get into these things, i think we will learn some things that will give us some future opportunities or targets or what ever you want to call them. i think we have to keep after them. last question to >> >> it sounds like you are describing something. i actually think that the qdr has value. i think that the outside -- what i told corporal perry, but i think the outside review of the qdr would be better bid for the

qdr to assess the a kind of agenda that the qdr will look at. it can inform the qdr. having it come afterwards is of limited value because it is already done. people are doing all kinds of things with it. i think the qdr has about you but the outside review is better done at the front end up the process. thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> over the next hour and half, up two views of national security. first admiral hayden. then a news conference with

robert gates. later, a debate with republican candidates for governor in georgia. >> i would tell you, based on a review under to tapes, hundreds of hours, that they are not conspirators. they're not sitting there saying, thinking about this or that playing. they really do not know what is going on. >> this week marks the anniversary of the 1974 resignation of richard nixon, and almost 40 years later watergate still resonates in the american memory. brary.the c-span lipar >> the former head of the cia on national security. he answered your questions for about 45 minutes on "washington journal."

host: and general michael he did was the former cia director under the bush and administration from 2006 to 09. let me begin with "the washington times" -- the fbi is now keeping tabs on him. he has supposedly taken over as the new al qaeda chief. guest: he was the no. 3 chief of operations. that is the position in which there has been a series of successions because we have been able to take off the battlefield the no. 3 position in al qaeda with great regularity. the operations chief cannot spend all had his energy hiding, as number one and two do, and he

is not able to hide all day. it remains to see how long he will be in this job because his successors have not had very much longevity. the fact that he lives in the united states is a problem. he might be able to better guide al qaeda operatives in their attacks, but this is it unprecedented. khalid sheikh mohammed lived in north carolina for awhile, so we have experienced something like this before. host: does that hurt or hinder the search for someone like this? guest: i do not know how it affects it. it perhaps makes him more confident about planning attacks because he is more understanding of the american culture, but it is yet to be seen ihe will be more effective. host: will intelligence

officials look at when he was in the country and try to glean anything? guest: yes absolutely. people tend to think about intelligence as current offense, but history provides important material about what it terrorist might do. to talk to folks who may have known him, to understand who he is as a human being, allows us to be more productive about his actions. host: there was an announcement about an arrest of 14 individuals, most of them had been in the united states, or citizens. what do you make of these homegrown -- so-called homegrown terrorists? guest: this is a particular

strain of home grown. it is dangerous enoug to where it is different from others. these are somalis who have been trained in recruited to go back to fight al shabab in somalia. they are fighting against what they view to be the ethiopian occupation. however, many of them are being trained in the of data -- al qaeda facilities by and al qaeda leader. sometimes they can be carried against the united states, and oftentimes, they do have knowledge of the united state if they made that decision, it would be particularly dangerous. host: before this, the case of

the russian spies. guest: it appears to be an oddity, more odd than dangerous -- and i do not want to trivialize this -- but it highlights the fact that this is a dangerous world, countries to perform espionage on other states. from a professional point of view, this doesn't appear to be an efficient use of resources by e russian state, but again, i would be the last one to minimize it. it istill dangerous. this was not a surprise to most of us in the intelligence business. we have been aware of this for some time -- press accounts are pretty rich --ut we had known

about these folks for an extended period. host: what does that say overa about the strategy for fighting terrorism? guest: we have had been taking the fight to the enemy since a few days after the 9/11 attacks. some ask what is different, what has changed? the intelligence community has more resources, more money, but ndamentally, the biggest difference between pre and post- 9/11, we are playing offense. we are making him worry about his survival -- to use a sports metaphor. instead of playing i the goalmouth, making this a penalty kick situation, where the best we can do is stop t shot --

now we are moving downfield and making him worry about his own goal. host: who is in charge of intelligence gathering when it comes to fighting terrorism? guest: particularly, in the american flavor, it is a te sport. they are all like pulling different positions on a sports team. what you need is a good manager to synchronize and harmonize all that activity so that we leverage each other's capabilities. by law, it is the dni, but most of us who have been in the intelligence community realize that he has more responsibilities than authorities. host: so is the dni useful?

guest: absolutely. it has to work. i do not see us going back into the intelligence structure and doing major surgery again. right now, because the legislation is weak, in the authorities that it gives the dni, but their powers rely a great deal on the powers, the relationships. the most important is the relationship between the dni and president. if everyone understands that that relationship is tight and reflects the president's personal interest, this will work. host: theclapper is being consi. are we vulnerable without him?

guest: he was confirmed by the senate. he is in the saddle now. we have chatted the last few days and he is going to do a fine job. host: how do you know him? guest: we go back, he was my senior in the air force. i once characterized him as my mentor. he was the head of the national g a spatial intelligence agency. he was on my advisory board at nsa while he was out of government. we go back a long way. moscow we have lot -- host: we have lots to talk about regarding security, wikileaks,

security. let's begin with the first phone call. patrick in west valley, utah. caller: i was wondering if anything has been done in a reference to combing data base systems -- co-mingling database systems in the subject tter of deterring or stopping terrorism. guest: that is a great question. you use the phrase "co-mingling mingling database systems." when something happens, we often hear about the failure to share. i think you are referring to how much we are willing to share information. frankly, we shared better,

certainly than prior to the 9/11 attacks,ut there are some fundamental issues here. it is unlawful to use information fo purposes other than which the information was originally acquired. so beyond some bureaucratic inertia, which i believe we have largely overcome, there are policy issues that cannot allow you to dump this into one common data base and have everyone playing in the same tidal pool of information. there are restrictions, they sometimes get in the way of sharing information, but there are good reasons for those restrictions. host: singfield, illinois. john on the republican line. caller: in general, i heard you

talk once before on cyber security. you made reference to the fact that you're catholic faith has some bearing about the way that you see an asset. -- see nasa. guest: intelligence officers are inherent and thinkers. policy maks are generally the doctors. they think about the vision, the generalized principle, and then apply it to a specific situation. that creates an interesting dynamic when the fact guy has to have a conversation with the policy maker. you get into the same room, but you are clearly coming in from different doors. the task of the intelligence

