotel room or films, newsreels -- were films, newsreels of american soldiers in north korea. that is what they showed the north korean people over and over again, americans in north korea appeared that was their excuse for not having enough food for the people because the americans could be coming anytime so they had to keep the food for the military and their people are starving. leader mcconnell referenced the difference between freedom and communism and it is very clear there, as clear as that overhead

picture. others have mentioned, it's on the korean war memorial, our nation honors her sons and daughters who answered the call to defend the country they never knew and people they'd never met. this same spirit of duty and devotion to the cause of freedom of lives in the service of service members and veterans to this day. it is the greatest legacy of the people who stood on the korean war front lines. their colleagues have the metal and the shrapnel to prove it. today, we have a chance to sacrifice once more. we pledged to never forget them. we recall everything that they did for the american people and what they have achieved for peace and liberty around the world. general casey, every day, americans are blessed by the men

and women in uniform who defend the home of the brave and of the land of the free. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, rev. daniel will deliver the benediction. >> shall we stand, please? dear god, we have not forgotten and we will not forget. bless all those we honor and remember today, especially those who have served in the military and their families in the korean war. less personally and reward greatly charlie rangel, john conyers, howard coble, sam johnson, arlen specter,

colleagues who we honor here today. they and their colleagues in this war have moments frozen in time and moments that melted, body and soul together, in sweat and blood. lord, we remember in this living moment the deeper hidden stories yet to be revealed as we recall pow's and m.i.a.'s, with so many fraid relationships and open wounds left behind. made their memory be a blessing to us today in a world for the universal concern of all those who are called prisoners of war, even in our day. made the longstanding stair and

patient attention of military forces across the 30th parallel -- 38th parallel, the demilitarized zone of this day, be a blessing to us presently. invite us again, lord, to recognize all of the invisible lines that create parallel lives separating families and a common culture and history. as we recognize and struggle with the differences of north and south and in so many parts of the world, bring unto us the healing of the past and hope for the future so that, with one voice, we can call you creator of all of us. and as free children of god, usher in a new era of reconciliation and peace.

amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. please remain in your seats for the departure of the official parties. all guests are invited to continue this commemoration e-b.

>> washington journal continues. >> our next guest joins us. he wrote a book, rebound, why america will emerge stronger from the financial crisis. also, the reason we have him on is a piece that he has in the new republic, morning is coming. four reasons why the economy will roar back to life. you say that first amongst those reasons is that you see an upturn in investment. >> there's no doubt about that. i think it is starting. the economy works by feedback loops. that is one company relies on someone, the demand from other workers. they get the other companies

hire people because they think they can sell their product. and investment has historically been what responds first in the downturn, so the downturn showed that we were down $600 billion, over 30%. and starting two quarters ago, investment starting to rise. in today's newspaper there's a report saying that for tune 500 companies have $1.8 trillion in cash. we're just making the initial moves, investment is up 15% from its bottom and i do believe that we will see it. it's going to take time. people are nervous. but once it starts going, it kind of feeds on itself. there's a positiie interaction of somebody invests, those workers create demand. someone else expands. >> so when you say investment, you're talking about equipment, jo. what kind of range are we talking? >> everything. investment has three major components. one is structures and

equipment. the other is actually computer hardware is considered a form of investment. and then residential investment is also a form of investment. the government has very little investment that it actually is considered expenses. so that's what's really down the most. inventories are also down. so we are right now very lean. and as soon as we get a ltle positive momentum, it should be able to take off. >> when everybody looks at an economy they'll look strictly at what we're doing. giezz your way, you're suggesting that there's more to look at when jobs being create. >> the data over the last month or even the lastears, there's really about ten bits of information that are released each week. so earlier in the week that had a lot of bad news, it showed that consumer spending was up. so i start the pce in the new republic with do a thought experiment 12 nths ago and think wre we would have been

today. most people were pretty negative. and everything week, somehow or another negative news sticks with you more. but every week i found about 7 to 8 positive and four to five negative. so i think the balance has been positive. it's dicey. it's weak because of the financial crisis undermined things but i do think that it's in place to take off. whether it will in the next few ppmonths or thereafter i think the end of 2001 there will be 5 million new jobs. jobs are the lagging indicator. in fact, in recession what iss we find is that companies use that opportunity to restructure and they often lay off people such that in this recession product tivity is up tremendously because companies are making due with less. but they have low inventories now, they have cash in hand, they haven't invested. we are clearly poised to take off. >> you talked about perception

and negative perception, there's an op ed in i think it's the "new york times" today and the bessism bubble. he says a similar mentality can take hold during downturn. >> i used the same comment when i read it this morning i had a little chuckle. i do think there's one study shown in badconomic times on the front pe of the newspapers negative news outnumbers positive news 8-1. and in positive times, negative news outnumbers positive news about the economy 6-1. it's basically gooze news is ring and -- good news is

boring. there are people being hurt. the people who have been laid off and the unemployed for those who have been six months, a year, year and a half, that's obviously something you can relate to. and but if you can care about it iteads. and all of these news, the positive events kind of you don't hear them as much. but if we look at history and we predict the future basically by looking at the past, the mark economic performance of the united states and all of western europe is pretty remarkable in the sense of pretty significant steady growth, interrupted by short and shallow recessin i mean, once you just remember that after world war ii japan and germany were devasted. their infrastructure didn't exist and now they're numr two and number three in the world. the economies in the modern era have really shown themselves to be able to grow such that in the late 1980s there was

another debate. remember when everyone was saying that japan was going to be number one and the value of tokyo real estate was more than all of california. and then lester surro, a depeen at mit was going europe was going be number two and we were going to be number three. and i said no the united states would likely be ahead of the convergence clubs. all of these countri seem to have high levels of living. that is the norm. we're going to return to the norm. the united states has ctain advantages. it's the largest integrated market, the dollar is the international currency, english is the language. our media sets the tone of culture. we have the, in terms of higher ed and especially graduate ed. our schools are by far the best. we have capital infrastructure. we also have at i like to say is the ability to chge such

that when microsoft came along, ibhired these two nobes to put their essential -- nobodies to put their essential programming ahead in their pc. that never would have happened in europe. and europe had a conference saying could microsovet, sissco, intel have happened in europe? and they agreed that it wouldn't primarily because people like to keep their relationships. where as in the united states venture cam talsm, try something new. >> we like to take risks. >> we like to take risks. and that's why we're going to get out of it. we're risk takers afplt and when you want to get out of a recession that's a good thing. >> the numbers will be on your screen. first call for our guest,

kansas, robert on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i've got a lot of friends that are out of work right now. i want to know where your economic rebound is at. i mean, we just had this big old disaster in the gulf. there's goes our gdp. where is the big economic rebound. tell me? guest: first of all, in the united states more than other countries, there's always a large number of people unemployed. now, there's no question in this recession that really caused us a decline dramatically in employment. we didn't go down much in gdp. now, personal consumption is actually at the level before the recession. but employment is a lagging indicator. there's a lot of pain out there. of the unemployed, a lot of them do rely on months and

months of unemployment insurance. but over half the unemployed are in a household with someone else working. this is not to undermine the real human tragedy of long-term unemploimtted. but i think we will see job growth. it's going to be slow. in 1982 when we had a recession with 10% unemployment, the economy rebounded faster. and about 400,000 jobs a month. i'm forecasting 250,000 jobs a months, because finance really is at the key of the economy and they made a series of crazy choices that really undermined the strength of the financial institutions. no one wanted to bail them out. they just felt that the alternative was worse. and i think it's been two years since the start of te recession and i do think that we will see growth in the future, slow at first, but it will gain momentum.

