stated your vision of a two- state solution, and inevitably with a palestinian state you have to move some of the settlements which may involve civil disobedience or violence. the you have the support in your own coalition party? and you feel the israeli public is prepared? >> think the most important thing is to first try to find a clear vision of peace were people see the benefits. the second thing, to introduce a very important dimension for the implementation of this peace agreement. that is a time. time is crucial. .

. >> mr. prime minister, if mr. obama did you and president of boss into negotiations -- get stupts you and mr. abbas into

negotiations, do you think that within one year we could have an agreement similar to what happened in 1979 when they negotiated a peace agreement? >> yes, i do. >> do you feel strong enough and also willing? >> if it is up to me, we will have an agreement. i cannot speak for him. but i will not do what others do to me. and i will not do what some of my colleagues to to president of losabbas. you have to be tested in real time. the only way you change a reality is to ban the total --

bring the total package in the peace treaty anchored in security, giving a sufficient feeling of hope and comfort to both peoples. going at it piecemeal, piece by piece, piece by piece, that is where we have been. this is the alternative? i am prepared to pursue it. i am hoping to see president abbas making the same choice. our children and grandchildren, the coming generation, this is what leaders are expected to do. i think that president abbas

will prove to be an important palestinian leader that helps me along with president obama to reshape our future. >> you mention this several times today, why is it so important that palestinian leaders give up their goals? why can they not secretly harbor the disappearance of israel as a goal as long as they do not act or voice it? >> because of the change required, the reason that the conflict for swiss -- persists is because of the enduring engine. what is the true underlying source of a conflict? it is not israel's possession of the territories, even though it is widely held to be that issue.

if you really understand the source of the conflict, it goes back to 1920. the first attack against the jewish presence took place in 1920. it continued in the 1930's and through the great upheavals of 1948, continuing in the 1950's. before 1967, ranging from 1920 to 1967. before there was just a few israeli soldiers. why did it go on for half of a century? because there was an opposition to working together in any shape

or form. you would think that it would transform. after 1967, the issue was the territories. the results of the conflict were traced to its cause. there were repeated attacks against us. we are prepared to negotiate a solution to this. having left to those territories, we left every square inch, having been inside of lebanon. we said that we had to liberate occupied palestine.

they asked if we needed it west bank, but we said no. when we left gaza, ask why we were firing. the real engine of the conflict is the persistent refusal. unless this is addressed, it will continue to take hold in the palestinian psyche. creator's talking this way does not guarantee, but it is a necessary precondition for such a change. the more moderate palestinian arab elements do not talk about

liquidating his real or the foreign office anbar different from hamas. they do not say mission accomplished or that israel will be here to say. they say they will make peace, that they want to end the occupation, but they are intimidated by hamas. they must openly say -- not for our sake, but for the sake of persuading the people to make a great psychological change for peace. i have said before. i said what my vision of peace includes. not without due consequence. but they have to say it the way

that it should be. i do not think that palestinian leaders should be exempted from it. let me carry your question to its conclusion and conclusion of this discussion, i presume, but you cannot expect us to make peace without security and the acceptance of israel as the nation state of the jewish people. are we guaranteed that this will percolate down? are we guaranteed that there will not be rolled back? or that there will not be regime change like in gaza? no, we are not. we do not nullify the need to say it or sign on, but because

there might be a roll back, the sense of security must be enormous the powerful, cast in the strongest concrete terms. it has to be very solid. i think that this is what is required of the palestinian leadership. i would like president abbas made his [unintelligible] speech. in which he says things very clearly. i would like to meet him and make peace. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> today on c-span, the republican national committee chairman, michael steele, and his speech to the republicans. he campaigned for sharon angle on friday night. even see those remarks today at 6:00 27:30 p.m. eastern on c- span. tomorrow, the commission on wartime contract and on the defense department in afghanistan. we also have a look at the commission's report and the transition of functions from defense to state departments. live on c-span 2. >> c-span is now available in 100 million homeless, all as a

public service. created by america's cable companies. >> representatives from the state department and the military talked about how to stabilize war-torn countries like afghanistan and iraq. the u.s. institute of peace posted this event. it is one hour and 10 minutes. >> think you all for staying with us. sheldon has estimated become moderator. we have a wonderful panel group with us, many i know from the

past and some of whom i have just met for the first time. all of which was very actively involved in reaching out to the english-speaking world and trying to help. trying to bring a wide spectrum of the blog post your -- blogosphere into the broader world, their identities and backgrounds can be found in the material, telling you who they are, talking about armenia, we will have speakers talking about their experiences with iranian social media.

we loudspeakers on madagascar are. sheldon, in his organization of the events, said quite appropriately that we should avoid having 10 minutes or 15 minutes a presentation, but instead have it be a much more conversational. i think that is a good idea. i would like to ask each of them to speak for about five minutes each. specifically about the questions we were talking about in the first panel, examples of specific kinds of influence they have observed the social media in their own communities -- positive or negative, what they

have seen and have not seen. what it seems like to the academics trying to sublet from 3,000 miles away. >> thank you very much for inviting me here. it has been fascinating to read the documents. armenia, georgia, and the first panel, i tend to agree with the idea that you cannot be too hopeful or too much of a skeptic. unfortunately everyone tries to make the world black-and-white and there are a varied levels in between. with regards to polarization, i

wanted to raise a question. maybe you can say something during the q&a, when there is a society that has polarized, countries that are polarized, the polarization is surely a reflection of the reality that exists. i am looking at how new media can move in to fill the gap. i think we have seen unprecedented progress in this area in the past year and a half. particularly when it comes to azerbaijani. those countries are in a state of war and have been for 16 years. there were attempts brokered by the united states in 2008. the society is not ready, the

voice is not being heard. i have no idea what society is saying. otherwise silence by polarize media. there has been remarkable progress. coming from outside on a break, he said that he hated facebook. i actually adore facebook. [laughter] i might enjoy others if i tried, but for example i have an armenian name and cannot visit azerbaijani. the general stereotype is that armenians and people from azerbaijani cannot me. but a number of very real,

online relationships that have transformed themselves into the real world. in washington, d.c., it still happens that they report to me, like 18 years ago. i have had to post online blog about peace reflected in multiple languages. i think it really depends on how you use these things. >> i wanted to introduce myself, i have been covering persian blogs.

there is a very instrumental need and i would like to answer a few questions about the green movement and so on. sometimes we get trapped by beautiful words between the iranian revolution and the so- called today and tomorrow of operation change in regime change. do not worry, we have looked at facebook and if security forces blocked

the streets, there are other ways to go. the problem is that security forces can read facebook too. we rely on the transformation into real work. the second problem is we talked about the rising of the beautiful words with on one side the state and the other side the green movement. they do get mentioned. for example, underground internet extended to the in box

[unintelligible] criticizing their government and islam. one other thing that some people say is just mutual and not on the ground, it is in front of the options. people that blog, use facebook, twitter, they are real people. they are not coast. usually when it happens like that, people take photographs and then talk about the kind of new border between the cyber world and the real world.

the green movement is lovely, i like that, but it can monopolize opposition. for example, [unintelligible] cartoonists publishing innocent cartoons showing the opposition leader after 10 years, still writing 300 statehoods. it was moved from an online site. there was mutual work. a translator was questioned, i think. >> of would like to advertise the fact that he wrote an

extremely good article on this subject and if you look at it, it will drive up the hit count, having a major impact on the real world. [laughter] >> i completely agree with the points made about social media and new media. the role of twitter has been exaggerated in the u.s.. as mentioned, there were maybe a few dozen or several hundred iranians in sight of the country using twitter. i am following 400 of them, believe me, they do not twitter about the green revolution or politics, they twitter about daily life. jokes, iranians love to laugh. we love jokes. i think that if any social networking web site or new media is to get credit for what

happened in iran, it should be, of course, [unintelligible] , because that is how we got all those videos. youtube showed us what was happening on the ground when violence was used against peaceful protesters. also, facebook. you want to understand what young iranians think about life with ahmadinejad and the nuclear case? you go to facebook. if they trust you, you become friends with these people and you can follow the discussions that are having. it is very interesting. you see reformist politicians, people in prison and released. they use facebook, not a quitter. -- not twitter.

facebook has the potential. these people are going to use it increasingly. about two months ago the deputy israeli minister was jailed and released. on the facebook page he asked for people to send questions about the election and he said he would answer those questions. the last time i checked there were about 200 interesting questions about the election and what happened to him in jail and the future of iran. he did not answer. he had come under pressure by the government, it is how the government uses this new media. he did not answer. what i am saying is that this could be a way for people with no oter platform to communicate with their followers. to use these tools to understand what people want.

after the election in iran, people were writing -- where are you? we want to hear from you. and finally, he put a video on youtube. he posted it on his website and people started sharing and on facebook and twitter. that is how people understood his intentions and plans. what about the fact that what you have on facebook are people in dangerous society is declaring political allegiances and listing their friends? how do you balance the

potential of facebook against the risks of facebook, as opposed to twitter where it can be broadcast into the void? there is no way to function on the relationship that can be exploited. >> if one year ago i had no friends from azerbaijani and no armenian friends, you could get in trouble, but now with hundreds people get very excited. i have seen it happen. i was like -- do you know this person? you could let anyone in. the reason they have started to use these tools will recently, they do lack strategy. a way of informing people. this is a big issue that needs to be address. >> especially those big changes

in facebook privacy settings where it moves out of that work in terms of concern. >> we had a visitor from tehran and the first thing that he did when he was about to return was too is going to delete everything he had on facebook and the friends that he made. once he gets to tehran, he said he would add us later. we have heard it happening, people being arrested. security forces telling them to give us your passport on facebook, opening their account, asking them about post and why are you friends with this person or that person. the government is using these tools. my experience in iran is that the activists are always a step ahead of the government. it might change, the government

is very sophisticated. they are good at hacking and the following people, cracking down on people using new media. as i said, so far on facebook, all of these activists, they should have to trust you to become friends with you. i have many friends in side of the country and i try not to allow any comments on their facebook page because i do not want to get them into trouble. they communicate with me and i send them a message -- are you sure? it will not hurt you. the other thing is that the fear factor for many of these people, there is no fear factor anymore. they have been in jail, released on huge bail, they can be arrested and the time. -- any time. >> several years ago several

journalists were arrested, their connections were taken up. iranians use that to know who is in touch with you. it has already happened. >> let's go to the other side. >> i guess i will start with the background of the political situation in madagascar are. it started in december of 2008. there were many demonstrations and protests in the streets. in march the situation degenerated. a section of the army actually rebelled and overthrew the president.

[unintelligible] the former president has allowed himself in south africa. [unintelligible] one thing that i found funny, cnn was reading twitter messages from iran. in the case of madagascar are, we do not exist on the radar of the mainstream media, here, europe, anywhere. what you had was reading, for me here, in washington, d.c. just

to see what was happening. in that context for me it was good to have loggers and people using twitter on the ground. there was looting all over the city. they were burning down department stores. do not go this way, do not go that way, they have this happening. it was instrumental in bringing awareness of what was happening. also because journalists on the ground are probably more careful about what they write. there is a likelihood that states still have journalists in jail in madagascar are. declared unpatriotic or troublesome.

if you want to read the blogs, give me an idea of what happened. i see pictures. i still see what is really happening. also for the diaz bora in france -- yes or -- diaspora in france, protests have been organized against matter gossaert -- madagascar are. there have been cases where two sides were fighting over who is in control of the embassy. there have been twitter messages and facebook posts about people going to the embassy, let's gather and stop them from invading the embassy.

of course, these are not things that you will see anywhere because it is a country that no one knows about. you hear madagascar are, you think of that movie, right? [laughter] in this case, social media has been central to us. >> one of the first things that zuckerman put out in the work was attention profile in the media, showing the extent to which it does not exist unless there is a genocide. one year after the fact. my question is, with all the work you were doing in social media to bring attention to what was happening in madagascar are, did you get any pickup from mainstream media? was there a sense of a change in the way that people pay attention?

>> there was the story of this protester where there were days and days of protests. the soldiers had been throwing tear gas at the people, you know, shooting for days. one day i looked at a youtube video and there was a man marching down the street with a flag of that s car, marching towards soldiers. you would see the comments, they would think that he was crazy. you could see the soldiers grabbing him, throwing him in

the pickup and beating him and he was gone. he was arrested. it generated such outrage among some loggers. i want to thank my friends at global voices for relating disinformation about this man. how much more can be done when you are demonstrating? he was a nobody. no one knew who he was. people were asking his real name, where he lived, but no one really knew. we created a petition that was signed by a lot of people, translated in four languages, generating a lot of attention.

the united nations high commission for human rights sent an envoy to inquire about the fate of this person, asking what happened to this man. we heard that he got to live. that is a very good case of the process working. if you generate enough noise. i think that it attracted the attention of international people. there were not as many people interested in madagascar are but thought anybody would have scared them into saying whatever they wanted to say, freedom of speech or whatever. but it attracted the attention of the united nations, attracting embarrassment to the government.

it actually resulted in a positive outcome for that person. >> the common theme seems to be youtube and some kind of martyr figure. more than all of these analytical posts or the news feeds coming out. interesting. >> before i thought about the situation in iraq and the impact of new media, i wanted to say a couple of things about the reports, which i found extremely sobering. it seems that there is a wave of fantasizing the new media in a way that makes it look like we will liberate the war. new media is yet another tool

that can be used for good or bad. governments can use it. we can use it. after what happened in iran, there is a public knowledge of the sense, which is a very good point. but the first report that was put out analyzed contents, but the actual terms being examined are very simplistic. in a run things are divided between religious and secular.

what are the actual divisions on the ground? what are the divisions that we would like to test on the ground? how many of these iranians supporting the green movement believed in a religious government? how many of them do not? many of these depend on very simplistic analysis and views of the region as split between islamists and secularists. split between backwards people and educated people. black-and-white images. the issue of the media seems to have less value. if i visit a web site it doesn't

mean that i endorse the content. i love trying to get the mathematics of a blogs, but there must be more work to make it more accurate. new media has not impacted the conflict inside iraq for a number of reasons. one of them is that internet availability for iraqis is very limited. in iran, some of the indications show that one out of every three iranians has access to the internet. that is a huge number. in iraq is around a couple of people for every 5000.

a very small number. the other issues are that iraqis do not use a lot of blogs. many people use message boards and forums. those are extremely popular in iraq. we have spoken many times about the internet being a case of freedom and the fighting authoritarian regimes, but there are terrorist groups that produce these messages. i think that the impact of new media on the iraqi conflict is

very limited. we saw some examples from inside iraq. they had good intentions, tens of thousands of hits each day. because of winter -- information media, as the report says, sending information doesn't necessarily influence or impact of the conflict. i think that the situation in iraq, the use of new media -- i would give an example before i stop. one of the massive demonstrations that happens every year, it is called for by

the [unintelligible] movement. usually they get between 1,000,003 million people in the streets. there website gets like 20 hits each day. [laughter] you can see that there are many other tools being used other than new media. people call each other people people sent text messages, which is very popular. or they talk to each other through other ways. i think that the situation in iraq continues to be the same. the lack of activity, and of course the lack of english speakers in the country as well. >> forums are a classic in

network type of communication. you do not participate if you are not part of the group. there are very few that i can think of that are really open. most of them are associated with a particular trend or sectarian group. it is also hard to mine for data. forums will just disappear and if no one has saved the archive, that is it. interesting. what i think of the impact in iraq, i think of the video of the hanging of saddam hussein. is that an exception or a rule? >> the question is whether we would count that as new media. mms is multimedia messages over textiles, which we do not see

use much in the u.s.. it is a very popular to of communication in iraq. you can get this information without an internet connection and your phone. many important videos, whether they had to do with torture or the abuse of human rights by the iraqi government, or like the other very important videos, they go viral overnight. we do not get them out of the country until someone has an internet connection and has three hours to spend up loading the movie because the internet connection is very slow. once that happens, it does become popular. >> it is not just sent to a

random phone number. it flows differently from the kind of new media we are talking about. peaceful countries without violent conflict or ethnic tensions. >> we tend to call of the tranquil blog. i wanted to comment about a few things that were mentioned. because of the arab culture and society, money -- many of these things run throughout the arab world. something about the popularity of forums, if you would really like to see how political structures on the ground are functioning on line, you really have to look at forums. they are interesting to watch. when you have thousands of members, suddenly someone

becomes a moderator and gets drunk with power and becomes a dictator. suddenly people rise up, saying your dictator. there are backroom messages and deals with other moderators. very telling of how it is probably in a real life. some of the moderators do get overthrown. what is interesting, i think, is that that is a good example of social media in general as a tool, as mentioned in the last panel, in most cases a reflection of what is happening on the ground already. when you see egyptians constantly using technology for political activism, it is not because it is manna from heaven , is because political activism

has been alive for a long time. these tools are just another manifestation of that in jordan there's not a great deal to compare it to. someone mentioned the popularity of mobile technology. so overlooked in terms of the western outlook of technology in the arab world. it gets overlooked and when you are talking about it, for example, in a country like jordan, access is a bit higher but the majority of the population are not online. cellphone organization is over 110%, meaning the people have more than one cell phone.