officer is to be true to the facts, but at the same time, be relevant to the policy maker and decisions. that is a fairly narrow sweet spot. host: cyber threats? guest: they are real. you do not need to point to one or another bogeyman in order to be concerned about privacy, security. we built this domain to be efficient. we built it with ease of use ing the dominant printable in its design. questions of security and privacy have come later. so if you build this for ease of use, you can imagine why it is so difficult to make sure our information is secure, that the network is not invulnerable, and

that the information stays private. host: how many cyber attacks are there, how many are being stopped? guest: it is almost countless, given the nature of the internet. this began under a program designed to limit the number of nodes coming in. the challenge was how do i move things quickly between trusted nodes? that is similar to the system on the internet. however, very few of them now should be trusted, and that is why we have the security problems we do today. the number of attacks is difficult to comprehend because, frankly, we built it that wa host: would we be able to track

these types of threats? guest: it is a constant challenge. i am sure if you would ask my successors, they would say, we have a good number, but we need to do more. look at how quickly your personal communications have changed over the past -- six months, six years? people charged with security in that domain have to keep pace with all those changes. that is incredibly difficult. host: we are speaking with former cia director michael hamdan. what do you do now? guest: and i am teaching at george mason university, i am teaching with the michael chertoff foundation. host: do you still have access to top-secret information? guest: all former directors

maintain their clearances. at one time, director panetta invited all of the former directors in and asks for the use of his predecessor. i tried to stay plugged in. host: how many times have you been to that type of meeting? guest: i have been to cia a handful of time since i have left govnment. leon panetta is the director and should have a free land to be so. host: eric on the democratic line. caller: it is an extraordinary surprise to be speaking to a man like you. i wish i had the time to speak to you face to face. i know that is not possible but i think you are in extremely brilliant individual. i wish i could speak to you.

my concern is the post expose about the non-military apparatuses around the area. i wonder, the specter of a cyber attack predicated on these individuals handling so much information may truly be a hindrance to our security. as you know, the internet changes every day and gets more sophisticated. sooner or later, something serious will happen. i wonder if you could have been on the selective drone attacks. i respect you, i do not know yo but i do not think michael chertoff is very fair,

especially to minorities, blacks like myself. i wish i could meet you face to face. you are an intelligent man, but we are in on of trouble. host: two issues. the drug issue, cyber attacks. guest: the issue in the post article with regard to contractors. some interesting things there, nothing new to people in the intelligence committee. if you want me to summarize it briefly, it pointed out inefficiencies. we have not been effective. contractors, in fact, are responsible for contributing to a large number of successes in the community. we could not do our job without them.

but you raise a good point. you have to be as confident in them with intelligent as you are in your government work force. we try to be. they go through the same clearance process that we would use for a government employee. on your second issue, the u.s. government has never confirmed or denied its drone program, and i will not do so this morning, but we have pointed out that a large number of al qaeda leaders have been taken off the battlefield since 2008. i mentioned earlier the difference between pre and post- 9/11 -- taking tse people off the battlefield is an incredibly important point. i am disappointed with your views to michael chertoff. i see him as a wonderful public servant and a friend.

host: next phone call. cynthia. caller: how are you this morning? my question considers the whole aspect of continuous improvement mechanisms. we have so many security issues. what have i not come into federal regulations, gnp, everything we are trying to do to make things better, improve this mechanism system? i worked as a medical professional in houston, texas, and it is almost appalling house had the security service -- appalling how the security serves us.

why is our national security being breached? they are regulating international trade and intimating -- implenting rules. host: we will leave it there. guest: yr knowledge of these things goes well beyond my own. let me talk about your content of continuous improvement. that is a wonderful phrase. in fact, i think it reflects a reality in the intelligence community. this is hard work. our enemy is a learning enemy. weannot stand still. we have to adapt, react, and respond.

to your question, when you are talking about security, there are balanc to be struck. we have gotten quite good at detecting and disrupting the macro al qaeda plot against the united states, iconic the tax -- a tax that we saw in new york, -- attacks and that we saw in the new york, over christmas day. how much you have to do to disrupt the kind of thing that we had happened in times square -- how much do you want the intelligence committee to squeeze privacy, commerce, were convenient in order toave high confidence you can disrupt that kind of attack? that is a devil of a problem, and one that has to be decided

by policy makers after an open dialogue with the generalized population. there is a balance we have to strike here. the intelligence community needs to be guided as to where that balance should be. host: it sounds like you do not believe we are quite there? guest: i think we have to understand, as good as we try to make intelligence, how good do you have to be to preempt a faisal shazhad-type of attack? at what point do we, as a nation, decide we want our intelligence professionals to go this far but no further, as it begins to push up against commerce, convenience. where is that line?

host: the front page of "the new york times" -- a piece looking atrivate bradley manning. what are the implications of this? guest: it is hard for me to calculate how bad the damage was. the callousness with which the information was put out there, allegedly by this soldier, is stunning. host: what do you know that others do no know? guest: he believes, by reading these documents, which are sensitive and which are not. the best i can say is he believes the contents of the document determined whether it is sensitive or not, whher it

is legitimately classified. those of us to do this for a living now that it is really the content of on that determines whether a document should be caught -- classified. it is the source. he does not know the source. he puts a document up there that suggests the americans knew ied's would be placed in e spring of 2007. he does not know that an american patrol -- this is purely illustrative -- that an american patrol team intercepted that team. at the time, they chalked it up to bad luck. now the taliban is looking at this report, which he does not see as sensitive because it is old, and they say, it was not locked in that the patrol

stumbled across our team in 2007. this information was revealed to our enemy. i can see the conversation going on, where did we have that meeting, whose house was it? he has no ability to gauge, predict that series of air vents, and he has put people at risk. beyond that, who will come forward now and help the americans? the battle for afghanistan is a battle for the population. now we have told the population -- he has told the population -- do not trust the americans. they cannot keep your secret. host: to do what advocates say we need to do in afghanistan and iraq, do you think it is good

for the american people to read what it is really like to be in war, to read those memos put together by soldiers and realize how greedy it is? guest: -- gritty it is? guest: no question, the war through the eyes of someone on the ground is much grittierthan anything that we could possibly imagine. the is a kurd they a best seller that talks about a young man -- current best seller that talk about a young man in the war, and it is war at it's

greediest. we do not need a complete account to understand what is really going on. host: next phone call. kentucky. caller: we need to secure the border and get rid of all of the illegals. if we do that, we could take care of national security. talk aboutet's border security. guest: a good point, but it comes back to my question earlier. how much do you want to squeeze comfort and security? i know there are a good number of americans on either side of the issue. an undeniable fact of sovereignty is control of your borders. we can all agree more needs to