and i'm predicting that the unemployment rate will dip below 7% in the summer of 2012. host: is there research to suggest for those uneloyed, when they go back to work do they return back to salaries hey were used to? guest: people have different reaction. as people age, they tend to have a positive trajectory. what unemployment does is knks them down. a few of them respond but most will then jump to here and then they wilcatch up. but there can be 5 to 10 years of below their normal earnings. so it's tough to get back to what economists call job specific skills and seniority. so it's a disruptive event. host: south carolina, wess, go ahead. caller: good morning. so you say it's going to go down to 7% unemployment within

the next year? guest: summer of 2012. host: summer of 2012. so you're shoing for that. here's the thi that maybe you can comment on this. i think they had a great thing yesterday on c-span talking about american exceptionalism. and the entrepreneurship in this country is one of the strongest things we have going for us and the risk-taking too. but i think what's failing us right now is the political class. it seems like all these investors have made so much money. you look at the stock market. none of these guys have suffered a bit from this recession. the government is out there to bail them out. but now the political class comes back and you've been talking about jobs. and it seems like there seems to be one political class that is just going to block anything to help working people out. just in order to try to win another election. and maybe you can comment on how the politics affects the economy. i think the reason whyhere's so much pessism is not because

ggp numbers arep or down or anything like that but the sheer fact that so many of the people i know who even want jobs are on wic, food assistance. the jobs they have aren' paying. maybe you can comment on it. guest: everyo likes to blame the politicians and they are certainly a squabbling group. but this crisis, and i really think the depth of this crisis could only occur in finance, really had little to do with government. that is those in finance across the board made a series of risky bets because they were making a lot of money that were successful for a number of years and then they tushed around and then e-- turned around. it looked like the enomy was in free fall and could reach 20% unemployment. one should remember that the response to the crisis began with the bush administration. it was hank paulson who asked

for the $700 billion of tarp. it was them who set in motion a thing that was continued by the obama administration. the fed did a remarkable injection of currency. and i really do believe that stopped this from getting worse. so i really support it. i think the major mistake that obama made is when he first came in he saipass my stimulus bill and the unemployment rate will only go to 8.5 i think that set the wrong perception and underestimated the negative force of the economy. economies are like big ocean liners. they have a lot of momentum. in general this is a good thing. that's why we have had very moderate recessions. but once it gets disrupted and goes backwards, it's a bad thing because it tak a lot of time to get going. that's why my forecast are for 18 months out and 24 months out i can't predict the next few

months because it is still taking time. all the forces now are in ace. unemployment is a lagging indicator, and the pain in jobs and the pain of low earnings especially blue collar, less educated male workers is going to be around for a while. host: did the stimulus help? guest: yes. personally, i would like a little more stimulus, but i do think it's the $1.8 trillion that businesses are sitting on right now in investment that's down $600 billion and inventories that are down over $1 billion that can set off this rebound. that is, we are dependent on the private sector economy. we are a mixed economy as we find out with bp. we need all these government rules to keep it working. we made the mistake with financial deregulation. that is, we thought that no one would risk the whole health of their own companies. we thought no one could be tt stupid that they could bring

down a.i.g. and lehman brothers and would have brought down more if we didn't intervene. host: there's a piece in the post today. but it talks about worries of regulation, especially in light of an expansion by some c.e.o.s as far as the administration's expansion of authority, it said. is there some relevance there? guest: i think there's a little bit and i would prefer a different balance. but people like to complain, first and foremost. again, it is the sailions issue of they know what they don't like more than they know what they like. i don't think this administration is anti-business. the whole issue about health care, this is something that we've been trying to do since truman on and even nixon made efforts in this thing. this is like unfinished business and they felt that the politics, which right now, this is -- you know, again, it was an odd thing. they were so commited to it and they so underestimate it had depth of this recession. if they had toyota do it over

and thpolitics were different, they probably would have postponed it. host: steven rose teaches at jornlt and wrote this book, rebound, why america will emerge stronger from the financial crisis. . . caller: i am a card-carrying economist, a labor economist. i've been studying it for 30 years, and there are five passages in the book on what's

been happening to the wages, so all the data are there. i've been really involved in a lot of deabts on this stuff. but let's just look at the last few months. apple introduced the ipad. they sold a million units at $5 hundred apiece. "avatar" came out last year, and it set records at $14 a ticket. if you go into the suburbs, there are waiting lines at restaurants. the g.d.p. now on a per capita basis is 3% lower than before the recession. it is not down 15% to 20% as some think. that does not discount that there's real pain out there also. but the top 40%, and there was a new survey, gallup, the daily trackly poll of what they call the affluent people and how much they spend, and in the

last -- defined as households, and they control something like 45% of total income, and in their last survey, they found that the amount that they were spending was up 20% from a year earlier, and that's going to be the one that creates the demand fo businesses that have $1.8 trillion in cash, not lower income people that are going to drive the recession. it's going to be the upper income people to start with, the businesses that are going to invest, andhen they're going to hire for the medium and lower income. host: if those businesses are holding back cash, what do they need to see to put it out there and make it happen? guest: that's an interesting question. i want youo remember, you've been down this road 10 other times in the post-war period, and they knew how to respond. this oneas more disrupt timbings it's taking longer to grow back confidence, to start the positive momentum going. there are signs, as i said,

seven positives to four negatives. i think it's going to switch. it's not going to be in the next few moss, it's not going to be by the november election. i think this will be much stronger at the end of this year. and then 2011 is when you'll really see the positive momentum going forward 11 and 12 and on. host: florida is xt. caller: hi. good morning. host: yes. you're on. kathleen? caller: yes, hi. good morning, pedro. i'd like to ask your guest a couple of questions. when did he first decide to write this book? and, you know, i want to invite him to do it, could he answer me that? guest: sure. it's a financey story. i was actually wring a book -- as i mentioned to the last caller,y been doing data on the state of the middle class for the past 30 years, and i was

going to write about it not being as bad as some said, and the crisis came along. well, you couldn't write middle class is doing wonderfully in the middle of this crisis, so the book kind of marked about talking about first the crisis, and i pied the title for the book in march 2009 when the economy was going down at an annualized rate of 6% a year. i had that much confidence, and i wrote the book a year ago, and iinished it -- i finished it in the final gale in october 2009, but i came up with the argument in march 2009 because i was so confident that the future really does replay history. from 1945 to 007, it's e in which down turns are followed by rebounds. and i lay out in the book a lot of data on this. i lay out a history of the