it is really interesting, that reflection. the question is always -- will a country like jordan or any other country begin to use social media for political activism? a tricky question, there seems to be this hard core definition that the social media impacting our world is limited to political activism, which is defined as the overthrow of government. in some cases people do not want to overthrow governments, they just want policy change. they are not there looking at a government as something that they have to wake up to every day and make a massive change. they wake up and ask how they

can increase taxes, earning more money and putting food on the table. social media in jordan, if you cell phone calls rallies 10,000 people in a few hours. even twitter does not have that capacity. especially in these communities, where it is so easy to mobilize people when you are that organized, as the muslim brotherhood is. other organizations and political activists do not have a constituency. social activism is still alive and well, but they do not have the numbers. the ability to use a cell phone to call people, rallying large

amounts of people in a matter of hours, it cannot be compared to the example of using twitter or facebook. countries like jordan are helping to spread the word. we begin to see a more comprehensive look at society. bringing together people that are online or offline. >> unless they decide to open it up to researchers, is almost impossible research. something we have thought about quite a lot.

i wanted to ask you about the projects you are involved with. one of the best stories shows up in your comments section, exciting because you are listened to, terrifying because your listen to. why did this pot hole like it fixed? can you say a few words about any success or your experience with that? >> basically the idea was to create a sense of social media in the country where the average person would not need to embody in building network through platforms already available and conversations already happening.

maybe it could be akin to something more like the huffington post, for a more american perspective. a very difficult thing to do, people would not like to have their name published, perhaps. that is part of the arabs fear at this point. this and that happened, they will tell their stories to their friends. they can be very frustrated with what is happening, once you tell them to take action it gets very tricky. an interesting take on the situation, it is content driven

by the community. stories that you see our grass roots and on the ground. it is the average person telling an average story. in some countries it is socially shunned to do this online. the interesting thing is what we are trying to do, get that critical mass. someone will, for instance, be very skeptical about eyesight with an impact. the second stage is someone writing a controversial political post. we publish that. we have not censored what he has

said, maybe just fix the grammar. we do not edit for substance. a few comments, most people will avoid it. the third stage is someone seeing that post and saying that the border has been pushed and you get that critical mass where people start to comment. you get more critical things. political or social. it gives you a very good sense of society involving on-line, especially in jordan. one of the interesting things are not political. not as many people care about political situations about

people being highly politically charged and waiting for the right moment. really, people care about very average things. basically reviews from artistic events that people go to. it is about very social and public things. they do not deal with political structures. they have to deal with very social things each day. it will change. we do not censored. we do not like to attack what is being said. the overwhelming majority of things published were basically about one event. little to no turmoil being

discussed, more and more post will be generated about that. >> i think it will take some questions and comments from the floor. i think it will collect a couple of comments together and let people answer them. let's see what we have got coming in >> one question -- what we have coming in. >> how are these continually changing if we are changing the way that we actually aggregate? how important is the solidarity created?

how can we take the place a professional journalists? >> i guess i would put it to the rest of the group. telling a story about assault conflict that has been frozen for 16 or more years, suggesting the social media might have an enormous impact. i wanted to throw out the question everyone. should we be more interested in social media regime change with an acute complex? or is it likely to be more important in the terms of long- term complex -- conflicts? >> good afternoon, i wanted to

share my experience about polarization on the web. i am from a break religion of georgia, i have not been to my home in 18 years. studying in bulgaria i wanted to create a bridge. knowing i have not seen my home for 18 years and that there is a russian military general in my house, i started chatting with people on facebook, trying to build ground for a negotiation. i brought this article, very objective. i wrote this article about my personal experience.

my grandmother lived there. i basically post of this on my facebook wall. in like two days i got 40 comments. . my point is that most of the connections -- i have lots of friends from armenia in my university --but the outside of our country's weak connect and

our friends. governments inside the country should break stereotypes. >> thank you. >> this is very relevant. the conflict in georgia is very significant so i will comment. [inaudible] for me a year and a half ago where people started to be nice to each other, it was with a minute, what is going on here? is the social media just reflecting changes in society anyway? we do know until someone does a sociological survey. is it changing only among a

small minority? i'm guessing it probably is. with regard to governments, in the south caucasus region, the governments are to blame. you made a comment about the georgian media, and other countries -- so armenia is also feeling the heat to. although they may be a minority, considering the governmental situation, these new tools are very welcome. there will not solve the problem, but it is better that they exist, they're not. >> i want to comment on that.

in the beginning when i began to blog not many people knew it, but then we added a comment section. then i made it a forum. that began to consume half my life. after that, i have to do this online migration every year. i go to the facebook account, then twitter. it is kind of fresh footing because it is more less the same people for seven years. [laughter] [unintelligible]

all like programs they can bring all the different platforms into one place. instead of you checking to different places at the same time. i hope that is the last one, because i'm not moving again. >> it really is a moving target. about the link analysis, you were saying you were not satisfied. someone was saying that people cannot click on links anymore. that used to be a big thing. in the arab blogosphere, that is not really a big thing to relate to each other. >> hopefully i understood your question, blout, we need to

redefine what political impact means. in my opinion, the most interesting thing about such immediate and the arab world is that first term -- social. to some it may not be very interesting. to me as a blockgger, it is the biggest impact. especially when you put a in a context where it is a population told you cannot talk, cannot have a conversation. there is the emergence of an entire segment of society -- the overwhelming majority are under the age of 30 in the arab world. you're talking about an entire generation.

they have grown accustomed to having conversations, being exposed to different viewpoints where previously they were not. to be engaged in the bidding people they disagreed with. this was almost non-existing in a country like jordan where groups to themselves and conversations were very closed. now that they are open and you have a constituency of people who conduct the bell issues, and those connecting to a more global audience -- that interaction, comments are almost always more interested.

to me that is a massive political impact. >> do you think, in sections are more interesting? that has not been my experience. >> a question about platforms. people began to use it facebook when the government gave access. [unintelligible] my second point -- platforms became available.

facebook has arrived. it fits with the society and culture. when i look at blog zambia, you see the issues are hard. -- when i look at blogs or media. before the election there were bloggers for the about this issue, and after the election

there was less number. >> one more round of questions, then everyone can have a final word. >> as we heard, the blogosphere offers citizens incredible opportunities to share their opinions wherever they are in the world. but i'm also interested in the challenges. it can also create ethical questions. how the you prioritize? especially in conflict zones, those writing in english will be prioritized over others. how the think you can respond to these questions as bloggers? >> thank you. my name is lily frost. i would just like to ask how the

emergence of private, transnational news networks has also worked with the rise in the use of social media and on $1. a thing you touched on already. commenting on articles. i would like to hear about both the arab world and other areas. >> hi. i'm a recent graduate from american universities conflict resolution program. in my opinion, thank you so much for sharing your story, the variation here may be between the armenian azerbijan

conversation and others on the run taking place previous and after the media interaction. i think it is crucial when dealing with stereotypes -- it is a painful process. if that happens on line is very dangerous and can cut things off if you don't have a previous relationship. i'm just curious. this fits in more with a long- term conflict idea of using social media as a tool to address a long-term conflict. there needs to be some real human interaction buttressing that, or it can blow up in your face. >> one question about it is in

journalism and its role in crisis reporting. which blogs we prioritize? >> can i comment on that? >> in iran the rise of citizen journalists during the uprising last year -- these were like a news agency. the problem is that rumors also spread quickly. outside the country opposition groups were misleading people. on the anniversary of the

disputed election, today ittwo s per they said there would not be any protests or demonstrations because they did not get permission from the interior minister. i was unclear at the moment. i saw people outside, activists senate would go anyway. they are sitting outside the country telling those inside to go out and to get killed. it is not just that. there were lots of rumors trending on facebook. there was a story of a woman who allegedly was burned. we still do not know she ever existed. you can still see on twitter and facebook -- people have changed their pressure and have her picture. the call her a martyr of the revolution. we don't know if she exists.

the iranian government was also spreading lots of news. we think some of these activists could be connected to israel, trying to discredit iran. you do not edit those stories. there is no editor. there were two or three videos on the anniversary that spread quickly. there were posted on cnn everywhere. we're not sure if it was from that date. if it was not from several months ago. so, it is very dangerous in that sense. >> that issue about extra people egging people on is one i have thought about a lot. we have been writing something about this -- i called the moral

hazard problem. we tell the bloggers to go out in protest, but we cannot do anything to protect them. then all the sudden, you have them being arrested, fired from their jobs, and we cannot do much to help them. it is a huge ethical issue. >> i personally believe this people on the ground no better than us the right thing to do on that day. when the statement was issued telling people not to go out, those tside the country said no, go out. people inside the country thought they had good reason to issue the statement, so did not go out. very few people went out on the day because the police were everywhere, ready to use force.

>> i want to quickly touch on michael's point and the issue, were you mentioned about the madagascar going. today happens to be the first anniversary of the detention of two video bloggers. hillary clinton was in azerbijan. several major international paper's have raised the issue. this increased international awareness resulting change? in this case it does not. even the secretary of state is powerless against an oil- producing nation. i'm sure they accept the risk.

mrs. related to what michael -- this is related to what he was saying and one of the reasons i was suddenly able to communicate with citizens, because of these two bloggers -- the global voices coverage -- would go with it very objectively. trust was formed, and as a result, facebook relationships formed. then people introduce you to others. but you are correct, the human interaction is also necessary. then we meet up. then the next stage of the relationship is formed. both are necessary. the human relationships and trust are incredibly vital. people sometimes think that pays

bo facebook is the answer, but t does not quite work like that. >> i want to mention something about the morality of reporting. i think blogs [unintelligible] wind the media links to a blog, people read what it says -- when the media links to it. the first weeks after the invasion there was a lot of attention to blogs send the the

situation was great and everyone was happy. although these did not really reflect what was happening in the streets, there were still used as a tool to push some political agenda in the u.s. unlike twitter where it is one big melting pot, #gaza, and everything goes there -- you don't see everything on a blog. how do we know these exist or not? from my experience when mine was linked to media i got thousands of hits. whenever a put the breaking news that no one linked to, it did not give much coverage. >> i wanted to comment on the

iranian situation where we had rumors spread. in the case of madison? madagascar are many of them our there and hang out together socially. even before the crisis the bloggers knew each other. after the crisis, and a matter which side they're on, they still hang out together. they still in a way trust each other. when there is a question about the solidarity of bloggers, i think it is crucial, that even if you don't agree with the defacto government, you see that this does happenpen, you still e to recognize it.

they know each other, whether a person who organized the petition is trustworthy. it was instrumental in getting everyone behind the petition. about the spread of rumors, there are quite a lot of false rumors spread on twitter and used as propaganda on both sides. last month there were two factions of the madagascar army against each other. it did not last long, maybe one hour at most, or so. but at the end of the day there was still some comment on twitter saying we're going to win.

and another faction of the army will come to help them now. you wonder what is the non? those people are not even on the ground, but are somewhere in france. they're nice and cozy in telling people to go out to protest. one thing we tried to do is create a new tag that says "unconfirmed." you don't know who is reading these and passing them on. you don't know who will end up in the line of fire, in trouble. in the small world of madagascar, pretty much everyone knows each other and the world of bloggers. i know which tweets to stay away from because i have been following it for so long did i

know this person is not trustworthy. >> and unconfirmed # tag might be fatal to twitter. [laughter] i love to keep going, but let me thank the panel and audience. we will take a break. [applause] >> come up, deputy secretary for homeland security, followed by a former white house adviser, and a former authority on national circuit. later, on the "newsmakers" issa

talks about the department of justice suit challenging the arizona law. jane was about the department's effectiveness and growth with cnn correspondent, part of a conference hosted by the aspen institute. it is about one hour. >> good morning. i am president -- vice-president of security actibm. as clark mentioned in his brief comments last night, the real value of an event like this is in discussions. and the ideas those greed. at ibm it is to implement these ideas, as for many of you. aligns perfectly with our commitment to help secure our nation

we appreciate this opportunity. this money we kick off with an event with the produce secretary -- with the deputy secretary. she has more than 30 years in the u.s. government, and prior to joining dhs she served as the assistant secretary general of united nations. she served under george h.w. bush and under president clinton. she also headed the carnegie commission on preventing a deadly conflict and was a senior public policy fellow at woodrow wilson international center for scholars. she is a thoughtful and engaging leader.

facilitating our discussion is a familiar voice. jean. she came here from toronto where she was covering the g-20 summit. i have you help me to keep my commitment that neither police nor right here will be required. -- norm riot gear will be required. she reports for a unit of the road that connects several of beats to examine the state of security in the u.s. issue as part of the peabody award-winning coverage of hurricane katrina. she provided some of the first reports. she provided coverage for two tv specials. covering common security since 2001, she has reported on

security concerning several key areas. >> who would have thought the lead story to they would be about russian spies? and not al qaeda? a bit of a time warp. i know that you have come here from the gulf. it has taken a lot of attention, some resources. how much as that distracted or degraded the counter-terrorism efforts. >> not at all. the department fundamentally believes fighting terrorism is job one. the challenge we have to oversee and hold accountable is one we take gone as part of our

responsibilities, but as many of the no, the department has a wide wingspan. >> but a limited number of people. hasn't it had some distracting impact searcy's distracting is not the right word. we are able to manage more than one thing at a time. we think about the main towns as we face. we have just come through the year-long examination intensively of what it means to talk about, and security. one of the striking things about the department after its pounding, and extraordinary work of people, is the department is eight years old now. it is not one year old for the

seventh time. there has been an accumulation of knowledge and experience, consolidated and able to clarify what it means to talk about homeland security. >> well, how'd you know when the nation is secure? >> it is a good and time the question. the department has extraordinary brand name recognition, but many don't ask that question. what we think it means -- to speak of, and security is to speak of a safe and secure place for the american way of life can thrive. that is the vision. someone once told me if you do not know where you are going, you will not get there. >> we heard admiral mom last leg

of his assessment of where he thought the greatest threat was -- we heard admiral mullen. >> we think about that all the time. if counter-terrorism is job one, real and you discover your throwing remedies of a problem without any real fear greed of the problem. one of the greatest dangers we face is al qaeda and affiliated groups. and their determination to attack again. we're determined to be prepared. when we talk about our vision -- a vision without a plan is at best a dream, and at worst nightmare. what the do about your vision? we think building a safe place where our real life can drive we

need to do five things. we need to prevent another 9/11 attack. we need to secure our borders. it is a threshold concern of sovereign nations to do so. you see the dual nature here. we want to keep out people and goods that might be dangerous. we also want to welcome legitimate trade and travel. we want to expurgatexpedite tha. we have to enforce immigration laws. we want to welcome those who would enrich our culture, but keep out those who might be dangerous. we have a fundamental right to know who lives and works within our borders. it is essential for a stable economy to have a legal work force. fourthly, we need to secure cyberspace. it lies at the heart of so much of american life.

finally, we need to build the brazilian country to face all risks and hazards. >> you describe the risk as exxon and. 25 people who are either native- born americans or naturalized citizens since the first of there have been charged with terrorist crimes. -- you've described the risk as an external. >> i have spent a lot of my career in the national security. a lot of it in the international relations and foreign policy. i spent the last 15 years on the outside looking in. and understanding events and dynamics they give rise to violent conflict around the world. there are many myths. we know that al qaeda is nematology.

its ability to attract followers -- it is no methodology. its ability to do that is true. we know there are those here who are attracted, and who are becoming motivated to violence. we do several things about it. our strategy for counter- terrorism means pulling together the tools we have. of we are fighting abroad we can depend a lot on intelligence and partners. we depend on the military. at home those pooltools cannot e just picked up and use year. we have border tools.

people and goods have to go through. we have enforcement. both federal and state and local personnel. we have intelligence, and the american public. an extraordinary effort. >> what about the outrage to communities, for instance to the muslim community, to build bridges? does that work, or backfire? >> as an american you get to be many things. you're not forced into a miniature version of yourself for only one aspect of your identity define shoot, but you can affiliate multiply.

we do reach out to muslim communities and engage them. we do with all communities. we actively seek ways in which american society can come together, as we have before. >> you mention law enforcement. there was a problem in a given case. local enforcement was in the loop. they went to someone in the muslim community and spoke to him, and he tipped off the person. that resulted in premature and to the investigation fortunately, it ended happily, but there was a misfire. the authorities were not working

perfectly in tandem. >> we believe in the power of community policing. they work together with local trust and confidence getting built from the ground up. more broadly, how do we understand the threat when it is beginning to materialize? if someone is here, the time existing between when they might be moved to violence and actually taking the action might be but to the short, compared to if they had to travel from abroad. we need to know more, act wisely, remember norms and values that made this country great. we need to craft a strategy is working together. >> at the moment is a huge problem for your department, it isn't? >> is terrorism a problem for our department?