be done. what that is is subject to debate. i have some personal debate -- news, but i hope -- views, but i will leave it at that. postcode next phone call. -- host: next phone call. caller: i spoke to you earlier this year about terrorism. maybe one month later, indonesia got hit by the tsunami. how many terrorists have you seen come from indonesia since the tsunami? there was a u.s. mercy ship that

went in to help, and perhaps that could be used as a tool against terrorism? guest: in fact, as we speak, american helicopters are in pakistan tryg to deliver aid to those areas that are going through a once-in-a-century drought. we did the same thing after the earthquake in pakistan. the general pakistani view of the americans improved after that, as we undertook that kind of operation. i agree strongly, you can do an awful lot, even in the nearly-

defined area of security, to fully use your resources. host: is there enough volunteerism to this effort? we have seen hillary clinton ask for more people to phone-in aid. guest: absolutely. sometimes in america we do not get much credit for the help that we give. so much help given through the private sector is not giv through the government. that is how we have done it, it makes us agile, but we do not get much credit for it. host: maryland. logan on the independent line. caller: good morning. i always wonder, terrorists who

are here, it would seem relatively easy for them to get their hands on explosives, surface to air missiles -- they seem to be pretty prevalent on the black market. i wonder why they would not just art blowing up airliners to screw with our economy and then do it again six months later it only takes a couple of them to make a big dent in the airline's -- host: and we understand your comment. guest: you are not the first one to raisehat question, me

included. but we have continually been concerned that al eda might change tactics. you recall what we were doing two years ago around thanksgiving. there was a major hotel in mumbai that wasttacked. that was conducted by a dozen individuals with automatic weapons and sell bonds, and -- cell phones, and it had a great economic and political affect. those types of attacks are difficult to detect and disrupt it. al qaeda seemed fixated on iconic targets. the world trade center, pentagon, multiple airliners simultaneously. the great fear is what you suggest, at these lower

threshold the tax that collectively would have great political impact, could be something thewent up to four. host: is that a greater threat than what al qaeda is obsessing about, tse iconic -- guest: if you lookt history, because we have been taking the fight to the enemy, let me characterize where i think they are, if i was there staff, what i would the laying out to them. their ability to conduct a complex, spectacular attacks is not the zero, but has been greay reduced by the kinds of things that we have been able to do. al qaeda central in the afghanistan, pakistan region has been reduced, so they have had to go to franchisees.

we have had made them less capable of carrying out complicated, mass casualties attacks. their attacks will have less percentage of success, will be less spectacular. that is good. over here, there is a danger that they would be more numerous because they are easy to mount. this is unqualified success, and now we have to worry about these potentially less harmless, more numerous attacks. host: next phone call. caller: good morning. i am jealous of the professional role that you get to have to, with all of the data, and i am

proud of what you did. i want to ask a philosophical question coming to the extent that you can answer, how active is the control factor of capitalism used to advance freedom and democracy around the world, does it drive policy, or does it follow intelligence? i once had a friend named bernie hoffman who working in the shadow bank in washington and said most people walk around with a quiet understanding of freedom, what it takes to protect assets around e world.

arthere still a off-balance- types of problems like that? guest: and that it difficult for me to talk about because of my knowledge. the intelligence guy is a fact guy. i cannot divorce my professional life from who i am. i am an american with american lues. i believe mankinds natural inclination is toward freedom, economic freedom, political freedom. but i need to filter some of that when i am talking to the poli maker. the greatest service i can give a policy maker is for him to think i am actually adversary in the room -- not that i am advocating the goals.

but i am reflecting to the president the advsaries thinking come as accurate as i can. mr. president, let me tell you how they are probably thinking about this. you have to try to put yourself into t value system of the adversary so that the decision maker, a policymaker, understand what they are up against. host: let's go back to the terror suspects arrested by the fbi. either a neighbor terrorists before they came here and were able to get citizenship, maybe they were already citizens. there are questions about how come these people were not caught under your watch, how were they able to be in this country?

guest: we are a free and open society. many people want to come and live here because of those freedoms that i mentioned. the security services of the country are charged with finding, who in that great flow of people, might be enemies. it is a difficult task. in fact, is it is a difficult task. at what point does dissent become a danger? when does a belief in the same value system become a threat to the generally-agreed a value system? i do not say that we tread lightly, but the american people need to know that the security people doing this are sensitive to those fundamental american values, as we try to the sect,

who among us, might be an enemy among us. host: and jenny on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i aee, the intelligence community does a terrific job. i do not know how they do it sometimes. one of my questions is, on september 10, nsa intercepted a call from usama bin laden to his stepmother. they did not interpreted until september 12. why? if i had a friend to concerns me, could i ask someone in the government to look into this person to see if there is any danger? guest: let me answer your second question first.

without turning america into spies of others, i would simply recommend that you identify the appropriate authority and pass on that information to them. with regard to 9/10, there were no phone calls that i am aware of between usama bin ladennd any relatives prior to that. there were some intersections on the 10th of september that were translated which were analyzed. they were non-geographic- specific. nothing in those communications suggestean attack on the american homeland. if we would have translated,

alyzed, and reported those conversations prior to the 9/11 attacks -- there were two -- it would have been a 30 -- the 32nd 3rd warning that summer that there was going to be an imminent attack. host: if sanctions do not work, what is next? guest: it is a difficult problem for the administration. you have un sanctions that are

not very strong, but broad, you have the american sanctions which are stronger still, but they are only american sanctions. as that narrows, you have other countries coming in and filling in the spaces, more responsible international actors. president obama spoke to journalists last wk and admitted the iranian state may be so committed to getting a nuclear weapon, but sanctions it may not succeed. my successor, director panetta, responding to a question about that, said that they probably will not work. so that will leave us in a place where they are rushing forward to the step right below have been a nlear weapon.

permanent break up state. going from here to here will be undetectable by intelligence because the distance it is so short. we have to decide whether that state of affairs is acceptable. if not, if we think it will be inherently destabilizing in the region, we have to look at what is a quickly-narrowing the list of optns about what to about it. host: windchills, north carolina. david on the independent line. caller: i wish some people would be very careful about certain terms they use, like security, protection. the use of the word freedom and capitalism, which i wou equate to self-interest.

general, are you familiar with the concept of the public duty death? for what is usually involved when a government official best to protect, and the victi' families choose a government agent for failure to protect. the government usually comes back with the defense a form of sovereign immunity, that they had no legal duty to protect the individual. there are many cases in history. thousands of cases across the american where americans are misconstruing the fundamental bullish -- between themselves and the relationship of government -- responsibility of government. when you talk about national security, many people may misconstrue that it personally

means them. kaska at the end of the day, we are trying to protect americans -- guest: at the endf the day, we are trying to protect americans. i was interviewed before 9/11 and i was asked, you work hard, but can you guarantee that you can protect america? i said, no, i cannot. even at the top of our game, i cannot promise that nothing bad will happen. this is a determined enemy. >> more about national security from but former director of national intelligence, mike mcconnell. this event was focusing on cybersecurity. this event is little less than an hour.