financial crisis nd how it specifically happened and why it took us down, and i talk about the history from 1980 to 2010, which a lot of people think was a period of stagnation, and i argue that, two things. one is medium did not did not go negative, but it was up 30% from 198 to 2007, and i also argue that this notion of a shrinking middle class is true, that people in the middle of the income distribution are lower, but it's completely because people moved up. the share of adults in households was over $100,000 in income, and in inflation-adjusted terms, increased from 12% in 1980 to 24% in 2007. >> our producer has made the point that the healthy economy

is also related to banks lending. how does that factor into your thoughts on the strength of the economy, a bank's ability to le money? guest: obviously it's a tough plod. it's tough on two lels. the financial crisis set in motion affecting the real econom and then we had these negative feedback where somebody lays off, other people lay off. now, banks use other people's money. i mean, banks start with leverage, but they mainly use other people's money. obviously their capal cushion went away, with all the losses and all the bad investments and these instruments and all. it's a complicated story. they are rebuilding their balance sheet, it's still in process, number one. and number two, they' nervous about not doing -- i mean, lending money and not getting money back. so again, we're waiting for the positive interaction. it's not like it disappeared, it's just down. it's down significantly.

but as the interaction of the $1.8 trillion that companies are sitting on now, when they start to invest that, that will cause other companies to want to expand, to want to see banks, the business community better, and then they'll end with them. guest: but the consumer, you're going to probably see tougher credit, tougher loans to be had. how does that factor into the strength of the economy if, down at the consumer level, it's going to be harder to get that credit, get the loan, get the money in order to make those investments? guest: right. it actually isn't the consumer that's been the one that's dragged this economy down. if you remember, for those of you, one you might have heard, g.d.p. was consumption in investment. that's how we consume things at the end, so consumption, basically what's happened in the economy is investment tanks, government went up, and

consumer spending actually changed remarkably little in the middle of this recession, and right now it's at a level that is just slightly higher than it was before the recession, so the american consumer -- you know, our savings is probably more along the discussion about what that means, but the amerin consumers, when given a chance, are ready to spend. guest: brooklyn park, minnesota, janice on our democrats line. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you. my question is this -- how do you feel that the outcome of the midterm elections will affect either the improvement in the economy or maintain the stagnation? >> i don't think it's going to affect a whole lot one way or another. i mean, i think they've come to a kind of balance, equilibrium. as i said, i would prefer more

stimulusbut there are some republicans and moderate democrats that are not in favor of it. i don't think that's going to change. obama wi still be president. i don't think -- personally, i think that the democrats will lose seats, but i think they will stay in control. but it's a close thifpblg it's pretty hard to believe the democrats will lose the sena. so in terms of economics, i really don't see the election -- in tes of economics, i don't see the elections having a big effect on the economy. guest: ted in biloxi, stay on the line. you're coming up soon. oklahoma city, next, tony on our republican line, go ahead. caller: yes, my name's tony cook. i actually run top dog roofing out of oklahoma city. i'm from mobile, alabama. we was put out of business by the illegal workers in mobile, alabama. folks were firing. i get here to oklahoma, and folks won't hire us because we're out of towners. and then i call around to the local roofing companies, and they actually tell me they

don't hire american citizens. what are we going to do about that? i called our government and got nothing but the runaround. guest: obvusly immigration is a hot-button issue, being the son of two immigrants, i have certain feelings that immigration has served america very well, that we are a nation of immigrants, and the best studies show that immigrants have a slightly positive effect on the economy, but that positive effect is not across the board, that clearly there are people that there are certain jobs available, and if companies can hire cheaper people, they'll do it. so the overall effect doesn't negate the fact that a lot of people are losing their jobs in this tight economy, and that

creates the hot-button issue with the arizona law, etc. it's actual a relatively small point the economy as a whole, but if you're the one that's hurt by that, you're going to notice it. and if you have a president or a brother, you're going to notice it. again, it has to do with the negative news, you're going to remember those cases where people have been displaced, and you're not going see the skills and the other things that they do, and as far as i know, overall, the best studies show that immigrants have a positive effect, not tremendously economy, but a positive effect on the economy. specific until silicon valley is where they have a big positive effect, and about 20% to 25% of startups over the last 20 to 30 years had a person who went there, oftentimes graduate school, who stayed here and formed an intel, formed a google, and led to thousands of jobs being created. guest: biloxi is next. ted, go ahd.

you're on the line with stephen rose. caller: good morning, mr. rose. i have two questions. when i was young, our economy used to be based on primarily mafacturing. manufacturing was based on making a small profit on many, many, many items. our economy seems to be based on making a large profit on just a few items. driving the prices up, which eventually means that our wages no longer will cover, so we raise the minimum wage. that raised the minimum wage, it's been passed down on to the cost of the item until our minimum wage no longer covers on and on and on. when is our economy going to get back to the old-fashioned way, which seemed to work just fine, used to minimize the

pepth of the depregs we went through other than the 1929 depression. and my second question is, would it not help our economy if, during a national crises and such, if we turned to companies within the areas of the crisis to help solve the crisis, such as during the gulf coast crisis california companies, during earthquakes, companies within the flood yareds during floods? guest: ok, made your point, thanks. guest: start the second question first. wr a globally integrated world, and while buying local makes a lot of sense, just remember, if everyone bought local, then you

couldn't sell far. and then our exporting firms would be hurt. so buying local, in the middle of the depression we passed a thing called the smoot holee law, in which it was buy local, and a lot of people think that's what made the worldde crisis worse. so yes, it makes a lot of sense right in front of you, but you forget how many people sell abroad. caterpillars. world that are selling construction equipment to china. so just remember, if you buy local, other foreign countries can say the same thing, and then it will hurt other companies. so that's usually a short-term strategy that ends up not working. in terms of manufacturing, manufacturing is really greatly affected by productivity increases. and productivity increases by and large are a good thing. even in 1900, 40% of people were farmers.

today, only 2% are farmers. so what does that do to productivity advances? in manufacturing, it makes most sense to think that economy is out producing things. well, today it requires one-quarter of workers to produce the same amount of steel that we did in 1965. one-quarter of the workers in coal mining produces twice of amount of coal that we did before. it's just the nature of the beast that we have high productivity in manufacturing, and it's just not going to go away. that is, we aren't going to grow ourselves by a manufacturing economy. and in a study i'm doing now on what lel it takes to produce various things, the thing about giving to the american people, what to buy in the supermarket or what to eat out, of that money that we spend, $1.4 trillion or so that we spend on food, three cents on the dollar goes to the farmer. five cents on the dollar goes

to the food manufacturers. just eight cents on the dollar go to the direct producers. another few cents, other manufacturers. and the rest are advertising, consumption, retailers at the grocery stores, the people who work at fast food stands. that is, we're still producing goods, it's just that the value chain is relying less and less on manufacturing workers. in app, it says on the ipad, assembled in china. there was a study that came out of the u.c. irvine that said, well, let's look at the value chain of the ipod. it said made in china. three cents on the dollar goes to china. $75 goes to apple, and then there are the sales again. so the whole value chain of producing goods require fewer people to make it. we aren't going to return to a manufacturing economy. host: how does trade factor into the economy? guest: it's somethingou see.