>> the homegrown problem -- it seems difficult to get hold of. overseas there are other tools that you do not have here. sometimes people operate completely under the radar. >> we do not just import rules apply abroad. we have the american public and the different levels of law enforcement, border tools, and information-sharing. we need to craft strategies that allow us to know when disaffected people will move to violence. we're working intensively in the homeland a security enterprise. it is far more than just the department. it is individuals, municipalities, and the entire

federal family. >> is it working the way it is supposed to in information- sharing? is information flowing up and down the chain, and back down again? >> of course not. we have so much information at times. we feel like this in our everyday lives. so much that sometimes we feel like we have no information -- not the information we need. we need to do better, and in a way that protects civil rights and privacy. but we need to understand the action implications of what we know. this is fundamental not only for counter-terrorism, but in building a resilient society.

do we have empowered individuals? those who know what to do. capable communities another constituent members, strength and weaknesses, and can marshal resources. then we need a response of the federal system that understands its value proposition within the whole enterprise. >> how do we get there? >> it begins by understanding it takes all of us. everyone has a responsibility. the model you see on every bus and taxi cab, the citizen who identified the times square bomber.

-- the motto you see. >> these are tight budgetary times. local and state governments are having trouble. local police departments are under arrest. do they have the resources needed to commit to this terrorism issue? will they continue to have resources? or will they decide something else is more important? >> something i have learned in my homeland securities the my whole career in national security is so different it is. national security is strategic, centralized, and top-driven. homeland security is operational, decentralized, and driven from the grassroots, from the bottom. the communities and states have a voice, rightly so.

we know we have to do everything we can to strengthen their resources through grant programs and the department of justice, through the fusion centers, establishing standards. >> can you see the possibility of grant funding increasing in coming years? >> of course i can. we are in very stringent financial times, everyone knows. the department has benefited from a generous investment by congress for several years. but the fiscal constraints affecting everyone also affect the department. this is not a surprise.

perhaps we'll need to do business differently, but still need to do business together. >> a lot of money has been spent on technology. the program to guard the border has not worked as designed. machines bought and deployed in airports did not work well in the real world. there have been problems with new nuclear detection grumman. what is the problem? why has so much been spent on technology that did not work? >> first of all, technology is only part of the solution. technology is very beguiling. people are in constant search for the silver bullet. that's like looking for dinosaurs in manhattan. is not that there are no

dinosaurs in manhattan -- there are no dinosaurs. the technology is improving our ability to detect, to interdict and prevent dangerous things from happening, but it does not exist alone. >> do you think that depart minister in the right risk benefit analysis? >> in the public sector of governments spend money in three ways. will this work? and in many areas where turn things that have never been tried before. and on the skill that has never been tried before. -- and on ana scale of never

before. technology is a piece of that. we are learning every day. you're getting a lot right. are there still challenges? of course there are. >> let's talk about the full body scanners currently going to airports. with one of those -- would it have caught him, had been deployed? >> there is no silver bullet. the answer is possible. if we're looking for absolutes, then my answer will disappoint. but if we're looking at a later purged -- yes, they improved our ability to detect. >> is it worth the amount we're spending? >> that's marginal question is one that we are asking ourselves every day.

the answer is any option is a function of those available. it is not the only link in the chain. >> penetration, bomb parts, through transportation security checkpoints -- we have had the polling results from the past. what does the current test show searcy's i want going to any detail about our current technical capability, but we see improvement all the time. >> significant? >> yes, but the technologies and systems have to evolve, and it will. >> air marshalls -- are there enough, and should they be on

every flight? >> we feel we could use more. you'll never have enough for every flight every day. combining a risk-based approach and the correct number of personal is an important aspect. >> what kind of increase would you like? >> this is a single element of the entire process. it is weighed against other elements. rather than simply pop off with a certain amount of increase, we want to see a system that the traveling public can be confident in to give them a safe travel experience. will we learn about the christmas day bomber -- that if you can access the global

aviation system from one part, then you have access to the entire system. this individual but his ticket in one place, boarded and another, and so on -- you could put any city on the map for those four locations. the secretary asked me in the immediate wake of that to travel to the aviation partners in the world -- six continents, 12 countries, in 12 days. we talk to people about the elements we need to put together. if al qaeda and affiliates are putting their best minds to the problem, we need to do the same, and are. we learned several things. first, we confirmed we need to do better at information- sharing. >> internationally, or domestically? >> in this case,

internationally. it is one thing to deal with unidentified individuals. another thing to deal with a relatively unknown. this person was relatively unknown. we did not connect the dots. it requires partnerships and a commitment. secondly, we did not have the technology. do we have the correct types of technology deployed? are people using it? unsatisfied the system -- are we satisfied the systems are in place that meet the standards? the stronger members need to help the weaker members to raise the level. >> underuse on some international agreements, -- i

know that you signed some -- but is the world as a whole anywhere close? >> yes, over the past six months we have made enormous progress. hillary clinton has secured agreements. >> what are the specifics of the agreements? >> higher standards for information gathering and sharing, better uses of technology and the exchange of standards and technological information, and practice. it is not any single piece of equipment, but the whole system in place in an airport. and a mutual commitment to improve the weaker parts of the system. >> an additional question about the christmas day, -- a similar

bomb had been used against a saudi arabian official. a u.s. official had gone to get a briefing about the particular type of bomb, but it does not appear that was disseminated to the tsa. has there been any adjustment in the screening? why didn't that works better searcy's every single day first, tsa has a robust playbook of measures it uses, and dynamically employes those so we don't give a potential adversary the vantage of predictability. in many international partnerships we're constantly updating the database on the types of threats existing, types of explosives, strategy, procedures they may attempt. >> was tsa getting the

intelligence it is needed about this kind of bomb surcease the kind of material was not particularly exotic. >> no, but considering in underwear was something only seen in the one saudi instance. >> without going into specifics of that case, we knew about this kind of material and its potential threat. we're constantly working to make sure we prevent it from happening. >> another part of the mission of missiontsa is to protect mass transit. one-third of terrorist events for a while have been against mass transit bill is the department devoting resources and attention and time to that particular problem? or are those systems fundamentally not possible to

protect? >> i would not say it is not possible -- we have to take measures to engage all our tools. the department has a dynamic dialogue, not only with major cities where these mass transit's concentrate, but also with the private sector. we are committed to a program that engages and forms the public to be alert for potential dangers. to employ best practices for individual travel to reduce their potential liability. we are in the dialogue with the private-sector on ways to strengthen the protection of the system. we can always do more. >> if money is allocated based on risk, the risk for mr. it

seems to be very high, yet a small piece of the pie. >> you have almost explain it yourself. it is true -- is there enough money for everything that's the answer is no. does it mean we are without any means to protect ourselves, our mass transit systems? this is something we look at the only from counter terrorism, but from building the system to withstand all attacks. together with other federal agencies we can add value to the private sector, citizens actions, and those of cities. >> we are doing a quick tour of the waterfront. i have to ask about cyberspace. the inspector general recently did airport which it says you don't have the manpower or

capabilities. you're just not up to the job. >> it is a good thing for that report. >> in the first instance it was the department calling now to make cyberspace a core mission. and a limited that. many people have come up to myself and others to say we have always known it was out there, but have never given it the attention. now we will. raising consciousness is an essential on them. we need to construct an ecosystem for cyberspace. it is about protecting information and your identity. it means he can engage in cyber activity confident your

information is getting where needs to go safely. and that coming to you this coming from the person who says they're sending it. the federal government does not own all the cyberspace in the country. we cannot do it alone. we need to engage citizens who feel that they own their information and identity, but also the private sector needs to be engaged. >> according to the report, about half of the positions are unfilled in your cyberspace division. why is that? >> there is great competition for highly skilled workers in the city. -- in cyberspace.

we have committed with the administration to become the home of the world's best cyber professionals. it will take some time, but we'll get there. >> how? >> you track them the same way we are all attracted to public- service. we are attracted to work on something bigger than ourselves , and in mutual commitment to the country. can we pay them the same money as the private industry? no, of course not, but we can forward them with opportunities to create. >> but they read this report and say dhs may not have the to deal with this problem. >> sometimes we based lives decisions on a single report, or

a single thing we hear. for the government to become engaged in a sensible way so we can fulfil our value proposition -- and i feel certain that cyber secure will not mean the federal government has taken charge of ensuring the security of everyone's computer, or mobile device, that we will need a system -- we need a new ecosystem entirely. the department will be at the center of that. we're convinced the attraction of that will bring in the best and brightest. >> recently the secretary said she thought the government might need more tools to monitor the

internet. what is she talking about the? >> we know the internet has had an extraordinary effect. the man not be anything such as a minority anymore because you can find your affiliation on the annette, and bypass barriers. we need to understand what the means are by which people who feel disaffected are motivated to violence, and it is that connection to violence we are determined to understand. the connection to the internet seems to serve as an excellent for the. we saw that hate radio in rwanda. you don't blame the internet or

rita, but you understand that is an accelerant to violence. >> but what tools of the secretary talking about -- is the secretary talked-about? >> not just technology tools, but also understanding processes and procedures. guided by our norms, values, sensibilities. what tools to give our children when we are raising them to be responsible citizens? they don't call round bags of software. we give them tools up here, macros to deal with everyday life. >> the color-coded threat

system came to be quite a joke, and there was a group formed that was supposed to look specifically and make recommendations. they returned to the secretary and told her to simplify it, make it easier. . .

the secretary is still looking very closely of those considerations, at those recommendations mindful of the, again, how do we put in a system that is value added to ensure our protection against terrorism and other threats? it will happen when there are down. again, no one has been standing still for the past 18 months. there has been a generation of learning and conversation in homeland security for the last year and a half a building on all the work that had been done previously. we know now what it means women talk about a secure homeland. we know the five mission areas. the american public has a right to three things. this -- that expect we can do the missions, account for the resources that have been

entrusted to us. this is an operating department. there are 210,000 men and women. 207,000 are the operating component. people like about the board and the code airports, on sacred service detail, in the coast guard. they're doing this every single day, off rating on the behalf of the american public. -- they did this every single day, operating on behalf of the american public. they are a precious resource. >> yet surveys show they are amongst the most unhappy people in the federal government. >> they are the customers didn't -- they are the most committed and passionate. there are a number of them who have said to me that this is something i feel very strongly about.

i went into the army. tomorrow i will have been out of the army as long as i was in. i went to basic training in 1976. it was not a great time to be in the army. the post-vietnam feeling, that vietnam era feeling. people tell me that is how they feel, but the american public and we have to change that. these men and women are every bit as committed as the men and women in uniform. i was a soldier. what they're doing is extraordinary. it is my privilege to be their leader. and is a greater privilege -- it is a greater privilege to be one of them. we need to give them the conditions, the tools from the leadership in the working environment they deserve to

match the passion. >> were a lot of americans interface with your department is at the airport. they feel like their perpetrators when they walk into a screening line. >> they should not feel that way. a lot of the gsa agents, every single day, the vast majority are committed professionals who have one job and one job alone to ensure your safe air travel. they do so with professionalism and commitment. >> one last question on personnel. people have secret clearances who want to come to work through your department are put your additional screening for suitability. why do they have to go through that. does the secret clearance not do that for you? does it stop the flow of the filling of physicians? >> perhaps it keeps people away

from secret service and go first log, we are streamlining the process. it is a requirement of federal service. they take the security clearance as evidence of your suitability. we also have a number of -- having a security clearance does not entitle you to work in a law enforcement job. this is certainly slows it down. anyone who has been in the hiring system as it does not need any help in slowing down. we are working on that. >> a lot of concern about how porous in the southern border is. do you have indications that it is being exploded -- exploited

by terrorists? do you think terrorists are coming across the northern or southern borders? >> secretary of the soliton know, a governor of a border state -- secretary janet of paul lozano, who was a governor of a border state, the southern border has not been more secure than it is today. >> but it is not close to anything near 100% sign. >> our borders are secure as they have ever been. we have to create a system that does keep dangerous people and goods out but also one that exercise legitimate trade and traffic. we are finding ways, again, working within the industry to expedite legitimate trade and travel so we can focus on those. "how do you make it secure? fbi did not deliver as promised. it has not been easy. >> that is right.

even then, someone goes off shift. there is no question -- how we daisy chain our way to security. it is a question of working from the federal's point of view that it is our responsibility. working with personnel from the technology, and procedures to strengthen those areas of the border that we know needs strengthening, working with state and local officials to develop situational awareness and the ability to predict. also the ability to expedite legitimate trade and travel. >> i want to open it up to you guys. we have a couple of microphones here. i would love to get some questions. please come if you could identify yourself and your organization. i see two hands of. let's start in the back. we will get a microphone to you.

>> my name is quentin. i am a citizen. there was a report two weeks ago from a local arizona and television station. basically it reported that there were hundreds of people from nations that sponsor terrorism including afghanistan, and egypt, iran, iraq, pakistan, sudan, and yemen. they are being detained as they illegally cross into the southern part of the country. as an ongoing following question, is that a likely number, that there are hundreds of potential people from terrorist nations that are crossing on a regular basis across our border? >> i have not seen that report, so i am afraid i cannot comment on that. what i can tell you is that we are working every day to insure the safety and security of the southern border. secretary napolitano, one who

knows arizona and the border states well, this has never been more secure. but we are working to strengthen this centers in the part of the system, whether it is a fence, but a fence is not a strategy. but personnel, technology, policies, procedures, we will continue to work on those areas to strengthen the border. >> you in the blue shirt. >> i am from "the washington times." in the current fiscal climate, it is time to get rid of the pork-barrel funding formula for dhs grants and replace it with a formula that is based on the fact that new york has the same number of senators that recognize the different number of risks?