>> all of these sessions are our favorites but if i had to choose a favorite, it is the one i have been looking forward to. it is a condensed period of time to talk to a person ideally positioned to explain an issue to it. we know about his background as the director of national intelligence. i had heard that if you worked at the national security agency, you never call it "the." you simply call at national security agency. >> that is correct.

a printout -- we have been talking to grandma, >> did that make him most are least favorite? >> that is the second useful thing that you've learned today. something in your copious airtime, you might want to go to the website of a group called intelligence squared, and find out about whether the cyber security threat had been hyped up. you won most of the undecided in your direction. with that as the theme, we do not have a lot of time today. my ambition with time for questions is something to be

fundamental here. all of us have heard about these cyber threats. few of us are confident about what it actually means and what we should worry about and what we should dismiss and what is real. that is what i like to go to. just in basic terms, what is the threat we are talking about? what things would you worry about? what does cyber threat mean? >> banks again. what we start by describing the net. i would like for you to think about it as the global enterprise. you can move wifrom one side of the world to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds. when you start to appreciate it as global, on the globe and have access to your benefit, to exchange something of value were

commerce or whatever. but you could also have access to do harm. and that is the issue that we have attempted to identify it -- how do we continue to reap the benefits of the global enterprise that we know is the information technology revolution, and what is the proper balance of the roles and missions of government and the private sector in causing it to be secure enough that we can conduct the nation's business and in fact global business in a safe and secure manner? and let me put a eight. bang on it that will help people grasp the gravity of this -- eight. bank -- put a point one at that will help people grasp the gravity of this. the economy of the united states is $14 trillion, or

thereabouts. there are several banks that move $7 trillion at day. there is nothing backing up their currency. there is not even printed dollar bills. if you add up all the printed dollar in the chain, that as 2% of the bag you. where is it? it is stored in the computer systems that allow the world to exchange value and currency and reconcile in milliseconds. that is the benefit and that has now introduced a level of vulnerability. and it repeats in areas like electric power or transportation, all the things that everyone in this room depends on. in some way you are benefited or depended on this thing that we refer to as the internet. >> when we talk about the transportation and electric grid, that we are dependent not only on physical entities but

the information system, because this is one of the contested issues. whether there is such a thing as cyber warfare, is it under way now, and here is an analogy. theoretically someone from china or russia could disable an electric grid our highway system. you could also make the analogy that the russians could send nuclear weapons, so could the chinese are pakistan is, and that does not mean that we rub or with the russians. does the existence of a theoretical threats mean that we are at war? >> many of us concerned about that jews turned to try to get attention or focus. i seldom use the terms cyber war. i might have said cyber conflict. it is a fact of history and a

characteristic of mankind that if there is conflict, it is conducted with the instruments at hand. whether it is fighting with spears or across both -- crossbow, that is the nature of conflict. we are facing a situation where someone who wishes you harm or maybe has a different world view, they have the capacity to inflict catastrophic damage with a relatively small investment. are we at cyber war, meaning there is someone out there attacking us as a matter of defining it in a legalistic sense? i would say no. are those out there with a different world view that would like to change the world? i would think that everyone here would agree that that is true.

you can understand it from different points of view, and the argument we are attempting to make is not to wait for a crisis. if you think about our wonderful democracy, it checks and balances, we will talk about a problem forever but we often do not take the steps necessary to address the problem. but wait until there is a crisis, and then we get a huge overreaction. why can we have this debate -- why cannot we have this debate among all parties to get the law right and get the international relationships that will have to flow out of this adjusted in a way that we are partners in a global enterprise that we all depend on and should be secure? and i would like to comment about some of those constructive suggestions. let me ask a further clarifying point on this.

if you think of actual states with which the united states might conceivably go to war, whether china or someone else, and if they were trying to affect our cyber structure, presumably we would be doing lots of other things to each other. is that assumption correct? for the non-state groups that we worry about constantly, is there evidence that they are trying to actual physical or bear? >> i do not remember the exact number, some 200-odd nation states in the war. about 150 of them have a relatively sophisticated cyber exploitation capability. i would use three terns breed exploitation, attack, and defense. i want to separate those three terms because they are often concerned -- it is. if you are exploiting, if you are reading the other guys mail.

you are wanting to know what the intentions are. you are following in an intelligence cents, up the capabilities of a potential adversary. attacked means that you would use cyber means to achieve an objective. we do not want to turn off the air defense of what whites to go up. we would think of that as an attack. defense is the more challenging issue because you have to defend all potentially vulnerable spots. every nation-state out there is doing contingency planning. it has military forces. it has a strategy for being successful, and in any small scale or large-scale conflict, you are thinking about and planning for cyber conflict. you used china. let's suppose that we had some disagreement with china over something like taiwan.