so it looks like it's displacing things. if you look at the data, you try and look at any relationsh, does trade go up, let's remember, ross perot ran in 1992 on the great suck sound . they had 22 million new jobs in the years there afterwards. we had the highest what's called employment to population ratio among adults ever. that is, the economy grew. it appears that trade is contractionary, because once again, you see those that lost their jobs, and you don't see those that gain their jobs. no advanced country has throde increasing unemployment. there are individuals, much like the productivity growth, individual companies with areas that are responsible, they get hurt, you remember those people, you forget. so when i was on a show about two years ago, call-in radio from wisconsin, they said, oh,

this is down. and i looked up the numbers in wisconsin from the time of nasa passed in 1993 to 2006, in wisconsin, employment was up 15% overall. the wisconsin state product adjusting for inflation and population was up 17%. people remember those that are close. our trade deficit is something else. they'd can also be neutral. we also run a trade deficit. it's remarkably complicated issue, and it would take time to really unravel this, but we run a trade deficit because other people benefit, and in return, they buy our bonds. that i every time we trade goods, one way in which money flows across country, but another way is the capital investment, and the capital investments have to offset it because your balance of payment is leaving the country and the dollar is returning to the

countries always each year have to be in balance. we have this money flowing in, and that provides the portion of the economy, and that's why it doesn't affect the overall g.d.p. host: delaware on our republican line. ronnie? caller: the skevb active line. -- the conservative line. credit is the greek to the capitalists, and in the early 199 's, i remember buying a home and getting a mortgage, and it took me three months to get the mortgage, and the credit they did, they did a credit check behind me and everything,hen there was a million mortgage more like sse jackson who loosened the credit standards. i think that started the loosening of the credit standards where people could get mortgages with no income verification.

then i thought people were remortgaging at will, using their home as an a.t.m. machine. so that there, i'm thinking our economy grew so much due to the such eas of credit. then all the sudden the a.t.m. machine or the housing -- the houses reached their limit, people were mortgaged out two times, credit card debt to the max, and all that -- we were filling the demand. they need credit. guest: a couple of things. one is certainly the history of the subprime disaster has many architects, and some of the architects were those that encouraged the expansion of homeownership in the clinton administration and the bush administration had the homeownership initiative. and that was one of the things

that helped. it helped cause the crisis. but the crisis really took off in two steps. the first step was that there was low interest rat toet us out of the recession on 9/11, and all the sudden this new subprime mortgage, which has only been 8% of mortgage originatio in 2001 jumped up, and then they were make ago lot of money, and they changed the rules in 2004 and 2005. there's a very nice book called "confessions of the subprime lender" based in dallas, texas, showing how all of a sudden the ninja loans, the crazy loans e from the 2005-2006 period, and they really werenstituted by the banks that really wanted to make money. they were instituted by the banks and the credit agencies that kept a.a.a. and instituted by the people that bought these mortgage securities. and by the way, these weren't little old ladies. they weren't even rich people. the only people that could buy a mortgage security were

institutions. so this was an institution, the institution growth. people just got a collective blindness to this, a, looked like it could go on, and b, they underestimated the downside risk. they had been through the stock market crash of 1987, the s&l crisis, the leveraged buyout companies going bankrupt, the long-term capital management, the currency crisis, the bubble, the enrons, they had seen all of these mini crisis, and they had very little macro economic effect, and they really said to themselves, ok, you look like you're doing upid things, but ok, we'll %-ke a little hit and then move on again. they really just -- in the book , i was trying push the limit, just trying to see what in the world could they get away with? they dent think the downside risk was going to be there, they actually did have a lot of pain. financial industry lost 10%.

somehow they lost $1 billion on them when companies went bankrupt so. they didn't want to do this. they just made crazy mistakes. it was an odd period that finance sometes does. host: clinton, kentucky. todd, go ahead. caller: i lost my job 18 months ago, and i started going to college to better myself, and my question to h is, what area of jobs would be around maybe in the next six months or so? guest: obviously i have to look at your specific economy, but healthcare is an industry that's growing. if we look around where the jobs are in downtown and suburbs, it's offices. office work has historically been a strong growth area. people misunderstand the service economy being, you know, hamburger flipper jobs, wh, in fact, it's mainly office jobs, information jobs, computers are only going to be

more, getting a technical, specific skill. i work for center on the education in workforce, and we have projections in 2018, you can go to our website and look at that, so we project the jobs of the future. host: new jersey, stuart, go ahead. caller: hi. you touched on this earlier about the role of perception of good news and bad news and this is really encouraging, this book. i'm surprised people have been negative in terms behalf they've been asking. but my question is, what do you see as, if you could quantify it, how much attitude will overcome this dilemma? if you'd comment on that, i'd appreciate it. thank you. guest: in many ways, the psychology, the animal spirit do play a role.

what crisises are are turning it around. when people are negative, they're worried, doe make make decisions. when they're optimistic, they make decisions that lead to economic growth. so psychology does play a role. a lot of people -- i mean, there's a long history in the polling of i'm ok, you're not. a lot of people express negative opinion on the economy as a whole. there's a new pugh poll that was released last week that showed 8% of americans think the crisis was severe and will be permanent. 12% thought it was mild and was going to be permanent. so only 20% of americans think that they're going to have permanent problems from this crisis. so i think americans individually about themselves tend to be more optimistic, and that should bodely are for the future. host: ohio, randy on our independence line. caller: hello. i was actually going to -- well, i was going to ask if

there is a way -- le, you look at the short-term economics, the impact of jobs and just production of things, and you said it's kind of significant, i don't know if you want to call it insignificant, but you said it was kind of not as relevant. is there a way for the government to look at th current economic situation and get involved in a way that will stop big companies from just repeating this process of a recession and a bounce back or is that just kind of the way it is going to work regardless? guest: in terms of what you're talking about is a business cycle. the business cycle we've had over the last 30 years has been one of the heinous in the history of capitalism. you know, there just tends to be mistakes made that then

compound. this crisis was unique because it was financed. some would say it's the lifeblood of the economy, as someone referred to earlier, so it affected everybody. it's going to take time. we just gave the argument for a stimulus program. as i said earlier, i don't see it's going to happen that much more in the future. i'm optimistic. i don't think that manufacturing is insignificant. i just thinkt's probably a small share of the unemployment, somewhere around 15%. and there are weak spots now, and that's why it's taking so long to get started. and checked stall again, but in my mind, there's n question in the intermediate run that we will be rebounding. host: you can read his piece at the new republic, "morning is

coming." you can connect through our h d

education, created by america's cable companies. up next, homeland security and how prepared we are if there is another terrorist attack. this is one hour and a half. >> welcome to the next session. as you can see, the title is "how prepared are we for the next 9/11? " we have a member of the 911 commission that p

investigated the attack, and a member of the private sector. to moderate the session, we have an admiral who is the president and chief executive officer of the navy relief society, a non- profit society dedicated to helping navy service members and their families. he served as deputy homeland security adviser under thomas ridge. admiral. >> good afternoon. i am very grateful for this opportunity to be able to lead discussion with this panel on terrorism prepared as. -- preparedness.