>> in our view, it is very clear. everyone faces some risks. we know that as we have transitioned into a very austere fiscal environment compared to previous years that a number of things need to be reexamined. we need to streamline grants to make it more accessible by the states. that is something we are doing. >> what about the problem of distribution in politics? >> homeland security, again, is an extraordinary department. there are 100 a congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee the -- there are 108 congressional committees. there are 50 states, and told communities that are important constituencies for the department of homeland security. these decisions are always taken mindful of the needs we need to serve. >> i want to ask you about the congressional piece. there are a multitude of

committees. i sometimes look at the schedule and see one individual in front of several committees. how destructive is that for the department? how distracting? how much time does not consume? what difference would it make if congress streamlined oversight of your department? >> we think it would be great. congress has been very generous to the department of homeland security. we have knowledge that and are very grateful for it. we know that we need to answer and account. it is 108 congressional committees. it is a lot. it is ridiculous. [laughter] it is a lot. [laughter] >> back there. go ahead. >> i am from "newsweek."

i am baffled about your remark claiming that the southern border has never been as secure as it is today. what are you basing that on? what is your metric? given what has happened recently, is the state legislature in arizona and its governor, secretary of napolitano used to be the secretary of -- the governor of that state -- what is your basis for that claim? >> i think the secretary has been very clear. again, the number of resources that have been committed to the border, the level of sophistication and processes we are applying at the border, the training and qualifications of border agents combined with all the other elements, there are more fences, the greater use of technology and process. >> there are still people coming

across. >> the legislatures to not seem to think that is the case at all. >> i would not presume to answer for the state legislature of arizona. >> any idea why they would pass the lot of the border is as secure as you were planning? >> i am prepared to speak about the department of common security. >> there are still plenty of people coming across, however. so is a geek -- so it distance to go. you cited that as one of the fundamental things. >> absolutely. what we have to do and in securing our borders is keeping dangerous goods and people out. there is no single silver bullet for that purpose as we discussed. there is no daisy chain. a combination of personnel, technology, procedures, partnerships. the federal government is playing its role in responsibility. it is a constant challenge. you are never done securing your

border. >> let me go over here. i see a handout. >> when the major recommendations of the 9/11 commission was to deal with the interoperable the of communication that all of the various first responders had. there has been some progress but not very much. i am curious on your thoughts. my name is david bishop. >> i am an old signal officer. error of her ability is clearing up radios said they can talk to each other and whether or not to recognize each other's procedures and they have an interactive way of managing what they have to do in the events of the crisis. there is a lot of crisis response and this is a key elements that really in heaven's the best kind of response and the coordination of assets. just as you this -- just as you

said, we have made some progress but not enough. municipalities have a very strong preferences in this regard. we are committed to the interoperable the agenda. we will continue to work on that because it is so critical in the crisis response. what we know is that the department of homeland security is not the first response. crisis happens is somewhere, they involve some one. very often the first responders are not even a local authorities, they are locals. we know this is where the work is done. this is the front line. we need to do our part to strengthen its through better interoperable liddy -- interoperability. >> in the yellow shirt there. >> good morning.

i am yellow shirt. some of your statements regarding the oversight, the 108 committees, 210,000 people. do you think it would be wise to consider breaking of the department. there is enormous bureaucracy here. that which has to do with absolute national security and the other part, fema, hurricanes, floods, and all that -- it might serve you all better if it were two different agencies. >> no. you are talking to someone who spent their first half of their adult life in the army and then i went to the u.n. and now i am in homeland security. i have a speciality in large far-flung bureaucracies in which this is one. this department is an extraordinary combination of these assets. fema is better off for its co-

location with the coast guard in this department. the secret service is better off in this department with the co- location of better offsets. -- with better assets. that issue is resolved. >> right down here in front. >> i am from agd international. you talk about stopping terror incidents as they take place, which as we know is very difficult. have you considered launching programs to stop incitement out of the country? will khalid sheikh mohammed's

trial took place in new york? >> the last question i will leave to the department of justice to handle. the federal government does gauge internationally with -- does engaged internationally with the muslim world. it was a resounding view of the president's view of things. we have all been working consistently within that the. we have a particular challenge here as well. the muslim communities that exist in this world, they bring a richness to our society and the commitment to the american way of life that we share. there are larger communities within these communities, within which these communities exist and they all have to engage. we do not believe that this is a problem that you can just arrest your way out of.

you need to put in place the structural elements, that economic activity, airbus civil society based on the rule of law, all of the things we know and are committed to in this country. we need to remind ourselves that it is available and enlist their help. that is our concern. we are a part of that. >> over here. >> of good morning. committee on homeland security. you asked earlier about other tools that you might need to fight the war on terror. if you look at the international threat that we deal with, we have the nsa, the cia, we have more capabilities and externally to the u.s. monitoring what is going on damage possibly hope to have internally. internally, it seems like a lot of our ability to detect a

terrorist threat either comes from a tip from an informant because a terrorist decided to reach out to someone or come in the example of the [unintelligible] because they decided they wanted to turn a vhs into a dvd. is that a sufficient strategy? what other tools should we let that? we just look that the international nexis and and not a strict internal lexis. >> this is what we're thinking about right now. the tools that work abroad may not be the tools that perfectly translate into a domestic department. we have several of them. we have the tools of the border, we have law enforcement both federal and state and local. state and local have enormous information and knowledge of their communities. they recognize behavior and they understand when things are very,

very badly wrong. we need to engage them and connect them a better through fusion centers and other process these -- process is so people have the information they need and understand the action implications of the information that they have. and we have the american public. it is an important tool and resources. it helps us in homeland security every time when we are confronting how to develop strategies like this, to remind us of the american public, the power of the american public, the power of american values and norms in approaching the challenges we face. i am very optimistic about our ability to succeed. >> so no new tools? >> it did you want to propose legislation? [laughter] >> i had a follow-up. this triggers something in my mind.

target number one, two, or free on the list, a lot of time and efforts had been put into securing times square. a guy comes in, parks a truck, and leaves. to our knowledge not one surveillance camera caught him in times square. is something not working? is that not why we invested in that sort of technology? >> again, no single piece or link in the chain will make use secure. new york city takes a back seat. you can talk to commissioner kelly. there have a commitment to counter terrorism and security. i would say from our own perspective, i have spoken about the american public. we are at our best asset.

we are the guardian of our civil rights, liberties, and privacy. we are also the guardians of our safety and security. >> is it appropriate in times square that it should come down to a vendor noticing something out of line? >> it did work in this instance. is that what we should be relying on? in a place like times square? you're not mic'd. >> imagine this individual had raised the alarm and it was ignored. we need to mobilize all of our resources and assets together. this is a joint enterprise. >> question? i see a woman back here with the paint around the neck.

sorry to do the caller identification. -- caller identification. >> i am from fox news. i have some questions related to home grown extremism. first of all, how would you characterize the threat of the american yemen to the u.s. homeland? do you believed it is in the u.s. long-term interest to be killed, captured for intel, are kept on the run as he is today? >> i think he has made no secret of his animosity and determination to ferments violence against this country. i think he is a danger that ought to be addressed aggressively. >> what about the kilt, capture, or on the run? >> uh, ok. >> is it to kill an american overseas? to capture him for intelligence? or is it to try and force them

underground as he is living, from what i understand, constantly moving from place to place? >> we talked about the long-term interest of this country. homeland security we use the phrase "a safe, secure, resilience place where america can drive." what does this place needed? we need a dynamic economic engine that can generate new wealth. we need strong friends and allies. when the predictable relations with the rule of law. we need to fundamentally to keep ourselves secure and address threats. is he a threat? yes. do we need to address it? yes. >> i was just wondering the best way to address it. my follow-up question is on the issue of digital or virtual jihadists. they have a message which is really selling to these people.

what do you see is our message to win the war of ideas? >> it speaks to the heart, i think, of not just the disaffection. i spent a lot of years thinking about violent conflict and how to prevent a violent conflict. when we started to do that, people laughed at us. conflict and wars have always been around. you cannot prevent war. my reaction is, "war is not the weather. we should not act like it is." we are speaking to the root causes of the disaffection and the anger, and that would be for those who specialize in that address, but when that disaffection turned violent and the means by which it turns violent and the potential threat the pilots poses to the american way of life. -- and the potential threat to the violence poses.

we want to prevent the violence from happening each and every day. >> we have to leave it there. thank you so much. [applause] >> our coverage of the security conference continues with former homeland security adviser [inaudible] she talks about cyber security. this is a little over one hour. >> she was president bush proxy white house security -- homeland security adviser. she was the first, and don for intelligence. -- the first commandants for intelligence. this story last night that twice and been -- it struck me last night that twice unbidden, did

this affect your thinking on homeland security and domestic terrorism? >> remember the christmas day attempt. my successor came out and explained that the connection to out tied it and the arabian peninsula was a somewhat surprising to them. it had been a regional group. the attempt in the times square and christmas day then happened. the pakistan any taliban, -- the pakistani taliban had expanded. when the admiral talk about this, i think what he is talking about the difficulty in getting into the decision sunoco for an attack. -- talking about the decision cycle for an attack.

they share a belief in particular tactics, similar targets in terms of targeting an american interest whether home or abroad. suddenly you find these like- minded groups coming together to want to share either training, tactics, money, people. it becomes much harder. you are no longer targeting a single group but this network, this matrix of groups that shares certain things in common. >> when you were at the white house, was that already happening? is this something new? >> we began to see it. we began to seem things like a consolidation of efforts. there is a group in north africa, the gsbp. you began to see these alliances around the world in indonesia

and all these groups began all the sudden, say a strange alliance, but this confluence of events. we understood that they had a real priority for those who had american travel documents or who were american. we were working with our british colleagues and a particular to look and travel patterns. we understood that there was this network that was in farming. we were watching it very closely. we are now seeing some of the results of that effort on the house qaeda side of. >> why is this happening? are we doing something wrong in which we are actually allowing this federation to occur or even in courageous docs >> i do not think so. the current administration has been incredibly aggressive against al qaeda in tribal areas and in pakistan. the murray put pressure on the

core of the network, the more you are likely to see -- like my children, you push a ball in the children and -- you push the ball in the water and it rises. there is a natural reaction to a tremendous amount of pressure. it started in prior administrations but has been stepped up against the core of the network. i think that is part of it. >> how should be readjusted our tactics? >> we have always understood that our relationship with foreign partners is very important. not all foreign partnerships are created equal. not all partners had equal capability. some are more valuable, some are more transparent, some are more consistent. i am happy if people are interested to talk about that. you understand that as the home gone -- the home grown threat, you have to rely more on your

partners for indication and warnings before an attack. you have to rely more on state and local partners because particularly with the homegrown threat, the people most likely to see an anomaly are your local police forces and sheriffs. third, i really think we need to do a better job of engaging the american people. in some ways, we are a victim of our own success. we have not seen a major attack since 9/11. we have seen increasing real intense, but even those attempts to know when you compare it to the scale of 9/11 with the 3000 americans dead, you see a guy with a bomb in his underwear that does not go off or a bomb is officially put together in times square. i think people take an unjustified comfort in that. and is not a matter of scaring people, but it is a matter of emphasizing that the threat continues to be real.

even state and local governments will not be successful without the help of the american people. >> when you say engaging the american public, are you asking people to watch out for their neighbors? that sort of thing? >> i think it is a number of different ways. i think you need to engage them in a very specific way. you do not want americans running around running around frightened for the next attack. that is not effective. what you want to do is be able to talk to people so they are prepared in their own mind for what i think is inevitable. there have been about 25 arrests this year. there have been a number of attempts whether it has been the backpack a bomb, the times square, the plane in detroit.

evidently -- eventually one of these will be successful. i think one of the engagements is preparing the american people for what may be the eventuality of the next attack. finally, if there is another attack, part of the reason you want to talk to them is to begin to understand even a successful attack on the scale of a times square or the detroit bomber, while tragic, is a somewhat deterred or killed. when you compare that to the level of effort and success at 9/11, this will be their failure. if that is the best they can do, you will not be able to say that in the midst of the crisis. you have to talk to the american people about what terrorism is and what it is likely to look like going forward. i think part of it is in listing their help but. tell them what you need them to look for. finally i think it is a matter of engaging them in the

privacy-civil liberties debate. in a crisis, the executive branch of government will make the balance for you. i can tell you having served, looking back towards the american people will criticize how the decision got made. that is what they get paid the big bucks for. if you did not like the way the government makes the decisions in a crisis, you want to engage them now before the crisis, because frankly you will -- the american people have the ability to effect. their views on how the balance should be made whether we're talking about terrorism, security, or information sharing. there is a real value. i think you cannot expect -- is the response is, why does the government do this? the answer is because it has become the third rail of american politics, this notion of the data mining, information sharing, what can the government

know or not know. i think politicians do not see this as in their interest is so it requires a grass-roots today. >> do you think we have calibrated it wrong? that we are to fanatic about privacy and we do not do enough data mining? >> i think there are ways to do it. if we could have a conversation, and intelligent and knowledgeable conversation, i think there are ways we can do more. everyone here logs on to the internet. everyone here will notice after they do a couple of searches that the sidebar ads get what? all the private sector does this. and is part of how they understand their markets, customers, and how they target advertising. there are ways to do this. i think we need to talk about it, because i think we're not taking the capability available to us because it is so controversial. >> it would seem that part of

the problem is we are not information sharing even within the agencies. do you think there is a problem with the fbi, state and local, and the department of homeland security still smiling information? >> forget what i think. look what happened on christmas. we have an awful lot of information in the system that we did not take advantage of. i would have been the victim of this next statement, so i think i can still say it. the american people were reasonably forgiving of the mistakes the government made in 9/11 in failing to connect the dots. publicly i used to say, "they will not be for giving a second time and they have a right to expect of their government not to make the same mistake twice." zoe baird is here and has done a lot with information sharing. this is one that just makes me angry.

the technology exists. this is not a technology problem. it is a failure of policy, a failure of leadership. when i was in the government, there was a national information sharing policy and strategy that was meant to sort of lead the interagency through this. it cannot be that it is an acceptable mistake to not share information and we throw up our hands and move on. it is not ok. >> if it is a failure of policy? what is the policy failure? >> doocy something like christmas day where information is either not adequately and petted or not adequately shared. frankly, it cannot be in that we acknowledge that and move on from there and there is no consequence. i venture to say that if the president of the united states calls in his cabinet and says,

"the next time this happens i will not hold the agency accountable, i will hold the cabinet accountable. a cabinet member will be fired if there agency fails to share information." you that the information will be shared and the cabinet secretary will take personal responsibility to make sure he beats his or her agency into submission. we have not seen that. i think it is that in court. i think it requires a clear vision and accountability down to the system. left to their own devices, i want to be clear. this is not an issue of malevolence among the agencies. the notion that someone is actively making a decision to take a report and hide it under the desk is more often than not not accurate. requires more than it benign neglect. it requires a net affirmative conscious decision every day --

it requires an affirmative conscious decision. i still do not see that energy, that passion in that issue. this is not sexy. they do not want to have these issues. >> it seems that from 9/11 to the christmas day bombing, it is all the same. it is a failure of information sharing. >> to be fair to my colleagues, who continue to serve, i think it is better. i do think there is ever put against this. i will tell you the problem is every time there is a lot of attention and very senior levels of the government and then everyone goes back to their day jobs. it begins to slowly dissipate. it requires very senior level of tension and literally a whip

every single day or does not happen. build the prices of and it will go away. but it will not. it will require individual human attention, but systems do exist that allow the lion's share. if people bought in and demanded the president's, the technology exists and you could have this all happening, but agencies refused the day and even with protections. >> is there any one person responsible for sharing data? >> this has moved around a little bit. there's the office of information sharing. i will skip all the controversy that is currently swirling around odni. there is a person in the homeland security council that reports to the adviser that is responsible for working the interagency is.