let us suppose that china invaded taiwan. what would be our reaction? what would be the policy of the united states? it the policy decisions lead to conflict, but there is no doubt in my mind that both sides would be using cyber to achieve wartime objectives. and that would be in gate of tactical forces at the front line. it could be an attack on surveillance capabilities so that you understand the battle space. it could be an attack on command and control, or call something to wobble back in the home state to cause uncertainty and fear. it could cost the lights to go out. there are lots of things that when you pick up the way that i tried to introduce it, from any remote point you can touch another point, if you are sophisticated and you had another sophisticated exploitation capability, that is why i use the three different words, to exploit means that you

can be successful with no fingerprints. -- you are a successful exporter, if you have the ability to have a successful attack in you should have the capability for better defense. and that is the space that we are in right now. what are the attack, and you should have the are in right now. what are the right policy framework and the legal frameworks and the international agreements that we might established to secure this space, and just one final thing. if the chinese were having this discussion, they would recognize that the u.s. is not without resources in this realm, too. >> the u.s. is not without resources. part of the reason we got so focused on this issue, i had the privilege and pleasure of leading the national security

agency, and starting in 1992, and if you recall, several things were happening in 1992. the cold war was over. there were two haute in washington, d.c., and we had a new administration, and this thing called the internet, anybody out there here of this thing called the internet? it was about to explode and create incredible wealth for many of the folks in this room. i was standing there thinking of developments. i have an institution whose roots go back to world war ii, where we were successful in reading the codes from nazi germany and japanese codes, and we shortened the war by many years, so being able to understand why the conflict was very, very important, so the leadership of my -- the nation's post-world war two decided that this codebreaking

finger was important, so we were going to institutionalize it. i was the new director. peace dividends, the cold war is over, and the internet is exploding. now, here is the way that it was explained to me. most of the exploitation throughout world war ii and the cold war was wireless. there are only two kinds of communications. wireless and wired, and we made most of hours on a wireless. young engineers said to me, "mr. director? before you leave your, 90% of the world communications will be inside a glass pipe." so if there is a new agency that is being challenged, and the question is relevance, how much denny stark to change the institution? and it was a global institution? so just to think about exploitation in cyberspace,

think wired, and i had two startling conclusions after we started down that path. the first was, but this is really easy. this is real easy, and the second, because the other side of the national security agency, in addition to codebreaking, is they are responsible for code making, and when you start thinking about code making as the defender, the protector, i said, "oh, my god. we are the most connected. we are the most dependent." the united states at that time was the most vulnerable. i would submit that we are still the most vulnerable, although it is starting to change as this propagates around the world, but there are huge pit -- vulnerabilities for the country, and that was a realization in the early 1990's,

and i just made a passion of mine to share an inside and make a case for -- share an insight and make a case for this. the digital age. madison, jefferson, and adams. this is such a fundamental change. >> your details will be in "the atlantic" next month. >> that is correct. think of the internet as anonymity dot for billions of people who can touch you, and not all of them have your best interests at heart, and some groups of them do not even light the way we live or the current war, and they want to change it, and that is what i am worried about, because the cost of entry is so low if you have the technical sophistication. but i remember the job i just

left. i it focused very intently on terrorist groups and what they are planning and so on, and there is an attempt to have a 9/11 on the order of magnitude on a greater level in this country and they are pursuing technologies and talking about cyber, and when they talk about cyber, it makes me worry, because that would be easiest to do. >> let me have one more threat question. one is kind of threat. terrorism, commercial, espionage, and the other is by source, china, etc. how should we think about the hierarchy? >> most people use in their

lexicon to talk about it, they use hacking, and to me, hacking is a nuisance. the next most significant is crime, and that is becoming a major activity. this is something i worry about, but i do not worry about is threatening us as a nation state. there is no doubt in my mind that if somebody is mad at us, they can do catastrophic damage. .we often talk about china as an adversary. we are in competition to do things. we need each other. the chinese need access to raw materials, and they need a stable currency, and there are the united states bonds, and as a market, it is not in their

self-interest. there is a deterrent built into that. the group that i worry a boat that is not deterred is some new ones to achieve the destruction of the united states. that is to i worry about, although i would be quick to point out that i do not believe they have the technical sophistication today, but the one thing that i would highlight, when you look back at some of the attacks, the bombs, the killing of people, often times, those are very educated people, and i think it was summer 2008, but there were two medical doctors who attempted to carry out those attacks. someone who is so radicalized that has the skills in computer science or medical engineering, and often, there are people that have inherent understanding

about how to maneuver this space. so if we get those with the inherent skills and those with the training, and they have a radicalized view -- >> thinking about the benefits and the vulnerabilities in an internet-connected world, tell us a little bit about the big issues that you think need to be resolved and also, what would be happening if it was resolved in a right way? if it were not resolved in a right way, what would it be? >> we asked to do some thinking about this, and we ask, is this new? he did some fascinating research, and this started with

the industrial resolution, and there were some interesting people that you have heard of, like a statistician, and we can tell you that story. there was one you wrote about it from harvard in the early 1940's, perez, the argentinian the economist. basically, he said there is a cycle, and that is 50 years in length. it is about 50 years, and what happens is the new technology creates new business, and the new business benefits society, and we all have some level of benefits. but some get such significant gain that they start to abuse it, and that point, the government starts to change. now, the easiest for americans

to understand what the railroads. united states as the largest economy in the world since 1880, and that was largely driven by the fact by what was started in britain and moved to the united states, we had an entrepreneurial culture, and we had a spirit in connected border to border with east train systems, and we were enjoying the fruits of the until the monopoly behavior of the train holder, the industry, struck a new harm to the society. paul that cycle has repeated itself. every 50 years, since the industrial revolution. how many in here remember the boat by ralph nader? unsafe at any speed? when i was a youngster, the thing that i wanted most in life was to drive an automobile, and

i will never forget the statistics. my father took me to the highway department, the cars and the issues. they were the people who died. he gave me these numbers, and he said, "son, there are 150 million people in this country, and 160,000 died." 30,000 people now die on the highways. remember the debate about putting seat belt in? or airbags? or interstate highway systems? we are approaching the point now with information technology. it touches all of us said such a significant level, we are also dependent, there is going to have to be a partnership between government and the private sector. what the united states role is in leading the world, the right set of solutions, that is a pretty tall order, no one, at least my observation, no one has picked up but that level. we will argue about free enterprise, the independence of

the world wide web, the worldwide mlb.com web, i would say sometimes, and all of those things -- the world wild web, i would say sometimes. if you're going to transfer 1 under dollars billion, do you not want the features of security which be authentication and data integrity? these are the things that would be highlighted, so that is the debate we have to have, and i think it is going to take leadership from business. it is going to take leadership from the white house, and it will take a partnership with the congress, is i can guarantee that the organization of congress where committee chairmen with oversight and sway over some, where there are annual appropriations and authorizations compaq and the very pieces that i mentioned, exploit, attack, and defense,