i am going to start by posing a question to our panelists after a provide you some counterpoints on what is generally known as pbrne threats: chemical biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive.%% we are going to use that to hopefully cover the territory with respect to terrorism preparedness. the chemical threat. some say that it is likely -- actually, unlikely, that an attack with a chemical weapon could cause mass casualties, citing an attack in japan in 1995 as an expensive underraking with few fatalities. while others say that delivery

of a persistent agent in an enclosed, densely populated space may kill hundreds if not thousands, and would certainly cause mass panic and destruction. biological. a senior official from the department of homeland security said recently that a biological attack is one of the two top priorities for the department of homeland security. others say that obtaining and delivering a biological agent, one which results in many fatalities, is actually expensive, scientifically challenging, and likely to be beyond the near-term capability of any sub-state terrorist organization. radiological. it is said that a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many

fatalities or major physical damage. others say that the long-term contamination from such an attack could make a major metropolitan area virtually uninhabitable for perhaps decades, and the cleanup would be long and exceptionally expensive. nuclear. that same official from dhs said that an improvised nuclear device is the other of their top two priorities. but some say that terrorists, for a variety of reasons, are unlikely to be able to obtain transport and that indeed such a device successfully inside the united states. finally, high explosives. many say that we should continue to plan for this most likely attack. it is low-tech, relatively

inexpensive, and almost always effective, the christmas day in times square incident not withstanding. others say that terrorists, especially al-qaeda, are looking for something more sophisticated than an attack that will produce -- and an attack that will produce results even more dramatic than 9/11. with that as a background, i am going to start us down the path of getting to look at those. before we actually talk about the specific steps -- specific threats, and want to ask this question of each of the panelists. if you are able to listen to michael this morning, especially his remarks about taking down the al-qaeda leadership and the apparent lack of progress of the terrorist groups in obtaining

biological and nuclear capabilities, you might be convinced that the chance of a major attack on the united states, especially a weapon of mass destruction attack is diminished. so my question is, how convinced are you that there will be another major terrorist attack in the u.s.? another 9/11? >> i think we need to look at in a very broad perspective. there is a clear network of communication between terrorist organizations. even if you assume that one person is weak, you have to look at the other organizations connected to him.

organizations such as hezbollah might say that politically they cannot confront you directly, but they could do it through other means, such as al-qaeda. you should not just look at the capacity of an organization itself, but the capacity of its network. this is something critical to understand. we cannot look at terror in a just north america. the second thing that is very important, we have to look at the component of terror. you might look at a very small organization that has access to technologicala capability from a country that supports terror.

this is something that we should expect and prepare for. >> let me begin, if i may, by welcoming everyone here, particularly those of you who have not visited the community before. i hope that you will take the time to travel around aspin and see how the average person in colorado live. [laughter] you might even go to the airport to see how they commute to their various houses. [laughter] this is an extraordinary convention and conference center and we are very proud of it. there certainly will be other major efforts to disrupt the united states economy and to enter and kill as many americans as possible.

-- injure and kill as many americans as possible. if you reason backward from the mind of a terrorist, you look for what is the easiest thing to do that could cause the most damage. in my mind, that is a biological threat. i used to say in media interviews that the next attack would not be on new york or los angeles. it would be on denver, cleveland or dallas. i had to quit saying that, because cleveland was asking me what i know that they do not know. the point is, even though new yorkers believe, and are best prepared for another attack, because they have had this experience, if you want to terrorize americans, you do not

keep hitting in new york city. you come to the vulnerable center of this country and multiple targets. and, the terrorists themselves become the weapon of mass destruction by voluntarily infecting themselves with highly contagious viruses, going to public events, certainlyynot a conference such as this, and exposing the virus to as many people as possible. that is the variety that concerns me the most. >> i agree with everything he said. i will give a little history of the 9/11 commission. we were a follow-on to that commission. in the summer of 2007, this

commission was created to answer the question that the 9/11 commission asked, what happens if the most dangerous people in the world get the most dangerous weapons in the world? how likely is that, and what can we do to prevent it? background is more straight pentagon stuff. ob is in intel. i knew what people like respected thought about it and it.afraid they were of deposi this was the nightmare they were worried about. we said in interviews. hundreds of people went all around the world, look at all the data, and reached the conclusion that the possibility of a nuclear or biological attack was growing and would

reach the probability within five years, which is 2013. now, we did not have intel saying 2013, but we were making the point that this is a short- term thing. this is not 15 years from now. there is a substantial chance now, and it is growing. aid that you have to work on the assumption that this is likely to happen unless you change the probabilities or the trends. conditions in the world favored them. there are four reasons, and i will go through them very briefly. first, we have direct intelligence that they are trying to do this. many thingsshave become public about biological labs in afghanistan, trying to buy nuclear materials. we know that they are trying to do this. it fits their tactics. the tactic is to pit vulnerable

areas, and vulnerable assist -- hit more vulnerable areas and vulnerable systems as hard as you can with asymmetric weapons. the airplanes used on 9/11 were asymmetric weapons. the ultimate asymmetric weapon is a weapon of mass of destruction, nuclear, biological, any of these. we know that they are trying. we know it fit their tactics. we know that organizationally they are capable of doing this. it is not scientifically beyond them at all. if you recruit the right scientists, you can develop a anthrax exists in nature. you can get smallpox around the world. it is easy to suckle. -- to smuggle. you get a pound of that, a pickup truck, but a shell on it,

but a hole in it, drive up and down in st. louis on the fourth of july but the waterfront -- by the waterfront, then blow it up. people do not know they have been attacked, but in a few days they have symptoms. this could kill hundreds of thousand of people. they cannot do it yet, but we know they're trying to. we thought biological was a little more likely than nuclear because there are bottlenecks to nuclear. you have to get the nuclear material, and you have to have a national economy in getting nuclear material. that is harderr it is a little harder to recognize. we thought biological more likely. i will say this.

it is not that our government is not trying to stop this. many people say we are screwing up. perhaps we are screwing up, but this is hard. that is why they are trying to do it, because they know it is hard to defend against. they are pursuing this because they know that it is hard to defend against in a first world society with a federal government structure. a man who used to be chairman of the intelligence committee the goes on trips all the time we interviewed all of the people. he came back and told me that if anything, our estimate was too conservative. these are serious people saying this.