-- the answer-agencies. pardon me from calling this, but i do not think we need one more azar -- czar. there is a way to manage this cross government that solve this problem if there is the will. this is a fundamental question of will. it can be solved. that is what is making me mad. >> what would you do? if you could issue an executive order this afternoon? >> the executive order would require -- i think we have learned some lessons about trying to solve big problems in one big bite. i think the department of homeland security was the right effort. there are too many agencies. i think need to be mindful of

solving big problems in one big bite. and often does not work out how you plan. when the intelligence and law- enforcement committees, there are rules that can be written to protect that information appropriately. to allow the information, the relevant information, to be surfaced to the top and complication be looked at, all of that exists. the executive order in the initial stage, this information is all going in because the president of the united states decided. >> of going in what? >> into a single system. >> do we have a single system? >> and no, because they will not do so. i would encourage you to ask met her struggles with this issue every day at the national security council.

they are not integrating into a single system. >> why not? >> because the agencies to on the data will not permit that to happen. now, let's be fair. when you say that, the vulnerability inherent in the putting them into a single system. if the signal system gets corrupted coming in now have access to all of it. you're making my argument. i agree with you. in terms of identifying threats, identifying patterns, it is worth the risk. the risk can be managed and mitigated, and get lots of smart people in the room who are here to understand. well how to do that. >> are moving in that direction yet? >> if we are, it is not fast enough. >i do not see enough movement. for many of us in the counter- terrorism community over the

last two decades, christmas day is a little bit shocking. it has to being -- it has to be from the notion that we find ourselves making some of the same mistakes as frustrating and frankly the soldering to those we lost on a 9/11. >> a while. is the way you have had a couple of shots. -- soey, you have had a couple of shout outs. shout it out and i'll repeat it. do you have a microphone back there? >> having said there is a vulnerability to talk about cyber security, so i will talk a little bit about that. >> why -- where are the microphone waters? ok, just one.

did you want to see more now that you had a microphone? >> two board question. cyber security. >> i think the president made an important speech and began what should be a very important effort, i remember talking to those who succeeded me and i said the careful when you get into office because the tyranny of the in box gets in your way. i think they found a great deal of that. it is something that actually must be dealt with. there have been some setbacks and some other things they have to deal with. that being said, i think the matter how important they think the cyber security issue is or what their intentions are, the federal government cannot solve this problem.

people in washington are allergic to saying they cannot do something. >> are you talking about a public-private partnership? >> yes. i think you actually need a common, physical location and a common understanding in the public and private sectors where we sit together and talk about this. my we have some capability in the federal government, it is not as much as we need to solve this problem. oftentimes what a fine in washington is people make policies not understanding the second and third order consequences. this is an area in which we should invite in the private sector about the policy ought to be and how we should implement it because they on the critical infrastructure we're talking about. there -- the government rides on a public back on. nowhere is that more obvious than in the military.

there are some good important pockets of public-private partnership. there is deep suspicion among some of our allies. i think that, frankly, the u.s. government should not be the convening body. you will hear later in the conference, whether this is icahn or you need some non- governmental body to bring together the international community and to make a public- private partnership with government. have it began as a non- government effort. i do not think this will be easy. the u.s. government will, with a deep suspicions. we know from public reporting that the chinese and the russians have great ability. nowhere is that felt more greatly than in the private-

sector then gets stolen blind every day. our innovation, creativity, research and development dollars get literally thrown out the window when china and russia still things from us that we pay for. we see very little effort to protect or prosecute that intellectual property. i really sank that this -- i really think this requires something like we have never seen. >> is the most likely to come from a major state actor like china or russia, a terrorist group, or who? >> it is interesting. when you are in government you worry about all of this. i think it is less likely to be a terrorist act. they want to wreak economic havoc on the u.s.. i do not think it is most likely to be there because we now -- so

it is less likely. i do think it is more likely you will see it from a state after, some sort of state if not an actual government. >> have we already seen it? >> i can tell you what we see in the press. yes, we have seen this. we have seen multiple efforts whether it is to be where, centcom, we have learned the lessons. we have seen these would have appeared to be state sponsored efforts. >> when you say public-private partner sought -- partnerships are you speaking about cisco, google? >> i think it is more broad. i remember having this debate with the prior administration.

secretary rise was very outspoken about the need for academia. mike mcconnell would be one who felt strongly about that. this is a broad based partnership that is less about the government pushing information out which is how the government thinks about public- private partnership and it is about a real dialogue. are you saying -- and >> are you saying that google or cisco should collaborate with the government? >> there need to be rules. we are not sharing information, we are not allowing our buildings to be corrected. i am not suggesting they should be doing that sort of thing, but what i am talking about is sharing the intellectual capital. >> i'm not suggesting they should not be doing that. maybe they should. >> if they are going to do that, there has to be rules and

understanding. i do think there is a legitimate debate to be had about public- private partnerships. frankly, when the big software companies, i asked of the ceo, if the government does not do it, why does the industry not? the industry is reluctant to stick their head out of the trench, frankly, for the very same reason that they will be perceived as an unholy alliance. we have to have that dialogue because it is not being had. >> are going to have to make up call in severs security at some point? >> my great fear, and i hope i am wrong, is that we will not see any progress until we have a cataclysmic 9/11-type cyber

event. one is the financial system. i hasten to add that of the many sectors the financial is the most sophisticated in this area, but again they are often reluctant to share information with the government for proprietary and business reasons. the other is in transportation or electricity. imagine arafat -- imagine the air traffic control system going down because someone has taken it down or the lights go out like in a cyber shockwave. >> with the duke -- was the creation of the dhs a dumb idea? >> no. michael, prepare yourself for this question. with the benefit of hindsight,

might i have suggested we go about it differently? yes. as i said earlier, when you decide to solve a big problem in a single step, it does not always go smoothly. i think what we really wanted in the early going of the department was an agency and that looked at things and people across borders. imagine a smaller scope department that started their. >> with coast guard and ims? >> yes with ice and that sort of configuration and you add things. i think the department has overcome the challenge of trying to do too much. you heard the deputy secretary lute talking about how we are now seeing the gains of it. but i think we could have seen some of the more quickly if we started more modestly. >> do the dhs and fbi still silo information? >> i think it is a work in

progress. >> that means yes? >> they are better, but it is by no means solved. i think people hide behind rules that allow them to keep information out of the system or away from each other. i think they are getting better, but with enough will you can solve this problem. dhs has information that the fbi once and has trouble getting access to. to be fair, i do not think this is all on the fbi. i think it is both. they want to solve it, but they cannot get out of their own way. i know. the fbi, let's talk about the bureau. post-9/11, this is an agency that has undergone a good deal of cultural change. i hate that sort of a phrase,

but they had a new national security convention, they have a whole priority of preventing terrorism and not just responding. they are hiring agents into the fbi who do not necessarily see their promotions based on the number of arrests, which by the way was the way they did do it for many years. that is a work in progress. there really is a cultural shift inside the bureau. as with any -- as with any big organization, there are growing pains. you have a dhs that is naissance. it is 7-8 years old and a baby in policy. some of these things contribute and they find it difficult. i am not excusing it, but i think we need to be realistic about the circumstances there are an elite. >> do you want to add to that, say something, or a question?

there is a microphone been brought to you. >> no, actually what i would say is to come back to the point that fran made earlier which is very perceptive about information sharing. i do not think the problem at this point is a question of the diagram of people saying, "so here is a nice piece of information that i will not share." it is going through a huge field and figuring out what is important enough to share and what is a priority to share and what is not a priority because that is what happens. people that swamped with information and they do not always properly understand what is a value to other people. that, i think, is where the challenge is. fran really put a finger on this. the way you overcome this is by driving it from the top about making it very clear with the priority missions are. if your priority mission is

wanting to know about any reasonable threat out there in the short to medium term and you drive the organization'ns to focus on that as the outcome. if you do that relentlessly, we used to set once a week with the president of the united states, and believe you me, if there was another answer to question in the morning, by the afternoon you better have an answer. that is what drives the organization's otherwise they lapse into hammett's of behavior which i think result in the sometimes missing things that ought to be caught. >> can i just add to that? >> keep the microphone, michael. >> i really think that we ought to get to a place where it does not require -- the look. in my perfect world, it does not require the meeting in the oval office. i still do that, i think it's

coming by the way. the are videoconferences three times a day. you can speak to this. the systems exist where you do not need michael and i calling each other about answering questions. it is the most current threat information being shared it? you can develop a system and set the priorities, have that happen without human beings having to go through a conscious thought process. that is where we need to be because human beings are busy and make mistakes. if you can set the priorities right, you reduce the likelihood that he will miss a critical piece of information. . eed to evolve to the next level. >> could we have an information system -- both of you could address it. in which state and local governments, the fbi, and dhs are expected to put into one

information system? >> you could do that. they had the idea in l.a. beginning a program of suspicious activity reporting. we have been talking about intelligence. most people are thinking afghanistan or pakistan, what we're getting from satellites or spies. you are getting this from the streets of our city. bill and people in l.a. with this together. suspicious activity reporting. not simply haven't come into one -- have it come into one place but creating network servers giving any company in the country to look at what was+ flown in. the fbi has an opportunity to do that but not to be a gate keeper. to allow the information to be available to everyeveryone.

i think that caused some negative reaction from people who believe that every time you collect or gogot information, we were on the road to totalitarianism. if you can overcome that knee- jerk reaction, a combination of redistribution of the data over networks systems and the kind of analytic tools that allows you to set the data in real time, using algorithms and data mining, data analysis, that is how you get that issue. you have to get that in place. >> when you put the airline reservation system in that, too ? >> you would like to be able to add that in. what we would like to see as the

federal government looks at the national intelligence system and seize certain threats emerging. that has the -- got to go down to the centers. they make sure they understand where the threat is coming from and collect. getting it back in -- the federal government loves forms. this has to be absolutely easy for the guy and his crews. he is done putting in that information and you have to distribute and analysis. the federal goverrment has the ability to look at it and discern patterns and share that back. we are getting their but we're not there yet. >> suppose somebody in closure city -- bozier city buys

fertilizer and strange chemicals and a local copper ransom. does that go into a data system somewhere? >> that goes into the fusion center. >> do we have that? >> we built them and they are working. not all of them are equal. not all of them have the same capability. it is the first one where you can get this information and push it back in both directions. >> i do not know where we are with the microphones. >> i am going to ask the impolitic question because you work for it. -- you are up for it. you have a lot of carryover in

the current obama administration and the ct community. one of the staffers helped the organization. they are aware of those problems. still trying to fix them. are you saying that abdulmutallab's attack would not have happened under the previous administration? were the have not kept up the pace from the oval office to drive the agencies to do what you were doing to marshal this information together. >> i do not like the choices she is giving me. i am not saying it was not a priority. it is confident this is not about a political viewed world or political party. if it was going to happen, it would not matter who is in the oval office.

i have been concerned about the time and attention against this issue. i will be honest. i struggled to get time and attention for this issue when i was in john brennan's seat and i understand the struggle that can be. it is hard. that is why you need sommbody -- i do not think you what the person in that seat. it needs to be someone who was full time dedicated, cross government job is -- their job is to solve this problem. i am not satisfied with the amount of time and attention. in some ways, we have not organized ourselves right to give this the president and party it requires. >> -- presidenand preprecedent

is required. >> there is no way that humans with the number and variety of signals can set a constant agenda on their own. therefore, in our company, we are working on solutions which set up an intelligence agenda. i support the point that you made and this way, you can cope there. >> talking to mike, there are so many dots, you cannot make sense of hem. you cannot understand them. you cannot comprehend the mall. which is what you need the system to organize that. -- you cannot comprehend them all. which is why i need the system

to organize that. >>-- why you need the system to organize that. >> i will tell you we have been involved in the orgainformation initiativinformation sharing. it consists of 280 jurisdictions aaross four states. there is a challenge. they are asking for nothing more than a indemnifying themselves for an agent ms. uses that information if they do not have liability associated. the response is we do not indemnify. there is a quarter of a billion

records that are noo getting to where they need to get to long- term because of issues regarding something as simple as indemnification is used. in city councils and local attorneys will say, why should we take the risk of sharing this information if we have a liability associated with it? >> that is a failure of leadership. straight and simple. there is no good come back to that. that should not be and somebody in the federal government whether it is dhs or the justice department, needs to give comfort to the state and locals willing to provide that information. that should not be and that is a failure of leadership. for those of you wondering, i said the same thing about was in the executive branch. -- if i was in the executive branch. >> way back there.

our conversation today seems to be focused on the jihadist threat and state actors. we seem to be ignoring other domestic terrorist groups. i wanted you to speak to what efforts were progress has been made in monitoring these groups. >> let me make sure i understand. you're talking about environmental groups and that sort of thing? i want to make sure i address your question. >> [inaudible] >> i was surprised. when i was in the white house, folks would ask me, how often did those things come up?

it is not what you hear about publicly that policy makers are talking about. i was surprised at the number of the events. they tended to be episodic, whether it was an environmental group attacking a nuclear power plant, someone burning down a housing development. there are more of those than most americans really appreciate. i will tell you that those -- the fbi has units that are devoted to nothing else. you do not hear about it and they do not talk about it as much. people would be a -- surprise that the amount of resources including local resources from around the country. where there is a problem, the joint terrorism task force have squadrons devoted to this who tried to penetrate those groups using the same techniques that you would imagine as using against international terrorists.

-- imagine being used against international terrorists. >> richard, yeah. right behind you. >> sticking with the deja vu all over again. on a narrow question, you mentioned the continued difficulties of fbi sharing information. thank you for confirmation about it going both ways -- observation that it goes both ways from dhs and the fbi. what i thought was a comprehensive report by senator feinstein's intelligence committee identified the failures to detect the christmas day bombing. it mentioned the fbi's inability to communicate within itself, as

a systemic failure. time and again, we have heard about these problems. the fbi comes into the 21st century. what is your observation on that? what will it take to finally get it right? >> this is -- i do put this in the category of information- sharing and my frustration about it. we happened to be in the oval office when the director had a report to the president after more than $100 million had been spent, the system that we had been planning to implement would not work. part of that is explained by a lack of expertise in the side -- inside for current system and the fbi in terms of information technology -- inside the procurement system in the fbi in terms of information technology. at a failure in sharing of

information, there was a failure to share information between dot and the fbi with the fort hood shooting. it is a broad problem. director moeller -- muller has invested a good deal of time on this. i do not have visibility into what the improvements have or have been. i have always worried about the system. this is a system that is case driven. if you file everything in no according to a case number, there is intelligence in their that maybe related to a report ingroup or individual. that is the fundamental problem to me.

even if they have the best case management system in the world. if they do not -- until they solve the problem that will not know what they know. that is worth the long-term investment. >> would you bring the microphone up, please? >> there are probably 20 people here in aspen this week who could help the fbi solve the problem quickly. from the private sector. what frustrates me in thinking about this, because we heard these apologies repeatedly and an expenditure of more than $100 billion over time. it is not yet fixed. what does it take? does it take the president of the united states to bring in a task force? who is going to get this right

side? >> i am a great believer in setting clear priorities and accountability. i think there is a good argument to be made for the president to decide he is very clearly going to task the fbi with solving this problem and directing them to bring in the outside help they need. the government has never been good at public-private partnerships, even modest ones. we're trying to -- get better at it. -pthey're acting in good faith. this is the kind of question when it comes to information and need outside help with that they have to bring in. you are right. it has to be solved or we will have another event where we will find something in the fbi case file that did not get share because they did not know they had it. >> let me follow-up. is part of the problem -- the

public is so afraid of total information awareness and information sharing that we get kind of paranoid about it. we have not educated the public well enough. >> that is right. people in washington watch one scandal after another. those of us who have watched this issue have all remembered the case of john poindexter and watched what happened to his career. a republic servant who was trying new and creative things. -- a public servant who was trying new and creative things. in thiis their way to bring than and set the policy rules that allow you to take advantage of them? the questiothis requires hard wy people like richard and others

who understand. >> there is a constituency with3 constituency. even knee-jerk among the public. there is no constituency in the other direction that says share information. >> part of that is because the natural constituency on the other side are in government. there in the executive branch. when they make that argumenn, they get accused of totalitarianism. phat is white you need an non- governmental form where you can have this conversation. -- why youuneed an non- governmental former you can have this conversation. they view privacy as a non issue. i am not worried about privacy

and i'd but information out there every day and i do not know who was looking at it -- i day and i do not know who is looking at it. >> we in the back there. >> --- way in the back. >> two questions. when the executive order was issued, that was a double-edged sword. the good news is it has private- sector average requirements. the bad news it has private sector outreach requirements. if every agency in the government starts getting

engaged out there and start checking the box that they havv their private-sector outreach program in place, how do we get the government into a coordinated fashion so the private sector is not inundated government doing their average programs? >-- outreach programs? >> i will tell you this came up for me in the context of fbi, who may be going out to have a private sector relationship, they may be going out to service subpoena. the cia, wwo has a private sector program, and dhs was greeting the sector coordinating council's. it as a group of ceos who said someone comes in and talks about my general counsel and someone invites me to dinner. little did i know that i would

get pitched. i called the cabinet secretaries together and we had a conversation. their interests and objectives and those relationships are different. you do not want to be in a position appearing [unintelligible] my notion is, is there a system that allows us to gatekeep? there are concerned with suchha system. i tried and failed but i get it. i get that we need the governmeet -- the government needs to do this better. i hear this all the time. we need to engage with the business roundtable and ceos to understand what is their view of how we can do this more effectively. >> the following i have is, as

you mentioned earlier, the c onsistent attacks. the overnment kkows there is 140 country stealing technology. the obama administration issued their report ssying that over $1 trillion conservatively was stolen from the economy from intellectual property in 2008 alone. when i broke this question to the director of national intelligence, he said it is somewhere between stopping global hunger and world peace in trying to fix this problem. how do we get the resources of the government focused on understanding that?? we're one of the few elements in the domestic, developed world that does not have an industrial policy. you cannot build five business all the time. you have to have business to support the long-term growth of the country. >> you are dead on. the legal authorities exist to

prosecute these. i am a firm believer on this. an occasional indictment is not a bad thing. we need a concerted effort. against the economic crimes, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. when better to decide to launch such an initiative? it is the question of competing priorities. demands on resources. it is necessary and can be done in a way that gets a lot of attention to this issue. >> last two questions. up front. >first with the guy in yellow. i have to get fran out at two.