they are all aligned in different agencies across the government, with different oversight committees and different appropriators, so getting that harmonized is an incredible challenge. >> some questions i want to ask, and then i will be inviting questions from the audience. in international understanding that you are recommending takoma what should the u.s., which is the most effective way the u.s. should try to get consensus on this? and if the u.s. is not able to get international consensus, what should it do? >> i will use two examples. there is another little example of there. i apologize for not knowing

exactly how it expands, but it is the world wide agreement for flying over international borders. if you're going to fly an airplane with passengers across sovereign borders, you have agreed to certain principles, the language you speak compaq the safety of the airplane, so there is an international agreement across borders with people disagree with each other in a philosophic context, but we found a way to do that. i would argue in the spirit of nation states having benefits for their citizens, a more secure means of communication is in their self-interest, so i think the united states, since we created most of this technology, and is now starting

to migrate, it is now incumbent on us to step up and take a leadership role to engage political leaders and business leaders to lay out a game plan, -- >> and follow up on that, as you work with the correlation of forces internationally, in particular having their separate domain it, and some similar trends elsewhere, what is the leverage we have before a lot of these very large and technologically helpful nations? an aviation agreement? >> primarily, self-interest. some would argue, as you mentioned, the chinese are trying to screen it, but if you are connected, you are connected. i am different. often, but i smile. a least line means you have an

agreement with a service provider. that would primarily -- i think they achieve a big goal. but you do not have a physical line. you are sending a transaction from new york to los angeles, you have no idea if it goes to toronto or somewhere else. the communications that you want to communicate is broken by hackers, think of it as one of these, and moving down a path of least resistance. why? you have a service. you do not have a least line, so it is having people understand the phenomenon.

>> their internet was devised the opposite way from ours. if we cannot get consensus, we do than to optimize our interests? >> there are models that will evolve, and one of them is a model like china's, in in the long term, it is not in china's interest or in the united states' interests, and being an economics major from many, many years ago when i went off to college, i will never forget adam smith's book "the wealth of nations," where he explained the concept of a free market, where everyone is operating in their self interests, but it is raising the common good. when you focus on what you do best, so if the chinese can understand it from that point of view, as the russians, all nations states, then we will all benefit significantly. >> here is my last question, so please go to the microphone to prepare your is. the big trade-off in the whole internet world, not just in security is the privacy trade- off. how do you think this balance will be set out?

>> i believe we will have an internet much like we know today, where there is an indignity. it will allow you to surf or blog or whatever you choose to do. the white house says just introduced something. it is a white house website released july -- june 25 that talks about services, and a third-party issues you a credential. it is in your interest to have such a credential so you can authenticate yourself as to you are to someone knew what to do business with, a bank or a doctor or whoever. it may be as simple as the credentials as you are over 21. it may be everything you need to know about a person, like a medical record, so that is a choice. as a citizen, i can go to the wild, wild web and be anonymous, where i can go the secure path, to do business with

whoever i have some sort of authentication process with. now, the military is writing this same infrastructure. they have something called "dot mil," and they can control that. the government has decided to secure dot gov, and there is something in between those that i think we need to address. it is from being anonymous the way you choose to be on the internet to date to how do we deal with the nation's transactions, when a mistake or a problem affects all of us. >> who has -- yes?

the blue shirt. the microphones are roving around? yes, and, please, identify yourself and your question. >> stephen. admiral mcconnell, you have been addressing those the business issues, and i would like to take you back to your military career with something that affects us militarily. the conflict between russia and georgia. it it was over with in the end because of some cyber techniques the russians used to paralyze the georgians' communications. was that a glimpse? did we learn anything from cyber war from that experience? people had a glimpse from the spanish civil war of what war was about to be like, and

because our military is probably the most electronic in its fundamental means of delivering its force, are we the most vulnerable? >> we learned a great deal from that, and, quite frankly, it was a very simple act on the part of the russians, and they would deny having done it as a nation state, but the fact of what happened is there was some decision with regard to a dust up with georgia, so what it was was a denial of service attack, the simplest of attacks. you just fill up the channels. that is easy to do. in fact, a series of computers that affect other computers, and you just keep transmitting. in the georgian situation, what they depended upon was not serviceable. now, there is another aspect to that, and the russians rolled in and broke the force and carried out the actions that they

intended, but this is not the first time. it was also done in estonia before that. a very simple denial of service, so there has not been a nation state to my knowledge that has used cyber to achieve military objectives like taking down an air defense system or causing the failure of some military capability to be successful in a conflict. the u.s. military has just stood up, in may, for the first time, a cyber command, and the cyber command will develop capabilities to be successful in an attack mode. it also has a mission of defending things in the u.s. military. the question we have not addressed yet is the authority for defending the united states is the department of homeland

security. now, let me just note that the department of homeland security has 78 oversight committees, so getting the right kind of focus on that issue vote, when the capability on one side is under a different set of authorities, and the responsibility is on another side, we have a lot of negotiating to do to get us to the right place. >> over here next? >> i am william webster, and i am chairman of a council that deals with the department of homeland security. [laughter] "e.m.p." could you describe the nature of that threat and how we can best deal with that? >> thank you for that question, judge. a former director of the fbi and also a director of the national intelligence agency, in

we go back a long way, and my across the street neighbor. -- and we go back a long way. he has been asking the electromagnetic pulse question for years, a pulse that goes out to hurt your infrastructure, so there are methods for causing catastrophic damage which would not be a cyber penetration of turning this off or filling up a channel. think of it as a flash. >> and so, do you want to say anything more about probability? next, over on this side of the room. >> don spiro is my name. i believe you implied that non state actors are not terribly sophisticated yet in this technology, and i have the impression that you are saying that the cyber threat is a

threat that has not happened yet, and there have been a lot of popular reports that suggest that al qaeda is very sophisticated. they have done a lot, and there have been continuous attacks, thousands per day on the pentagon and other places, and that we have lost some very valuable intelligence because of that, and i can recall that some group took over a big computer at oak ridge and ran for a while because it was better than what they had at home. are these just factoids? >> no, this is all true, and it is not thousands of attacks. millions. and it is not small amounts of

data, it is terabytes of data. so i am not attempting to trivialize that part of it. most speakers on this subject, this is why i keep using the words, exploit, attack. what i am trying to describe it is attacking with the attempt to destroy data. that is the part that has not happened. nation states are capable but have been deterred.