>> it is not a laugh riot now in here, is it? just to add to the menu of horrible possibilities, i would take a slightly different approach, something that i have a word about time to time over the years since -11. that is a al-qaeda's and tenuity -- since 9/11. that is al-qaeda's on ingenuity for using what is here. on 9/11, they used commercial airlines filled with fuel, which became flying bombs. i have been concerned about the

possibility of attacks against, for example, the transportation of hazardous materials and by rail, chlorine gas, for example, which is transported on a rail line that runs only blocks from the u.s. capitol. think about that. our nuclear plants are another area of potential destruction. i will not get into the technical stuff, but you do not have to get to the core of a nuclear plant to cause tremendous, horrendous and destruction. >> so, we clearly have unanimity on a the severity of this issue. i would like to talk a little bit about how we are organized to deal with it. dwight eisenhower said that the right rganization will not

guarantee success in but the wrong one will guarantee a failure. yesterday, we heard a discussion of the progress that has been made by the department of homeland security over the seven years or so that it has been in existence. then, at lunch, someone else mentioned that if she had to do it over again she might reengineer some of it. senator, i know that you look at this early on, so -- and we actually talked about how it form itself into the basement of the white house. how do you feel it has done so far? >> a couple of observations. first of all, i think everyone would agree, probably everyone in the room, that 100% success is probably unachievable. we are talking about relative success. some years back i had secret

service protection. the head of the secret service came to our home and sat my wife and me down and the first thing he said was, if somebody decided to kill you, they will probably kill you. the only time i questioned running for president. he said, our job is to make it as difficult as possible. that is the standard, is dhs doing everything within its powers and within the law to make it as difficult as possible. without having access to classified briefings and knowing exactly what is going on on the other side, the answer is, relatively, yes. we are more prepared than we were a decade ago, for sure. the second observation is that the department, at least from a standpoint 1,500 miles away, is an administrative nightmare. i agreed with the speaker yesterday who asked if the

department should be reorganized? is it not possible to separate out the counter-terrorism tasks of the department from the routine border patrol, customs, and other missions? the answer is yes. is it going to happen? i doubt it. congress would drake its feet. the administration does not want to go -- congress would try its feet. the administration does not want to go backwards. >> do you have a view on how dhs has done and whether it needs to be reengineered to any degree? there has been a suggestion that things should be set up independently. >> i would agree that the dhs experiment has been a success. a lot of good work is being done.

yes, i think we have done a lot since 9/11. it would be ridiculous to say that we are doing the same thing now that we were doing then. but the problem is, we are not the only ones. i would identify at the structural problems. there are several fold. one of them is, and i would refer this to biological in particular, on the nuclear side of things, the nuclear age began with a nuclear explosion. everybody knew right from the beginning that nuclear had dangerous propensity. our government had a generation to develop how to approach the nuclear issue. biological is new. there are like two dozen presidentially appointed people with part-time responsibility for bio, and no one is really

responsible. congress has got to change the way it oversees dhs. we were there, and you guys have the congressional oversight process can be tremendously constructive and helpful if done the right way. the house armed services committee really adds, on balance, to policy and development. but when you split up oversight among 70 or 80 different committees and subcommittees, you get the-of oversight multiplied. and you get no outcome. congress has construction and remade itself a negative in this. it is time for them to actually fix it.

the other problem is that, particularly with bio preparation, there is the federal government, state government, local government and the private sector. there needs to be a partnership that is not adversarial, because things actually have to be done. if the government wants to stop things it can take an adversarial stance, but if it wants things to happen, you have to work together. with developing and stockpiling countermeasures, that ought to be a federal and private sector partnership that the federal government leads in. there are issues to work out. i think dhs is part of that, and i would say they should identify who is in charge. i would add one thing. i think the top-level people have to find a way to end run

the structure, because you're not going to fix it in time. if an artery is blocked, you pull the plug through capillaries until you get an operation. >> dhs has been constructed in an all-hazard mode. it takes care of everything, from the natural disaster to the border problem to these issues. a question is often asked, if you prepare for the cbrne case, have you adequately prepared for everything else. ? the simple answer is no. this is the first time in human history that small organizations

have the capacity of destruction that once was only in the hands of large nations. that is what we are talking about here. this is a major shift. the second issue that we year is how difficult it is for dhs to work as an organization. who are they facing? they are facing organizations whose biggest asset is mobilization. their biggest asset is the fact that they can move very fast. so, you take a very fast, very creative and a very innovative enemy. we keep saying al-qaeda, but it is misleading to think about only them.

fast,ake these very small organizations, and you put in front of them a very complicated organization. where i come from, thaa is not how you win. you have to create some kind of a shift in the way you operate against this kind of organization. you must have a fast organization that is very smart and very intelligent. >> i want to say that we feel that -- that we fear that richard is going to have to leave us a little early. i would like to let him make another comment, and then i have a follow-up. >> on congressional oversight, of the 43 recommendations of the the 9/11 commission may, we recognized that the most difficult one to achieve it was

a recommendation to streamline congressional activity, particularly pursuant to dhs. it is crazy. thegree with mike depthat situation that confronted us on september 26th was a lot different than 9/11. yet, there were echoes of problems connecting the dots and connecting communications. but i think there has been tremendous progress made. having said that, you cannot take the human element out of the equation. with respect to the christmas day attempt, you had human failures. had the state department recognized that abdulmutallab

had a valid visa he would at least have been intercepted for secondary screeniig. someone might have asked him why he was going to detroit without an overcoat and a bunch of other questions that might have clearly identified him as someone who should not be traveling on a plane. let me mention a couple of other things. clearly the christmas day attempt was a wake-up call that we will be under attack for the immediate future. the analogy of a virus that will wax and wane is a good one in terms of dealing with a surge of terrorism. we are doing better.

a couple of observations. dien night -- dni is in flux. our recommendation there has been one of the most difficult systemic changes to make work. it needs to be rethought by the president. it has not operated as had been hoped. there are a bunch of reasons for it. there are huge reasons. the department of defense and the cia have tried to strangle the baby in the crib. my view, speaking only for myself the primary mission should be one of interconnected the among the intelligence community. one major thing that has been talked about over the last couple of days here, and i really have to commend a few people for putting this

together, it has been a tremendous learning experience for me and i really appreciate having been asked to participate. one thing has to do with civil liberties and harnessing the tremendous capability we have to collect them permission -- collect information. but we need to assemble the information in some usable form for the best result for america. i was very active in terms of recommending, during the commission's years, that we pay close attention to the questions of civil rights and civil liberties. we need to have a dialogue in this country. we need to be able to harness the capability to utilize our technology in the most efficient

way possible while at the same time protecting our civil liberties. we can do that. in 2004, the congress created, as part of its reorganization the legislation that creates a privacy and civil liberty oversight. it is not a surprise that in the bush administration this was a pretty feckless and useless group. president obama has not yet addressed the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. i suggest that he should do so, and i suggest that this could be the vehicle from which we could have an intelligent discussion within government about using our capabilities to my information, to connect the dots, while at the same time

protecting our civil liberties. finally, let me just make one observation in terms of ity width and interoperabl for our first responders. nine years after 9/11, the fcc has still not provided dedicated bandwidth for our first responders. on 9/11, many of them died its debts would likely have been avoided had the fire department and police department in been able to communicate. it is high time we got some action on that. it is shameful that we do not have it yet. >> one of the issues that the 9/11 commission wrestled with was whether the current structure of government was

appropriate for a counter- terrorism missions, and specifically if they're needed to be surgery or operation changes in the fbi's role. do you have any feeling now, looking back, whether the decision not to do anything with the fbi was the right decision? >> i think it was. the fbi has struggled with its mission on the counter- terrorism. i have a personal high regard for the director. that being said, it is shameful that once again, the senate intelligence committee, in its report on the christmas day bombing, identified the fact that they still do not have the capacity for their information technology to communicate with