>> we have heard about how americans have to pitch in for our security. we have a host of foreign countries that we plan. you have a lot of experience. i wonder if you could characterize, who do you think and why are our foreign pprtners important to us in fighting al qaeda? who wore the strange friends we can talk about besides the traditional allies? >> we understood and bbll was part of this. after 9/11, the closest ally was the british. you have to go to the places and create allies where the problem existed. that was not easy.

there was a deep sense of mistrust and suspicion. you are talking about saudi arabia. people would be stunned when you realize that 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudi. if i told you we share thousands of intelligence reports of the year with them, rivaling our counter-terrorism relationship with their british allies, people would be surprised. a good deal of this is the saudis see the threat to themselves and see it in their own national interest to collaborate with us. that is not a bad thing.. what they cooperate is less important than that they do. i ttink you're seeing this -- we need to get to a point where you are doing that in a place like dimon. we need to get to a place where there is no central government. the threatyou have to go in ande

capability that they do not have. they provide the capability so they can share. those are long-term and their expense of commitments. make no mistake. but they are invaluable in terms of intelligence that they provide. >> i wanted to thank secretary chertoff. the privacy issues may be less than we think. in light of that, what are the biggest remaining hurdles? the two that i see are how do get data to find data without being flooded? you talked about artificial intelligence and alerts.

how'd you get that to happen? how do you get it to happen. together they when the owners of data -- particularly when the owners of data say i would like to share it but i cannot. you cannot look at the data without a predicate. >> we have to get over the traditional rules. it is -- it cannot be ok to say i would like to share but i cannot. tell me why we can and we will solve the problem. we have to challenge those i cannots and solve them. i don' t think we have taken a hard enough turn. whether it is the eu or state

and local regulatory agencies that require it for different purposes. those can be solved. it requires the hard work of deciding you are going to do t and you will be public. you have to be honest about what the rules of the road are your operating under and give yourself over. congressional oversight, i will take a 10 second screen on. it is dysfunctional. the department gets pulled in a thousand different directions. good oversight can be put against us in a responsible way that helps solve the problem. >> can be solved all the ones or one by one? >>-- can it be solved all at one or one by one? >> i think you have a disciplined system to go against each of them. >> there is a gentleman i passed a way back there. last question. >> in regard to the statement

about intellectual property, i am interested in your thoughts. have the politicians not picked up on the fact that this is an american jobs lost issue? i have rarely if ever heard anything about that. i am interested in your thoughts. >> this is not a good answer. it comes down to an answer of priorities and resources. people worry about stuff blowing up. no one wants to take agents of the ct watchs. agents, we can move resources around. we have to make up our minds to

devote resources. the chamber of commerce has a private sector. they did the investigation themselves and they bring it to the government but they cannot get the government interested to do its fundamental job. that is a problem. that ought to be an embarrassment to the justice department and the fbi. we need to bring a couple of big cases. look what hollywood does. hollywood does this effort against fraud. while that is important, that does not abrogate the government's responsibility. i will take a second to -- this is an important opportunity. these conversations do not get had absent of the institute. thanks for the effort that went into it.

this is terrific that you have been willing to do it. there is interest to continue it. it is important. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> >> thank you for your service to the nation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we're going to a break. >> monday on "washington journal," we'll take a look at the week ahead on congress -- in congress. and then, we will have a discussion on unemployment among young adults with louis uchitelle. then we will look at the lobbyists' role in shaping the

financial regulatory reform going through congress. that is on "washington journal" here on c-span. the senate returns from july 4 recess next week to piled up were approved by the house before the break. that improves the financial regulatory overhaul and renewal of jobless benefits. additional spending for the wars in iraq and afghanistan during fiscal year 2010 is also on the agenda. the senate judiciary committee could vote tuesday on elena kagan's nomination to the supreme court. while it is on the agenda, and the panel member can request a one-week delay. committee approval would move the nomination forward to the senate for a final vote. live coverage, monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. the house agenda includes a

measure to expand tell werke -- teleworking and reworking national flood insurance programs. that is tuesday at 2:00 p.m. on c-span. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books, all as a public service, created by america's cable company. >> next, the closing plenary session of the national governors' association annual meeting. it focused on the federal budget deficit with former senator alan simpson and erskine bowles, who cochaired the committee on fiscal responsibility and reform. this is one hour and 20 minutes.

>> i would invite the governors to take a seat. we will get our final session under way. we have a couple of distinguished guests with us to talk about this topic. we will also handle reports and recommendations from our committees and the election of next year's executive committee and officers. please, find your seat. we will get under way. we are honored, this morning, to have senator alan simpson and erskine bowles, the co-chairman of the president's commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. they will talk about this book challenges facing our nation and the options -- the fiscal challenges facing our nation and the options we have. they have not been given this assignment, but we are grateful they have undertaken it. everyone is well aware that,

since the end of the world -- the second world war, we have not experienced the kind of debt burdens that we're facing now appeared we were then able to grow our way out of the debt crisis. given the current conditions globally, that prospect is unlikely today. our federal debt to gdp ratio ranged between 25% and 50%, but is now up to 62%. if we maintain our current spending habits and do nothing, we will surpass the 1946 high an approach greece's current debt to gdp ratio, which is about 115%. that is not a formula for long- term economic success. the commission faces a daunting challenge in suggesting a path forward toward fiscal responsibility. it must be politically

achievable. it is not easy, but it is something that we are used to doing as governors. we balance budgets on an annual basis. as we have been working through this great fiscal crisis, a lot of governors have been getting practice in implementing lean government. we hope some ideas will come out this morning with our distinguished panelists which will be helpful to them and to the future of our country's fiscal condition. i want to call and our colleagues to introduce their constituents who are our distinguished presenters today. governor freudenthal. >> thank you. it is delightful to introduce al. i have known him for a long time. we have a very collegial relationship. if you have heard him before, you are likely to hear it all again today. [laughter]

i first became acquainted with i first became acquainted with senator simpson, then in the wyoming house, in the republican leadership he would sit around and plot the course of the state in a bipartisan fashion. i would never accuse al of being non-partisan, but he does know how to work in a bipartisan manner. i think he is the right guy for the job. she has both the knowledge and wisdom, but he also has a trait which is a sense of humor. you have to have humor in order to get through what it is what we deal with and the seriousness with which we take it. i am proud without. i am glad he is no longer in politics in wyoming. [laughter] if you turn up your hearing aid,

you could hear me. [laughter] we are delighted. he is one of our own and he was a successful senator. he has done lots of things in his life. most of what he does is try to do the right thing by his country, and our state. we are delighted. i think i look forward to hearing you, al. [laughter] >> thank you, governor. >> i think we all look forward to hearing senator simpson talked, too. you will love hearing from one of north carolina's strongest leaders. you have known him probably in his role as head of the small business administration under president clinton. he was the president's chief of staff. after that, we lured him back to his house state where he now serves as president of the greater university system.

he has taken on this role as co- chair of the national commission on this responsibility and reform because he believes in this. i have had the opportunity for several years and almost 1.5 years as governor of north carolina to watch his every moment, his decision making, the fact that he is not just going to talk the talk with us. he has walked the walk. that me tell you what i mean. as president of one of the largest constituent university systems in the country, we would like to tell you is the best because it is. he has had to cut his own budget. this is what he has done. she has cut $575 million over the last three years. the system today is 30% smaller than it was when he was sworn in as president five years ago. 23% of the cuts came from administration. i can attest as someone who

loves the system and understands the value of education in a new economy that he has not harmed teaching and learning. he has simply done things that really in lieu of destroying our academic core. -- he has simply done things differently in lieu of destroying our academic core. we have laughed and said this is painful. he has gone forward in lots of critical storms and has endured the criticism. he will do that as the co-chair of this committee. he has figured out a different way to incentivize teachers compensation, for the professors, the work force. she has developed in a paradox around health care. he understand in our state, one of the fastest-growing states in america, that he cannot rely on the old way, the bricks and mortar to educate the people. as a result, he has been passionate about distance

learning. we have not when her 35 distance learning degree programs -- we have 135 distance learning degree programs. as larger than the university of the phoenix. we have done that very quickly with his leadership. the best thing i can tell you as someone who calls erskine bowles, what will you do? he understands the seat we are all sitting in. he understands the jobs, that we have to continue to grow this economy now we continue to downsize government. he is a great leader. he is a great american. i am so proud he is a great north carolininian. he, too, as a sense of humor. just tell them that right now i am at the chairman and president of the university system but i am actually between forces. i have lost one and a need to

make another one. erskine bowles, thank you for doing this for our country. >> thank you and welcome, gentlemen. [applause] i bough>> i wish you had introdd me. [applause] [laughter] it would have been much more charitable. the introductions -- of all of the introductions, that was the most recent. [laughter] i will tell you a little bit about dave. he was a 24-year-old chief of staff for a wonderful democratic governor, the longest serving governor in our history, 12 years. people look at wyoming as a republican state. that is not true.

anyway, they think with the dave is his father and mother were our co-chairman when we ran in 1978, we being the woman i lived with for 56 years. but she said living with me was like a living experience of living in hell. [laughter] dave has been a wonderful governor, a tremendous force. he has a lot of guts and it takes on the tough ones. i admire him greatly. i got to know his wife. she is a district -- a federal district judge. she is a superb woman from my home town. his last 10 minutes, hang on tight. erskine and i travel only as a pair. we ride shotgun on each other. it is a lonely life out there in hostile territory. all of you know the feeling.

i did want to address when i walked in here, someone made a comment and i was taken aback. yes, i did sleep in this suit. [laughter] i hope that takes that off of the table. [laughter] i could not have a finer companion in this cause than erskine bowles. he is a man i trust completely and admire and respect. he is a grand gentleman come in the. a personal note, my dear dad was the governor of wyoming. he was also a u.s. senator. he loved the office of governor. he could lead and he could see the results. he said in the senate he could never see the results of anything. after everything disappeared into the rabbit hole, usually

from a brilliant staffer on either side of the aisle. as governor, he loved the fray. he loved self-deprecating humor. his favorite was this. he would tell it often. this old guy is out driving his pickup down the road. he has everything in it that he owns. highway patrolman stopped him. he says, "you're going a little fast." who would believe that? you have a lot of stuff but there do you? where are you going? haven't you got a governor on that cutbacks -- on that truck? he says, "no, that is manure used now -- you smell." [laughter] this commission has one tough goal. i have been addressed as a republican toadied covering for president obama to get him off the hook.

i honor the office of president. if the president asks me to do something, to pitch in and help our country, i will always respond regardless of party differences. [applause] i think it is called being a citizen of a fine country and doing your share. in this one, i am in for my six grandchildren and erskine is in for his seven. the president has won tough job, as do each and every one of you. if one is a leader, you take a ton of guff from people who know little and are motivated by, but i always said, four great charges -- emotion, fear, guilt, or racism. that is how you pass or kill a bill in the u.s. congress. emotion, fear, guilt, or racism.

is that, but that is the way it is. . the conflict is everywhere -- cutting back vs coughing up -- those are nontechnical terms. austerity vs stimulation. cut and gut are two flash words. tax is another good one. we are all still in the room together. we're good people of deep, deep differences, who know the possibility of the odds of success that are rather harrowing, does say the least. i have the naive and belief, and i think we share this, that we can have a plan to stabilize

shows as a dirty, and ashore solvency for 75 years or more -- to stabilize social security, and assure solvency for 75 years or more. if people can't grasp that disability inshurns will be unsustainable in less than ten years, it's grown double since 1980, i won't go into figures, that just makes people's eyes glaze over. but old age and insurance, will only pay out 75% of its benefits in 3e7. it won't go broke. just going to pay out 75 instead of 100. and that date will keep moving closer with population growth and aging. unsustainable, unconscionable, and predictable. but there are many options out there. over two dozens options out there will work and we'll work

on them all. and i think if we could resolve that, there would be a sense of confidence in the land that would be good to portray. we have dr. coal burn and andy stern, union member and very conservative member of the senate from oklahoma, very two very good men with sharp minds and sharp knives going over the defense budget without hurting our troops and the mission. plenty of fat in thataby. and then they say, well, republicans never want to touch the defense budget. that's not true. we're going to go wherever the fat is, and that will be the tough part. but here's where we are. every shred of tax revenue at this point goes only to three things, medicare, medicaid, and social security. i see him scratching out. he was going to cover that but i took care of it for him. you'll have to work on -- i'm

almost through. and so the rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, the whole -- veterans, the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by china and other countries who are slowly building and china now is at 920 billion bucks of our little ious, and we do that, we're just borrowing to do everything but those three items. medicare is the monster of the midway. it's hard for us even to get around it, our hands around it, but we're going to have to have some trigger device in there. medicaid, boy, you people get the whole load on that one. working groups are at it one on

discretionary and one on mandatory and one on revenues. we have a fine staff. i think with patience, what we're trying do first in the commission is establish patience, do your homework, comedy, and the biggest one is trying to establish trust in each other on this commission. that's tough to do in this world, in this country. trying to lessen suspicion. and we're working on all that now. well, if you thought i was going to go on, i'm not. but we want to hear from you. you're in the trenches. i just say one other thing as to the magic flash word of tax. the other day, one of the more zealous -- a zell lot is one who, having forgotten his purpose, redoubles his efforts. so one of the great zell lots

of our time talked about one of his great anti-tax president, rond reagan. i said, i knew ronald reagan. you're not ronald reagan. and i quoted the four big tax increases done by ronald reagan, seven lesser ones, and a total of $132 billion in tax increases under those eight years. and why? to make the government run. and that was his fine eight years as one of our most beloved presidents. so, with that, i will then receive mail tonight and tomorrow that i spoke again to raise taxes and put a vat on top of the income tax plus something else, i don't know what it will be, but it will be a royal hammer blow, and i thank you for listening but we want to hear from you. [applause]

>> as you can see, i have no need for a joke writer any more. i just steal everything al says and it seems to work perfectly. i will tell you, al, i do know one rule of politics that you don't, and that is always be introduced by someone that you contributed to. >> that is not true. >> governor purdu has been my friend, i have been her supporter. i believe in her. she is strong, she is tough. and, by god, she gets the job done. and last night, she signed a balanced budget for north carolina, and she's got a lot to be proud of. al simpson is the best partner i've ever had. we are trying to do one thing, and that is on this commission, to build the same kind of trust with our fellow commission members as we have built among

ourselves. and i'm confident that's what it takes to be successful. in 1997, as some of you know, i negotiated the balanced budget with knut gingrich and trent lot. and i had to spent months and months locked up in conference rooms with them, and you democratic governors owe me a lot for that. but we did build up trust, we built up confidence, and we got the job done, and we got it in the long run done by trying to look at what made sense for the country as opposed to thinking about parties. i'm going to try to just add to what al said. i think it is a fact that, as a nation, we face the most predictable economic crisis in our history. this crisis that we just are going through now, many people didn't bre dict this one is as clear as a bell. this debt is like a cancer, it

is truly going to destroy the country from within. and like al said, it is basic arithmetic. today, if you just look at the mandatory spending which is principle medicare, medicaid, social security, it does consume 100% of the federal revenues. that does mean that every dollar we spend on homeland security, the military, defense, education, energy, infrastructure, transportation, all borrowed and half borrowed from foreign countries. that is a formula for disaster. over the next ten years, spending is forecast to grow by $2 trillion. 500 billion of that will come from social security, 500 billion from medicare, about 300 billion from medicaid of which you all participate, and about 650 to 750 billion from interest.

by the year 2020, if we leave things on automatic pilot, we will be spending $1 trillion a year on interest. just think about that. all that money going summer else to create jobs and opportunity somewhere else. we can't grow our way out of this. we've had every economist you can imagine look at this and we could have decades of double digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem. we can't tax our way out. that doesn't solve the aging problem of america. it doesn't solve the fact that health care is growing at a faster rate than the economy is. the reality is that we've got to do exactly what you all do every day as governors, we have either got to cut spending or increase revenue or do some combination of that. if we want to get to a balanced budget by 2020, and there's no magic about 2020, we have to

take $1 trillion out of the deficit in 2020. $1 trillion. if we want to get to a deficit to gdp ratio of 2%, then we've got to take $665 billion out of the budget in this year alone, not between now and then but in that year alone. i thought it was interesting as i thought about what i would say this morning that the g-20 met two weeks ago in toronto, and they're dealing with the same exact problems that we deal with in the states, and that is how can we protect what is a truly very fragile economic recovery? at least it is in our state. and, at the same time, slow and then stop and reverse the rising level of debt that i believe jeopardizes my

grandkids' future and our country's standard of living. and the g-20 approved two goals. the first is a relative walk in the park, and that's to cut the deficit in half as a percent of gdp by 2013. and when you start at a 10.6% deficit to gdp, that ain't any heavy lift, believe me. but we should be able to do that and that's not a heavy goal for the u.s. what is a very heavy goal is the second one, which is to stabilize the debt as a percent of gdp by 2015. and to do that, we have to get the deficit to gdp ratio down to 2.8% by 2015, and that means we have to take in 2015, $250 billion out of the federal budget. and it's doable, but it's tough. and i want to talk about some of that, specifics. president obama i think has made it clear, he's been clear

when he's met with al and me in private, he's been clear i think to the american people and public, he said that he is going to make recommendations next year that have real budget cuts in them, that will reduce the cost of the entitlements and help restore our nation's long-term fiscal health. i think there is a can ard out there now that says, well, you can't do both. we can do both. in fact, since the recommendations we're making don't take effect until 2012, we've got about 18 more months of this economic recovery for it to gain a foothold before any of our recommendations take place. so we think that's enough time for our recommendations to take place, enough time for us to get the fiscal house in order and then begin to balance the budget.