extremists have some capability, but it may not be a catastrophic level yet. >> but can we assume that these ooh-rah tests for other parties? >> yes. from a nation state standpoint, they are preparing, and to prepare, you go look, text, probes, and you leave behind things that will be useful to you at a later point in time. think about the russian spies who were arrested here in the united states. -- how we go about defending ourselves from another specific challenge? the manufacture of microchips somewhere.

who codes it so they can send a signal and close down our electric grid? >> that is a very serious problem. there was a point in time in the mid-1980s timeframe and the acronym is symatec. we dominated the world. we had a national policy to regain our pre-eminence. business and government came together and have an agreement and we regain our position. since that time, the production of most computing equipment has moved out of the united states. another reason that i am being accused of hiding the threat is i am attempting to say that there is an issue here that needs to be examined and debated

and we need a policy to recapture it, what is most important to us. to that answer, it involves an extensive public/private partnership. remember, many people here remember smite -- remember sputnik. i, myself, went to school as a result of the bill. there are a series of things that we need to do. it is not just technology. it is education, it is cultural. this is a very serious issue. if we do not address it, we will regret. >> we have time for two more questions. which to find someone from this side? >> at the end of the fall of the

soviet union there was a concern that the nuclear arsenal would have gotten into the hands of terrorist groups true that today, there are nation states have the capability of bringing down or doing significant damage to the internet. what is the likelihood or possibility of nation states that have this capability getting into the hands of rogue nation states or extremist groups and causing significant damage? >> the point that i want to highlight is that the cost of entry is relatively low. how many times have you had a conversation with someone how many of you figure out how to program your vcr and turn off

the blinged and light? some of the story little older cannot appreciate this type of technology from a small group of people with the right focus is to achieve this level of damage? your question is a good one. a relatively small group can have a disproportionate impact on society. >> i am a reporter with the german newspaper. what impact did the financial crisis have on the u.s. efforts in cyber security? could you point out one or two specific states that the u.s. needs to do now to fix the situation? >> the financial crisis was sobering because it introduced a level of appreciation of what might be possible. the flash crash that we had back in may, but we lost $1 trillion in 16 minutes great thing about

the significance of that. our economy is $14 trillion a year. we lost $1 trillion in 16 minutes. and someone could interfere with that process, banking is based on confidence. the money is not there. we put it there. the banks lend it out. if we all go down to take it out, it is not there. if you do not have the confidence, to me, that is the lesson. what we will have to do is figure out how to make that enterprise resilience to the point it cannot be attacked. >> in addition to the money is not there, what is the other thing -- one other thing that you'd like people to remember from your message? >> are wonderful democracy will

react to one of four things -- fear, money, -- the right vote to get the right focus on this. we will react to money. the previous seven lustration look at this issue -- administration looked at this issue and agreed to spend a lot of money, not enough to change the nation yet, however. the third thing we'll respond to this crisis. please to not let us have the crisis before we do take some action. the last thing is law. being a member of the united states military, i observed a debate that when on for six or seven years.

about a joint activity, army, navy, air force, marine corps. every service chiefs and secretary stood up in sworn testimony and said to congress, if you pass the goldwater nichols bill that -- it will ruin the united states military. it will make us ineffective. the bill would pass and the president sign it and we went through desert shield and desert storm. i got to watch. after the war, that whenever to talk about how well he had done. if we can get a lot right, we can address this problem, but it is going to take a partnership with the public, informed citizen to vote to have eight -- an opinion, and the white house and congress. >> please join me in thanking our guest. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, robert gates. in an little less than an hour, a debate between the republican candidate for governor in georgia. after that, more on the economic effect of community health centers. >> on "washington journal tomorrow morning, we will talk about the special session of the house this week to consider a package for the states. our guest will be the chief of the ways and means committee. our week-long special on energy issues focuses on electric cars, the ceo of compact power in michigan. "washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00. because the senate passed the bill last week to help states pay for teachers salary and

medicaid costs, members of the house will return from their august break tomorrow morning to vote on that legislation. also on the agenda, a border security bill. if it passes, it will be taken up by the senate in september. legislative work begins at 10:00. >> c-span programming, politics, books, history, is available anytime on c-span radio. online around the world at c- span that court. -- c-span.org. c-span radio is available anytime. it is free, but check with your phone service provider for any additional charges.

>> defense secretary robert gates today outlined plans to reduce the numbers of private contractors employed by the pentagon. cut back and senior officers and eliminate agencies he views as unnecessary. the changes are necessary to ensure a stable pentagon budget. this is little less than an hour. >> it is important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. the current and planned defense budget, which projects modest steady growth, represents the minimum level of the spending necessary to sustain the

military. having said that, we must remindful of the difficult economic and fiscal situations facing our nation. the department of defense can not expect our leaders to increase the budget every year, as we're doing a good job. as a first step, last year, we began reforming the department's approach to military acquisition, curtailing or canceling access programs. -- access programs. additional programs savings have been recommended. it is clear to me that additional and major changes are needed consistent with a -- an agenda laid out by the president. sustaining the current structure and making needed investment in modernization will require annual growth at 2% or 3%.

therefore, in order to -- that spending difference will need to be made up elsewhere in the department. as a result in may, i called on the pentagon to take a hard look at how the department is staffed, organized, and operated. i concluded that our headquarters have swelled to a cumbersome and top-heavy growth. they have grown overly reliant on contractors. this manifest itself in the past decade in vast increases and spending and staff. by nearly 1000 employees -- this

expansion and an associated habits and attitudes and further enabled by a steady diet of war appropriations, those factors will soon end. the task before us is not to reduce the department's top line budget. rather, to significantly reduce the overhead cost and apply a savings to force structure and modernization. starting in june, we embarked on an approach to move the defense institutions to a more cost- conscious way of doing business. earlier this year, the military services taft -- the service

will be able to keep the savings they generate to reinvest at higher priority or fighting needs. this exercise is well under way as the services are evaluating programs and activities to identify what remains a critical and what is no longer affordable. we are planning to limit headquarters that are no longer needed. i have also authorize each of the military departments to consider consolidation and closure of excess bases and other facilities were appropriate. this is obviously a political front topic. congress has placed legal constraints. i hope congress will work with us to reduce unnecessary cost in this part of the defense enterprise. we are seeking ideas,

suggestions, and proposals from outside channels. this includes soliciting input from experts such as think tanks, and a pet department dextral board spread within the department, we are launching an on-line contest for the purpose of soliciting and rewarding creative ideas. i would encourage all employees to visit defense.gov to learn more. as part of that process, under secretary of defense ashton carter, we have launched an initiative to improve the efficiency and reduce cost of contract in. the goal is to get better buying power for the taxpayer. we plan on providing more detail in this effort in early september and are intent for is for this initiative to affect ongoing programs immediately.