any organization. one of the key analysts was denied access to intelligence that was in another place at the fbi. it is shameful that we have not fixed that problem. what i would look to hear in terms of the growing threat of domestic terrorists is the example, both in london, and in 1994, the train bombing in madrid. four trains during morning rush hour were attacked with 13 bombs inside backpacks, causing significant death and injury among the spanish population. those attacks were not connected

to al-qaeda. those attacks were by foreign nationals living in spain and had come together in present, and arrested for street crime, shared the radical views, became more radicalized, supported themselves when they got out by selling drugs, and were able to coordinate this attack. the four trains were detonated within the space of three minutes. this is a tremendous problem for us. these kind of domestic attacks where the fbi would have primary responsibility, working hand-in- hand with state and local governments. we cannot rely upon the

incompetence of our adversaries. we have been lucky in the last two big ones, times square and the christmas day northwest flight, but we cannot rely on that. i talked about the cooperation between the nypd, the cia, the f b i, and the tva. the tva are the pretzel vendors. i do not think this country should have the equivalent of a secret police. i think the fbi can do it, but this requires presidential leadership to stay on top of the situation. it requires the fbi to the bill the mission i believe they are ultimately capable of.

>> and no mi? >> no mi. -5. >> we greatly appreciate your participation today. safe travels. [applause] i would like to shift to another organization issue. it is the federal structure of this great country. both what the good and the other is with respect to the homeland defense. obviously, the federal level brings enormous resources to bear on these issues, but there are 50 states, eight territories, and more than 3000 counties in this country. it creates some complexities.

in operational planning, the military person always asks the question, who is in charge. here in the united states, that can be a tough question in the case of the domestic disaster. i am going to ask the senator per se -- first, if you believe that is a problem. >> that is a great question and a good subject, because it gives us an opportunity to highlight both some of the things we are doing better and some of the areas where we have problems. i think we all agree that bio is a major threat, bigger than any of the other's right now. one of the main advantages is that if you prepare well enough for it, you can take it off the wmd list.

nuclear doesn't have that option. but if we stockpile 300 million vaccines for smallpox, we are close to eliminating it as a weapon of mass destruction. some people may die, but most will not, so it is not a weapon of mass destruction. the question is, how do you plan effectively and then respond quickly? you have to anticipate what you need end develop it. you have to be situational lee aware of how an attack is developing. if you have a few infected terrorist at a major airport, they infect 25 people and tten get on a plane. you have to know who is sick in the country. that is a problem.

look at h1n1. there was no time that we could have told you how many people had h1n1. we are not even certain how many people died of it. you have to detect it. you have to distribute quickly. you have to dispense the countermeasures quickly to people. and you have to keep data afterwards. planning should be federal. distribution is state and local. but it has to be a partnership. execution, when you actually respond, if you are responding to an attack, the president is

the ultimate authority. should the delegate that responsibility to a local authority? i think it depends. if it is one city and you have an effective leader, then yes, you delegate. otherwise, if it affects many places, like the disaster in the gulf, it should be federal. we could make our federal structure and r. d. fragmented society positive -- and our d. defragmented society positive. you can empower people. the fbi has an infusion centers which share intelligence.

public health is not part of them. why not? why cannot people who live in high risk areas prepare themselves? we have done studies in my hometown of st. louis. we gave people medical kits and gave them instructions about how to use them properly, and the tests work. i think we need to move down this is so that the stuff is already out there and people are prepared. we should not be afraid to empower people.. we have to see this as a co- mission, not omission. we need to federally fund rapid diagnostics. and find out if you are pregnant in a matter upon of -- in a matter of minutes, but it takes days to diagnose anthrax poisoning properly.

in terms of response, as a practical matter the president will either decide he is in control or delegate somebody. it is across jurisdictional lines, i think functionally, it has to be federal. you of -- >> u.s. listed bio as a major threat. assume there is a biological attack. who is the admiral palin a of a biological case -- admiral al len of a biological case? >> the first responders are largely going to be local. but there is an interesting constitutional issue here. most americans are not aware

that the constitution creates two armies. there is a standing army, a professional army. the second army is what is called the national guard. the u.s. commission on national security forecast a terrorist attack and said that the back of national security has to be the national guard. that comes from ancient republican theory, at small r, that says we do not want professional soldiers enforcing the law, we want citizen soldiers doing that. this goes back to the athenian republic. the problem is, as you know, a big policy decision was made after vietnam to make the national guard a follow-on expeditionary force. so guess where they are now?

in a rock and afghanistan. they are not in -- in iraq and afghanistan. they're not in denver colorado or st. louis. that is an overstatement, but instead of being here for training for triage and confinement of an attack, they're off fighting wars. i think that is an enormous and vulnerability. the national guard is, in military terms, forward deployed in the united states. they live in the communities. and now, in its wisdom, the supreme court says that not only can the national guard keep weapons in their closets, but all of us can. separate issue, but that is part of the reason for the second amendment. i do not think there are enough doctors in washington or the national health service to deploy around this country.

it is going to be up to the local emergency help workers. the question is, are they well enough trained right now, and this is the test and challenge of the federal system. in some cases, they are. i have talked to emergency health responders in denver. they are ready to go. i do not know that is true in all cities. >> do you have a nomination for the thad allen of this particular scenario? >> there are lots of great americans. unfortunately, not too many of them want to be in public service. that is a separate issue. >> i think it would depend in part on where the attack was. this is talking about a response, not planning. planning is a different kind of thing. i think you almost have to wait

to see who was. i do not disagree with the issue of the guard and the local importance of the guard. if this were an attack as opposed to a natural disaster or i think it is a, decision the president would have to make. >> and hoping come back to the planning issue, but first i want to ask whether, looking at this country -- he lived in new york, that you have seen a lot of the rest of the world, do we have a particularly difficult circumstance because of our federal system, and what would you do to prepare people here? should we be issuing gas masks and? >> i am not going to talk about

the federal system when there is a senator to my left. [laughter] let me describe to all of you really, what happens when such an event takes place. you really do not have the situational picture of knowing who is hurt or not heard. you do not know what is happening in the hospitals. you actually do not know how many beds are available. you do not know about chemical or biological. let's say you have a biological infection and you run into the hospital. nnw you have destroyed the hospital. it requires very complicated capabilities to be able to deal with it. i am not sure there are any clear-cut technologies.

it is a very complicated challenge. everything coalesces. parents are looking for their children. children are looking for their parents. hospitals are goiig to be in a major [unintelligible] if you really want to prepare for the challenge, you have to make a serious decision. the thing that worries me is the question of the resiliency of the nation. if we believe that such a thing might happen, and if we understand the kind of damage it can create and how difficult it is going to be to control the damage when it takes place, what

is the country going to do about it in terms of how the country, the u.s. will react to such an event? what would nuclear or chemical activity due to the u.s.? what is the political leadership going to do? more than that, what is the world going to think about america and how they respond to such major events? i would say it right now, how do we really prepare ourselves deeply in terms of resiliency? i will not allow a devastating events to change the way i live, change my civil rights, change the politics, change my policy.