i thought i would tell you the principles that are going to guide my own decisions are on the committee and al and i discussed these, and i think we're in agreement on most of them, but they're all pretty simple. the first is i don't want to do anything that doesn't protect the truly disadvantaged. i think that's an obligation of government and one that i'm willing to shoulder. second, i think while we balance the budget, we've got to continue to invest in those areas that make america strong and competitive, whether it's education or infrastructure, or research or innovation. it's no sense having a strong balance sheet and also not having a strong country. we've got to be competitive. it's a knowledge-based global economy. third, i think we've got to make sure that america is safe and secure. but i do think that means we have to be the world's global policeman or that we have to be

involved in nation-building. i think other nations have to do their part. our military budget now exceeds the military budget of all the other g-20 put together. fourthly, i think we've got to reform the tax code to broaden the base and simplify the code, and to make america more competitive. we can talk about various ways to do that, but clearly we've got to close the tax gap. and i wish mitch daniels was here because he can talk about it more clearly than i can. but most importantly, i think we have to eliminate or sharply curtail these things that are called tax expenditures but what they really are is just spending by another name. and if you look at the total cost of tax expenditures, they actually equal all of the income tax that flows into the federal government and they equal 50% of the revenue. i have put on the table that we

ought to establish caps that keep revenue at or below 21% of gdp. i didn't just pick that off the ceiling. it's the number that we have had every time we balance the budget in this generation. i also have called for instituting a plan to reduce overall spending to not more than 21% of gdp by making some really tough choices. if you look at the forecast in the cbo's forecast, spending is projected to go to 25.4%. so that's a big, big jump to get it down to 21% of gdp. we can do that but we have to reduce discretionary spending, and we're going to have to make some tough choices. as i was telling one of the governors a minute ago, what we do is not so hard to figure out. it's the political consequences of doing it that makes it

really tough, the same decisions you all have to make every day in the states. if we can't agree on specifics, then one of the things we can do is freeze all discretionary spending between 2012 and 2015. that would generate $125 billion in 2015, and will get us halfway home to president obama's goal. we also have to reform the entitlements and reduce mandatory spending. as al said, one of the things we're going to try to work for is extending the solvesy of social security for 75 years. as it relates to health care, there's lots of recommendations that we are considering now. but the one that we really have to tackle is how do we pay for quality and not quantity for health care as you all see every day. like the brits just did, my goal for what percent of

deficit reduction should come from spending and what percent should come from revenue, i would like to see something similar to what the brits did where they had 74% of a deficit reduction on the spending side and 26% on the revenue side. whether it's that or two-thirds-one third, but i think it has to be something where it's disproportionately large on the spending side. and lastly, i would just say that none of these recommendations that we're going to make should take place prior to fiscal 2012 in order to protect a very fragile recovery. that's where we are. i think we've made a lot of progress. we have three different working groups. one on revenue, one on mandatory spending, and one on discretionary. we've been meeting. it's been as bipartisan as you can imagine. i don't think you could tell

the recommendation that come forward so far whether it came from a republican or a democrat. so i'm really pleased with the progress we're making. i think we are establishing trust and confidence, and i hope we can make some real progress. i know i like working with this guy. [applause] >> governors, feel freedom to jump in. >> mr. chairman. >> mike. >> two or three observations. i don't know that i've ever heard a gloomier picture painted that created more hope for me. i mean, if there is any hope, it's the approach that's been taken. and i'm not trying to be obseek wess. brian, i will tell you what

that means later on. but you two and the whole team and the objective and honest approach actually creates hope, at least it does for me. so if it's possible to tell us how bad things are and make us feel good about it, i think both of you have done that. and i appreciate the fact that while you have plenty of other things to do, you have taken on this monumental task. i only wish we could put you in every corner of the country for everyone to be able to listen to and particularly those who are strident on one extreme or the other, because the honesty with which this came across i think has to at least affect

enough people that americans would have enough courage to do what needs to be done based upon the leadership and the recommendations. senator simpson, if you and dale bumpers and david prior could go with joe mantion, could go into the senate chamber and spend a few weeks with the folks we've got there now and teach them about honest debate and collegial disagreement, instead of the rhetoric and the harshness that at least from the outside appears to exist, what a better place america would be. thank you, sir. [applause] >> wonderful person, wonderful lawyer. if you remember the final pitch

towards president clinton was done by dale bumpers which should be recorded. it was about loyalty and it was [inaudible] and barbara, very dear and special friends come to see us in wyoming. i went into the chamber a few years ago, and bumpers was wondering around. i gave him a big hug and some guy came and said what were you doing there? i said getting a hug from dale, who is a great dear friend. he says, i wouldn't do that again. great stuff. let me just tell you one other thing about those tax expenditures. there were two 200 of them. and you know what they are? they're [inaudible] they are employer deduction of health care premiums and they go on and on, and they went on

the books as a tax cut. and to get them off they're called tax increase. i don't know who they've got out here but they sure [inaudible] because tax expenditure appeared as a tax cut which everyone -- and to get them off. and we got them all off or a lot of them. some of them. we'll be well toward home and they would be called tax increase. >> governor. >> first of all, i want to second mike's evaluation of that presentation, i think it was excellent. i would only ask that in a spirit that we as governors have to have a balanced budget amendment and our forecasters and economists come to us and lay out the not so encouraging news financially of our states, we have to do what you just laid out that should be done.

i would ask respectfully what is the impedment why the urgency is not there for this country to get its financial house in order? and how may that be done? >> we don't have a balanced budget amendment so we don't have to do it and there's probably good reasons not to have one when you have the military responsibilities that we do from time to time. but my experience has been the congress generally acts when it has to and only at the very last minute. and we can go on and survive as a nation for three or four, five more years, and do nothing. but every day we delay, that old compound interest catches up with us. and every day we delay more and more dollars go out of the country. and every day that we delay, we have fewer dollars to spend on

education and infrastructure. every day we delay, there's another small business has been crowded out of the capital markets by the government's borrowing. and when that happens, as you know, small businesses in west virginia can't grow and can't create jobs without money. so when it becomes a crisis, then you're going to have to act. what we're trying to do is get ahead of what i'm confident i can show you just in arithmetic is the most predictable economic crisis in history and try to do something now when the pain would be relatively small. because if we wait, it will be really, really tough. >> governor. >> thanks. first of all, aagree with my colleague. really an outstanding presentation. two quick things. we've got a very strange way at the federal level of investing

and paying for infrastructure. it's something that you mentioned briefly. but it does seem to me that unless we end up separating -- i know in delaware and i assume in most states, we've got a separate capital budget which we don't seem to have at the federal level. until we do that it does seem we're going to be short-changing those investments. and were governor rendell or governor schwarzenegger here, they would probably make the same pitch. and then you mentioned briefly the issue of lk, and we've got to find a way to pay for quality and not just pay for quantity. and you mentioned it briefly, but i do think that there's a disproportionate amount of money in there. and if we dent figure that out, it's going to be really difficult to get to some of the targets that you're trying to get to. >> i certainly agree with both

those comments. this health care is the big even lada. just to tell you how big it is, today medicare and medicaid spending amount to approximately 5% of gdp. if we don't fix it, medicare alone is on a glide path to get to 22% of gdp. now, remember, i said i want to hold all spending to 21% of gdp. and the average revenue in this country historically has been at about 19% of gdp. so we've got to get it under control. and because medicare and medicaid are growing at such a fast rate it causes the interest on the debt, our deficit, to cause us to have to borrow more and more capital. and interest will be at 38% of gdp if we don't get off this glide path.

we've had -- we've gone to see, alan and i have, every interest group i think in the country to listen to what their recommendations are. and most of them have told us what you can't cut. we haven't had many people, i'm sure you governors don't, either, have people tell you, cut this. but we do have a lot of good recommendations on the health care side that we're exploring, some that i think make a lot of sense, and we're getting them from both sides of the aisle and i think we'll be able to come up with some recommendation that is governors will say, thank god. >> governor, as long as you're not obseek wess. >> i'll stay away from that. >> as governors, chief scuteyoifs, we find very early in our careers that there are an infinite number of good ideas and they all cost a bit of money. and our responsibility is to say no to most of those. most of us have the ability to

do a line item veto. some of us have a mandatory vetos. and so at the end of the day, we balance our budgets by saying no to somebody, almost everybody. my concern is that we do have a blue ribbon commission. we have some of the finest minds, including the two of you, in the country that will make recommendations. but we all have commissions and boards and they all make recommendations, and some of us think they're good ideas and some of you don't. but then you have a congress that has to move on it. what is the prosssess? is this a recommendation does it have some teeth? what is he going to do about the house and the senate? >> we have baby teeth, which is better than no teeth at all, i guess. unfortunately, seven of the senators who have been sponsored of what would have been a legislatively mandated commission walked at the very end and it only got 53 votes

instead of 60 votes. and that would have been much more impactful than what we can do. >> i can that's fair to say. >> that was the saddest thing. they wouldn't have gone to the floor with setting up the legislative commission instead of this one as an executive order. they wouldn't have done that. but seven of the co-sponsors voted against it when it came to the floor, including a remarkable array of people who were co-sponsors but they had fought for it for three or four or five years. some said what was the purpose of that? as far as i can discern, it was to stick it to the president. that's where we are in washington now. our baby teeth are that if we get 14 out of 18 votes. so 60% wasn't high enough for the senate. we've got to get 80%. and we have six members of -- six senators and six

congresspeople, three republicans and three democrats from each body. but if we can get 14 votes, then senator reid has agreed to bring up our recommendations for an up or down vote. and if it passes in the senate, then the house has agreed to vote on it, too. but we've got to get 80%. and we've got people at every extreme you can imagine. so we have some teeth and we're trying to build the trust and confidence and the sense of urgency that will make people agree that we have to act on that now. >> senator simpson wanted to jump in. >> i would just say that those seven, though, have now come to us and said we're ready to help. and -- >> of course they have. >> very helpful to us. >> but if we had 12 governors, i guarantee you we would get to

an answer tomorrow. because you all are used to making these decisions. you know the importance of them, and you wouldn't put it off. >> well, thank you. maybe baby teeth and baby steps here. as i hear it from people of utah, the biggest concern is this growing debt. and just the lack of sustainability. we just feel like we're going towards a precipus that there's no retreat from and we're going to go over the edge. i know the phrase that seem to have been coined in politics is fuzzy math. and it appears, as we've just pierced this $13 trillion debt here this past few weeks, made national news, but we get different numbers from different branches of government. the executive branch says one thing, the congressional branch says something else. is there any ability for us to have a frank and brutal and honest discussion on what the

actual debt is and the ongoing liabilities? is it 13 trillion with an ongoing liability of 50 trillion? can we get everybody on the same page and have reality triumph over politics to take off the rose colored glasses and really get everybody on the same pages? these are in fact the real numbers and real obligations, so that we can in fact address it. >> well, we knew that was the problem from the beginning, so we with social security we used only the act wurry. gentlemen, i believe has been there about 30 years, steve. people don't like to read that report. and it's all there. and then there are two trustees that are yet to be appointed hung up in the senate confirmation process. these trustees were to report in june, it's a bipartisan group, they tell absolutely

these hard figures. those two people haven't been appointed yet. but we use only the actuaries of the health care system. we're not out to use any other thing. and people are irritated by that because that's where the meat is and that's where the authority is and that's where the honesty is, is the act wary. and then with regard to the rest of ut it we use the congressional budget office and not the office of management and budget. so we stick, but youk -- >> we've made it the two of us before we agreed to do this, because you're exactly right. there are a zillion different ways to look at numbers in washington. but artsdz metic is something i can do, and the key is the numbers guide. you know, i just sit here and watch them. we absolutely, we agreed we were going to use cbo numbers, we told them we weren't going to use the administration numbers under any circumstances, and we are going to use only the act wary

numbers as related to social security, medicare, and medicaid. >> governor stanford. >> let me just say up front that again, i echo the sentiments of a variety of colleagues who have praised both of you guys. i remember when i was in congress, i was always particularly impressed when your chief of staff, the way you would return a call that day which i think is just can incredibly impressive. and i have long admired your work. that having been said, tell me what's wrong with the skept 86's viewpoint? it leads to some throvel what governor switeser was getting at. which is you know, we've seen a loot of commissions come and go through washington. you know, you have a prescription that's built on the presumption that the economy will get better by 2012. if that does not materialize,

and i think that there are very reasonable grounds under which it might tot materialize, then what happens to the recommendations if the economy is still weak and you haven't seen it take off, lift off in the economy over the next 18 months? two, is it not impossible? if you look at the 50-year moving average, debt to -- revenue to gdp has been about 20%, very consistently post world war ii, that's been the moving average, to bump it up to 21%, isn't that going to be awfully tough given that average? and, frankly, losing home deduct ibility on one's house, you can call it a tax extender, tax whatever, but a lot of people would see it as a tax increase and fight against it. and then three, again going back to governor switser's comments. you know, a commission alone without the heat of the president and the bully pull

pit of the president i think is going to matter very, very little. so you have a president who at this point is not out in front of this i think we're running out of time. there's an interesting book, i think it was rine hart and ro golf, professor from the university of maryland and from harvard who wrote a book "this time it's different" which chronicles the last years of history and once you get to 90% of debt to gdp, really bad things happen to one's economy. and we're close to that number. aren't we too late given the fact that the president isn't engaged and we're still at the commission level? >> alan said he couldn't quite hear. >> i have a hearing aid, but i would left it in the hotel. and somehow, the reverb ration, i can hear all that here but i don't quite get the corner. so it was a tough question and therefore i'll give it toers kin. >> we finish each other's

sentences, we have dinner together the two of us all the time. we are partners completely. all good questions governor sanford, there are lots of skeptics. some commissions have worked, some haven't. al served on one that worked very well on the iraq study commission where i think now 59 of the recommendations have been adopted. as i said, i did personally negotiate the first balanced budget in our generation so i know it can be done. and if i could remind you that when we set out to do that, there wasn't news organization in the country that believed it was possible and we got it done. and we did it by building up trust and confidence and a sense of urgency. >> secondly, on the debt to gdp ratios, when i left washington in owe, the debt to gdp ratio was, this is the public debt, that's where you get confused,

governor, because some people talk about the public debt, some people talk about the gross debt, and then some people talk about all the unfunded libletteds. the public debt now is about 9.6 trillion. the gross debt is about 13 trillion as you just said, and if you count all the unfunded liabilities, it's about 52 trillion. so it gist you a pretty wide spread. but when we left the public debt was about 35% of gdp. today it's 64% of gdp. the average since 1957 is 45% of gdp. and it kind of, to understand what the gross debt is just add 30% to all those numbers i just gave you. there are lots of scollarly work. in fact, we had the people who wrote the article governor sanford spoke to come to speak

to us, professor rinehart. and when debt to gdp gets to 90% you can believe you're going to start to lose about 1% of gdp is going to fall tauf wayside so it really does have a real negative impact called reverse leverage. all of us in the business world have dealt with it. but it's a real problem. i do think if we -- i think we have a small chance to be successful. and again, the reason we have a small chance is i think we have built up confidence in each other and we do have these baby teeth that will allow us to get this to the congress and get an up or down vote if we can get a recommendation to come out of the commission. >> governor bald atchi. >> just a lot of ground to cover. but let me also echo along with what governor beene has said.

it's been refreshing. it's been sobering. and we don't hear it enough. and we all ought to be in all quarters of the country talking on a regular basis. we were there in 94 and we were there to balance the budget for the first time in a generation. and i want to compliment you and the administration and being able to do that because it seems, though, during that 94 period with the shutdown and everything that it was really bad, until they started writing stories in the 18030s when members of congress started to shoot each other. it wasn't a as bad as that but it was pretty bad. but at the same time, i seems like it's gotten a lot worse. it seems like it's gotten harder than it was back then. and you two are kind of just the only two voices out in this whole area where it seems to be so negative.