we must decide that now before it happens, because after happens, history is a force of nature. it is stronger than all of us here. it might take a great country to the wrong place. this is not a fun discussion, because basically, it will be a great discussion to see if we but because itebit, is such a question right now how we would deal with this disaster, prepare a blueprint. >> this is truly one of the few bipartisan or non partisan issues left in washington. we did not encounter any of that in our discussions.

i think i made a comment earlier that could be construed as insulting to congress. [laughter] however, the house homeland security committee and the senate government reform committee are exceptions. they're both moving important pieces of legislation. the house has moved a very good bill. i think a couple of the house staffers, great people, are here today, and i did not want you to think that i was in guiding -- inditing those people with the rest of them. >> collect a follow-up on the issue of preparation. -- i would like to follow up on the issue of preparation. right after 9/11, governor ridge

was trying to sell the nation on the duct tape, and it got him an invitation to the jay leno show. your need for preparation requires a buy in from the american people. with regard to small parks -- smallpox, a certain number of people have to participate for it to work properly. >> there are about eight pathogens the people think will be the ones used. we know that there is a way to change the resiliency of a

biological case. stockpiling, distribution and the cabinet -- and decontamination. some areas have been covered by stockpiles of drugs that have been distributed. the government is testing some plans on how to help localities dependent on two tracks. but we have to find that better. we are behind. some of it is funding. some of it is a lack of authority or fragmented decision making. bob gramm and i suggested that the office of a vice president ought to be put in charge of all of this at the federal level. we have a vice-president now has a history in congress of dealing with this. there are only two people that

cabinet secretaries of state sir or manitou, the president and the vice-president -- say serve to, and that is the president and vice- president. >> i would like to come back to the confusion and turmoil that occur when there is a major disaster. in the military, we have a term called "the fog of war." even though the military is generally credited with having a very well-designed and repetitively use planning system in which we actually designate individuals as military planners, and they have an entire career devoted to the discipline. we educate them.

we train them. the whole system is built on having a plan when you start an operation. but all military commanders also know that a good plan it generally doesn't last 24 hours passed the beginning of an operation, and that is what creates the fog of war. but in a domestic circumstance, the complexity is multiplied many times over that, i would argue, for the military case. so, my question for the panel is, how are we doing on the domestic side for a planning system for domestic response to a serious attack? >> the fallacy of, not your question, but the question of the topic, are we prepared. it depends on who we are.

we are 300 million people in a mass democracy. some are better prepared than others. i do not think you can generalize about the uniform status of preparedness or responsiveness across this country. for a long time, i could not walk through new york without being stopped by people asking, "when are we going to be hit again?" they did not mean the united states. they meant new york. i think most people realize that new york is more prepared now than the rest of the country. i recently went to los angeles and long beach. we do not want to give the terrorist any ideas here, as if they could not figure it out themselves, but if you want to

see a vulnerable facility, visit the ports of long beach and los angeles. it is a mess. it is virtually indefensible. it is five minutes from lax. there are three private arenas embedded in the ports. cruise ship lines, tens of thousands of semitrailer trucks coming and going, it defies protection. so, the sweeping question about are we prepared, what is the level of preparation, it has to bb incident-specific. i would just like to finish up with a comment on the concept of a resilience. the senator and others have used it. it is an idea that i associate most of all with a former coast guard commander who has written on the subject. his pieces is, if al-qaeda or the enemy -- his thesis is that

if al-qaeda or the enemy knows that there is a backup system, systems forer finance, energy or transportation, if they know that within hours of taking down that system a backup system will be in place, that takes away a lot of incentive for shutting that system down. i think that applies across the board. we cannot have duplicates systems for everything in this country. separate hospitals to replace this one if they get blown up or whatever, but there is a lot to be said for having the capability to put that down capability back in operation locally, nationally or wherever as a means of deterring people who try to destroy it. . .

there animes depend on those systems of lot more than they do -- their enemies depend on those systems. in terms of preparation, this is talent. bob gramm would probably agree with this. why they are not finding it.

we have two programs. they are getting funded 10% of what they should be. incredibly frustrating. we don't have a -- there are a lot of good state and local systems for health reporting, but we have not link them together. i am concerned with a contagious disease as opposed to anthrax, that we will not know what the situation is. if we don't know the situation then we cannot deal with it. it is difficult we have an academic -- have an epidemic and top leaders don't know who is sick. you put anthrax in the new york subway system, even if you minimize the impact on the people you have to get that out of there or else you cannot use

the subway system. you just shut down new york. -pwe are not where we need to be there. richard touched on this. we have so many good people. many of them are prepared, but we have not dealt with how they can link together. and with this an issue. -- bandwidth is an issue. this is an area the federal government could help with money. those are the major gaps. the problem is it is a link in the chain. if any one of them is broken -- it doesn't matter how good a distribution system you have. i will have to say that the military minds still comes back to the notion that if you have a

well-established plan that has got in place those issues of linkage, relationships, because you define a chain of command. it is not so easy, but you define the resources required and means to get them there. it is a standing plan. it appears to me we have not yet established a planning mechanism for that. >> there is no plan. >> i know we are close to the time where we need to get the audience to ask questions, but i want to mention one thing, because it relates to this issue of complexity.

we are seeing this in the gulf oil spill at the moment, which is how do you provide for the incorporation of international assistance? we all saw what occurred in haiti and the difficulties involved with substantial assets and no immediate means to coordinate that. that could be an issue in this country. until katrina, the u.s. had never accepted outside assistance. we have been offered substantial assistance in the case of the gulf oil spill. my understanding is that has not gone smoothly. it seems to me international assistance is something all of us need to understand how to do officially. >> i agree.

i think [unintelligible] the coalition for preparedness, and to be able to support the correlation which will be out -- dealing with a complex environment. let's look at it in a mathematical tool. this is what will happen in a biological event. nothing will be predictable. something happens and you will think -- the next thing will happen over here. 9/11, i think new york is the best fire department in the world. they are well-equipped. they are stationed in almost every location.

they are real heroes. and yet when something happens that they are not used to, they have a very big challenge. they did not know how to deal with that challenge. you are talking about the best department in the world. >> this is why the congressional oversight of things -- everybody laughs at the congress. this is a big problem because the plan requires somebody take authority. if you want them to exercise the authority with a kind of discretion they should news -- should use, they have to know who they will clear it with. they don't from the executive side. if the chief needs to do something and he is worried

about congressional oversight -- we really ran into this. it will take some money in the house and senate who decides they will impose payne until it is fixed. the campaign finance bill was a revolt against the leadership. we are looking for leaders within the body is to will stand up and say the turf problems are a problem, but everybody else has to adjust. >> we only made partial progress, but i think it's the right time to open this up to questions. i would like to ask that you wait until the microphone gets there and only posed a simple

question. i will start over here with this gentleman. >> i just want to say thanks a lot for bringing the biological weapon aspect to the attention of everyone here. i am a graduate student in microbiology. i worked with the virus that causes sars. there was a major outbreak in asia. that was well contained. i have access to live sars virus. it is very contagious. this brings to the issue that has a nation we are very susceptible -- someone like me