and it's kind of following along with what governor switser said. unless you folks are prepared to take a full court press and get out there on a more public stage and use all the opportunities you can and then more so and the president embarking on grabbing this and just show casing it that much, i don't know really how your recommendations are going to be able to go very far. >> we were -- we hoped we might be able to get to legislative ludge in our report, which would be the master stroke if we could do that. but that would be an important goal. i think that we have that we would do some legislative language as we submit the report. but it is -- we don't have, we feel if we went around the united states and had hearings now, right now, to people, would see a bit of discord in

the commission that would not be helpful. the thry working groups report to the full commission at the end of each month. the working groups meet in private and they have to because they talk about all the flash words that you've just heard. and then, of course there was a request that we come out with our report in october instead of november. therefore, every politician running could cherry pick the report and go home and say do you know what these nuts are up to? that would be the result of that. so we can't do -- well, we stick with the december 1st. but someone mentioned how did we really get here. we were trained all of us for the last 60 years to bring home the bacon. and when we went home to our districts, we had a staff person or two or three and when the guy got up and said we need a new dam down there on henry

fork, great, write that down will you harriett or harry? we'll get that for you. and we need a new airport terminal, we need this. and your job was just to go home and get it and then run, and then worship at the great god of reelection. and that's how we got here. but now, the pig is dead. and there's no more bacon to bring home. and it is, you just -- it's there and it's shocking. >> governor doyle. >> thank you. i'm interested in a couple of your sort of visions of where this is headed into the future. there isn't a big spender among any governor here any momplet maybe there were originally. and we may call each other names. but given every budget that

we've been through. so what we're going to confront i see, many of us won't be in office. but the economy is going to rebound, we hope sooner than later, and the amount of unmet need, then the need that we've cut is real. so senator simpson mentioned the dam and the terminal. well, there are some dams and terminals that with do need to get built that we have been defering because of the situation we've been in. demands noticing in higher education that we've deferred because of the situation. i think the governors in the next couple of years, one of the great pressures that they're going to have, and this will be, i'm interested in ow you see it playing out over time, is that these resources are going to be a bit little bit better and the demands that have been deferred over the last four years are getting so intense that the claims on that

money, the little bit of money, the little bit of increase that's coming in is going to be enormous. the people you've said, well, all of the nos that we've said, there are going to be a few that are very, very important that we've said no to not because they were bad ideas but because we didn't have money. so as you see the economy rebound and we can argue an economist i guess will know and only time will tell how quickly it rebounds. but the demands we have also i think we could -- i could and i assume most governors here could give you a long list of unmet things of things, very legitimate needs, that we have had to defer. so it's going to be -- it is the economic crisis that has people cutting and the rebound as you all know from your experience is going to have people moving towards trying to meet some of these needs. i guess what i'm interested in,

a little bit of what's been asked already but not just where your recommendation goes but how over time, over a 5-, 10, 15, 20, 25 year period of time if the country agreed on a certain course that we should go which i would assume would be a balance of the new investments that we would have to make, but the can you tell us that have to be made. but how do you enforce that over a 10 or 15 or 20 year period of time that is going to happen? so your recommendations are in many ways in this economic climate pretty easy to at least on a state level, we have agreed on every cut anybody could come up with because we have to. but it's going to be a lot harder with those in the next few years. so i'm interested in your thoughts. i recognize you say your chances for success are slim even in getting this adopted. but what is your vision about if we have a pathway we should be on and we agreed on?

it's one that isn't going to happen in one or two years. it's going to happen over decades long period of time. and what's the mechanism to see that that would occur? >> i think you are partially right. the part that i think you ought to be concerned about is i don't think you can anticipate, no matter how much the economy improves, any additional help from the federal government. they just simply do not have the resources. if you look at the ten-year forecast, and it gets worse as you go out, not better, you're looking of deficits of at least $700 billion every year. so those of you who have balanced your budgets by using the federal stimulus dollars which run out this year and you're going to be left with a darned big hole to fill.

i know in north carolina we have a $3.5 gl hole there plus we have taxes running off. and that's going to place a huge responsibility on us. i think about what governor purdu has had to do in order to make us more efficient and more effective and make the tough choices he has had to make. they're no different than the ones at the university. i have cut last year administrative costs by 23%. i do have 30% fewer employees today in administration than i had 5 years ago. i did fire 900 people last year all on the administrative side of the ledger. i did increase the workforce. we froze the salaries, we put in furloughs. we're going to have to make use governors and we as mrs.s of other areas, we're going to have to continue to make really tough choices if we are going to have resources left over to invest in education and

economic. but i don't think we can depend on additional resources from the federal government to bail us out again. >> i think one thing, there's so many people out there who come to the town meetings and so on and they'll get up and there will be great applause, and i'll till you what you need to do, congressman or governor. not you guys. you have to balance the budget. we don't out there. but they'll get up and say i'll tell you what you ought to do. you get rid of all earmarks, get rid of all foreign aid to anybody, and get rid of all waste fraud and abuse and that will get us there. that will get you 5% of the whole. so when you say get rid of air force one and cut pensions and just tell them to quick playing around, they're just showing off because if you did those three things all of it, eerks,

foreign aid, waste fraud and abuse will get us 5% out of this hole. and yet, when you go out in the land, there's so much heavy ludge and cheers from the crowd , if half the people there with gray hair and 65 pitches about the government are on medicare. so should with say, well then, you mean you're out of the touch here. we're going to cut that off? but dave over there, what was it a year ago dave, you said to the state of wyoming you go back into your own agencies and you cut 15%. wasn't that it? and we're not going to do an across the board. you're going to figure it out. they all know where the fat is. you know, people achieve, not only the first thing they say is when i came here i had a staff of 10, but now i have 30. that means you've succeeded. it's a great thing. well, i don't want to say

anything more. >> i'll just add to that. you all have made a lot of the tough decisions that may haven't made at the federal government. let me just give you one easy example that's difficult to do. it's been, i don't know how long but it's been a long time since we've had a pay raise as civil servants in north carolina. and governor has had no choice. she's got to balance the budget. in washington, they've had pay raises of 2%, 3.9% and 3.5% over the last three years, and president obama has proposition for an increase of 1.4% next january. no way. now, how much did we save if we freeze federal civilian pay at 2010 levels? we save about 2 billion a year. is that going to get us to the promised land? no. but those are the kinds of decisions that you've already made that we have to make as recommendations in this budget.

>> i saw four hands. if i could ask my colleagues to be as expeditious as possible. we're a little beyond our allot time. >> thank you, sir. gentlemen, thank you for your service. governors have the responsibility constitutionally to balance their budget. they cannot borrow money in most cases. the federal government has to have the ability during times of emergency to be able to take care of national issues. but at the same time, is there any structural change that can be made that would -- other than a constitutional amendment, which would bear or pul congress, and these are good people. we send them there. they're solid individuals. but is there a way to structurally change the makeup to make congress accountable for the promises which they make but the next generation of congressmen have to pay for?

at some stage of the game there has to be some accountability for what you promise that you're going to deliver. is there anything in the recommendations other than constitutional changes that would allow that to occur? >> alan is a legislature. but that's the whole problem we have with something like social security. talk about something that's a third rail. you know, we promised more than we can deliver. the same thing with health care. you know, we did a great job of accessing of taking up access this last time, but boy we didn't do very much on the cost side. i can tell you that. and you can see by the forecast i gave you what a significant issue that is. but on health care, i mean, on social security, we're going to run through this, quote, trust fund by 2039 and the trust fund

will be gone, all the interest on the trust fund will be gone, and by law the payments to social security recipients have to drop that day by 20% in order for the revenues to match the outlays. and pretty soon they'll have to drop by 24%. so what you're going to get from social security is going to go down if we do nothing. so what we have to do is figure out a way that we can fix it, which we believe we can, so that those payments drop in a much more gradual manner, or that we get additional revenues to maintain that level of benefit. but it's going to go down because they promised more than they can deliver. and you can find that in er single area of the federal budget. >> let me just add one thing. there is, and this is not about partisanship. i have no idea what's going to happen on election day but it's going to be disruptive.

appropriators are resigning. both parties, people who are on the appropriations committee, that's a whole new game to watch appropriators begin to step aside because they're the money guys. they're the guys that have been stepping up and sholing it out. and that's an interesting thing to watch. i have no idea what's going to happen. i don't cherish any result over another. but it's going to be a big wakeup call around the whole united states. and i have no idea where it's going but thank heaven we have a month to work through the wreckage and see what happened and then watch for a lame duck session where people who have just been saving stuff in their back pocket for years and resigned after 20 years, and said here's this baby i never could get there and i'm working it. but the other one with regard to social security, there's a

phrase called scheduled benefit and pable benefits. schedule benefits in 2013 will not be made. pable benefits will be made. there will be enough to make pable benefits and they will be substantially 20 to 25% different than scheduled benefits. and that's the way it is if you do nothing. so when you hear people say we're going to do zeal with that, each year you wait, this is just a bolder rolling. >> governor. >> well, i join my colleagues in saying thank you for your service and leadership and for joining us today. i have to share was, there's isn't a person here that doesn't want you to succeed. behind all that is a concern i'm sure by all of us, does that mean that it's going to result in more demands on the states? in other words, more unfunded mandates, more rolling downhill, the concern of most

governors here are we goible to be able to do health care reform or are we being asked to pick up a tab that we otherwise wouldn't be sk to be picked up? so with that in mind, we want you to succeed very much. what can we do to help you be successful? how can we partner but or that your efforts will not result in the kind of skepticism that you've heard here but real reform and real change for all of us? >> governor, you're exactly right. one of the ways we balanced the budget in 1997 was that dirty word devlution. and we did devolve a lot of services without the appropriate funding down to the state, and that helped fix up the federal budget. it caused you a lot of headaches. i don't think you're going to see a lot of devlution coming from us because stakes are all broke, all in the same situation the federal government is.

so devlution is in my opinion not the answer. how you can help us is we don't have the resources. we're a deficit reduction committee so we're not spending hardly any money. but so we don't have the resources to do one of these national campaigns. and we've got to get the word out. so our hope is to meet with people like you all, we're meeting with the national chamber, anybody who will let us come meet with them. and then we hope that you will spread the word that we've got to take action, and take action now. and defering it to some later period of time is just irresponsible. >> i think one of the things that we've already been hammered with is how much are you guys making? that's a wonderful treat. because i get a coach fair out of coddy, wyoming, and i get get in first class because i can't work my emashe nated frame in there and i've got a new knee.

so i'm paying a spread between the coach and first class. don't feel sorry. and then we get a whole per deem for one night, government rate and we pay that and we pay everything else from our own pocket. and people chip on us, how much you make sng you guys are making a ton out there. that's always a good one. and then our budget for the whole thing is $500,000. and with that, we've hired bruce reed, a very able guy, and a final staff. we have young college students, we have borrowed from agencies of the government. we can't borrow from congressional staff. the house budget committee has 75 people and a budget of 10 million. we have, what, 18 staff and a budget of 500 grand. but if we had any more, we would in in peril. we have to look like we're in rags and stagger through the village with a tin cup.

and that's what we're doing beautifully, although we wear good clothing. . h >> i think that would be a

helpful piece of information for you to have to include in your report, the trimming of the bureaucracy and the red tape that people, like the governors, have to go through if to do any kind of change in their states. i have a medicaid waiver that has a and 2. five years in the process of being authorized. -- 2.5 years of being authorized. i know it is the leadership of this organization. we have some core solutions do things that would really help the bankrupt states be more efficient. >> thank you. that is what we came for is your ideas. to talk about something really controversial -- let's talk aboumedicaid. i mean, medicaid is an enormous cost. from the numbers i gave you earlier, it is a cost that will grow and grow and grow. you all are paying a big portion of that. i personally think that we have

overpromise. we have promised more than we can deliver. i think the taxpayers can afford to make sure that everybody has a darn good chevrolet, but nobody should get a cadillac at the taxpayers' expense. that is a very controversial opinion, but it is also based on reality of what we can actually afford to do. and so we are looking for ideas on the medicaid side that can help us bring down the cost of medicaid so that we can actually give people what we can actually afford. >> and don't forget, the new health care bill is on the table. we did not take this on if the president had said, what we just accomplished there is off the table. and it he did not challenge. he said it is on the table. here is something that is on the table, i think. in the year 2014 under the

spill, and they are sorting through the stack, the states can throw their medicaid back to the federal government. and some states, if i am not mistaken district of columbia said we want to accelerate that , throw it back right now and went to court. to be sure that bergmann would go back. if that is the truth, -- to be sure that that would go back. i am not certain, but i think there is some trigger mechanism in this new bill that enables estates to track or portions thereof to the fed's which makes the problem greater from the standpoint of what we all are pressuriortraying. >> governor reeder has yielded his time so we can get back on schedule. as we wrap up this discussion, i

wonder as an association if we might follow up on a points that the governors made. first of all, think about specific recommendations we would have based on our own experience in managing in difficult times. we talked a lot about that at our roundtable yesterday and conveyed it those ideas as to our guests and the commission. to the extent there would be helpful in informing their double ratiodeliberations. later in the year, when the commission gets to the point of recommendation, 14 of the 18 votes, a very diverse group of people from different walks of life, perhaps nga would care to endorse the process and urge the congress to support the recommendations of this bipartisan commission as an important step to get our fiscal house in order. i do not know how you would feel about that, but i think we have expressed a lot of support for

the work they are doing into the need to move towards some fiscal stability in the country. but if there is interest in that, we could draft a letter and circulated during the coming months and move forward. why don't we do that? well, this is been a great discussion with two great americans who have stepped forward to undertake a very difficult task. i know all the governors are grateful to you for doing that and wish you well on your deliberations, and we want to be here to help. we are all in this together as we serve to improve the lives of the people of our states and make sure that future generations can bear a fiscal burden that is not a precedent. thank you so much for being with us today. it is great to have you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning instit >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes. it is treated by america's cable companies. >> this weekend, of bp crews are working to replace a leaky cap with the new containment system. it could be done by monday. next, we have a look at the clinic in louisiana. -- at the cleanup in louisiana.

>> my name is terry since. i have lived here all my life and that i am down here working on the oil spill. i have done environmental work for the last four years. we're out here cleaning up. we really do feel like we're making progress. we want to help. >> how long have you been down here? >> i am going into my sixth week of working. >> how did you come to be at this location? >> i just chase to the oil to the source, really and truly. two of my sons, this is where it

started, offshore. >> what types of things have you been doing? >> i have always been on beach cleanup. then we have both operations, land operations, and things. but i have been on beach cleanup for the last -- going into six weeks here. >> what do you do on a beach cleanup? >> you are breaking up and shoveling up all of the tar balls. you are begging it up and taking it -- your bagging -- you are bagging it up and taking it. anytime you have a disaster like

this, an environmental one, you are here for the duration and your working 7-12. i were gone zone 14. -- i work on his own 14. -- i work on zone 14. the yellow buses, they're taking workers down to different zones. they're taking workers over to elmer's island and other surrounding areas where we are working. that is what all the buses are for.

they are work buses. makeup man, because up, transported. -- they come in, pick us up, transport us. >> this appears to be a very robust operation. >> they have everything at the facility. they have the tents set up for the chow hall. they have the tents set up for the supplies. we just going in, set up, clean- u up. it has been a pretty good operation, i think. >> did you think that the government and the bp are doing enough to clean up the oil spill? >> i think they're doing everything within their power that they can possibly do.

it is such a big disaster that they are doing what they can do. they really and truly theare. i think they are. i know that a lot of people do not think there. but it is a process of elimination. you just do what you can do. i sister and i had a camp. we have the camper set up in a campground here, on the island. we are fortunate. we are not having to stay in tent city, which is set for the workers. if people have a camper down here, that is a lot better. all of the hotels are full. but we are talking about a seven-mile long island. they're not going to be that many places to stay. >> what has been the hardest part of the work?

>> seeing the devastation that it causes, the ocean is in disarray. everybody should pray and have faith. >> watch the latest briefings, congressional hearings, and other videos like you just saw or the live bp feet of the oil spill on c-span.org. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books, all as a public service,>> the justice dt week filed a suit over been emigration law in arizona. joinus