even with peace efforts under way, i have concluded that there are a number of areas where we can take action starting now and not wait for the normal budgeting crisis. today, i am announcing an initial set of decisions designed to reduce duplication, overhead, and access in the defense enterprise. and still a culture of savings and restrained in this department. these initiatives a very in size and savings achieved, ranging from personnel and paperwork to organization of structures and business practices. they represent an initial step of a comprehensive department- wide efficiency and savings campaign that will be incorporated. i will summarize them briefly and i will take some of your questions. copies of this statement will be available at the end of the session. general car trade -- cartwright

will brief in more detail and answer further questions. over the last decade, this department has seen a dramatic increase in the use of service report and advisory contractors of all kinds. 26% of the workforce cost in 2000 to 39% a year ago, not counting contractors supporting the war effort in afghanistan and iraq. contractors may be performing functions that should be done by full-time government employees, including managing other contractors. last year, the department announced a plan to reduce contractors' by about 33,000. based on the data, i am not satisfied with the progress made to reduce our overreliance on contractors. accordingly, to accelerate this

process and achieve additional savings, i have directed that we reduce funding by 10% a year for each of the next three years. furthermore, the below longer automatically replaced department contractors with full-time personnel. second, it is the issue of expansion of the office of the secretary of defense, the defense agency, and the command staffs. much of this growth came from new missions emerson september 11. there was no commensurate decrease for activities that have become less relevant and urgent. additional funds made available, there was not much incentive to do so. the department must start setting priorities, making real trade-offs and separating apatites to requirements. constraining a person is one way to force this painful, but

necessary process. i am directing a freeze on the number of defense agency and combated command positions for the next three years. with regard to in sourcing, other than changes planned for fiscal years 2010, no more full- time positions in these organizations will be created after this fiscal year to replace contractors. some exceptions can be made four critical areas, such as the acquisition workforce. these measures are just the first step in comprehensive a signing of defense agency and compassion to -- come back in command stations. i expect the result of this effort by november 15 of this year. the proliferation of new staff and more layers of bureaucracy is a natural consequence of a substantial increase in the most

senior leadership. general and flat officers, a career senior executives and political appointees requiring senate confirmation. the department has added what -- has added -- since september 2001, the number of general and flog officers have grown by more than 100, including now 44 star positions. the number of senior civilian executive positions has increased by more than 300. as a result, this department has taken on new mission and responsibilities that have required some of these new senior military positions. apart from meeting these genuine war related needs, we have seen an acceleration in brass creep. situation where personnel of higher and higher rank are assigned to do things that can be reasonably handled by personnel of lower rank.

this creep this field by the desired -- rather than reflect the scope and the duties of the job. in a post 9/11 era, more and more responsibility is being exercised by more junior officers, the defense department continues to maintain a top- heavy hierarchy that more reflects 20 the sentry protocols than 21st century realities. unlike most other commands, a four-star service component headquarters remain in europe, long after the end of the cold war. we need to create a system of more agile response of structures were reductions in rank at the top creative virtuous cascading downward and outward. in addition to the number of senior positions, there is also

the question of allocation and whether our distribution rank by geography or function reflects the mission, our military faces today. i am directing a freeze on the number of senior civilian executives, in general and flag officers. a senior taskforce will assess the number of locations of senior positions as well as the overhead and a coach for months that the with them. i expect the results of this effort by november 1. at a minimum, i expect this effort to recommend cutting at least 50 general and flat officer positions and 150 senior executive positions over the next two years. this -- these reduce wheat -- these reductions would represent 50% of the growth. that is the minimum.

there are great benefits to be gained from taking advantage of the economy. the problem is that too many parts of the department's claims to separate infrastructure and processes. all of our bases operational headquarters have their own i.t. infrastructures, processes, and applications. this decentralization result in a large cumulative cost and a patchwork of capabilities that create cyber and vulnerabilities and limit our ability to capitalize on the promise of information technology. i am directing an effort to consolidate these assets to take good vantage of the department significant economies of scale, creating savings and acquisitions. this action will allow the increased use by the department and improve our ability to defend the now works against growing cyber threats.

this department is a wash and tasking for reports and studies. in 1970, the pentagon produced a total of 37 reports for the congress. the number topped off more than 700 reports last year. as of 2009, the department had nearly 1000 contractors working in some capacity, reducing -- producing reports for congress. 200 were working full time. the court's directed by beat -- reports directed by the congress are beyond our control, but they did number of these reports were also internally generated. no leno's what they cost unless there is little basis to determine whether the value gained is worth a considerable time and resources expended. i have directed -- we will immediately copied dollars allocated to the advisory

studies by 25%. we will publish the actual cost of the preparation of each report and study prepared by the dod in the front of each document. by october 1, we will conduct a comprehensive review of all of the reports and use the results to produce the volume generated internally. we will engage the congress and ways to meet their needs by working together to reduce the number of reports. the department has set up numerous outside boards and commissions, 65 in the case of f. fogarty along. -- a five d alone. -- dod alone. they still require substantial support. $75 million. i am ordering a review of all outside commissions for the purpose of eliminating those that are no longer needed,

focusing the efforts on those that continue to be relevant and cutting the overall funding available for studies if tasked by 25%. it is no great secret that since september 11, the u.s. government has seen a proliferation of new intelligence organizations and operations. this is partly due to the war on terrorism and partly due to massive intelligence requirements associated with fighting two wars. even so, large and well stocked intelligence structures not exist in the services, the defense agencies, the combatant commands. we're still struggling to find the right balance between the value of centralizing intelligence versus distributing or in getting closer to the front. we should not flinch from eliminating necessary redundancy and directing more resources to places where they are needed.

i am directing an immediate 10% reduction for contracts and freezing the number of senior executive positions in defense organizations. we must also take further steps to end needless duplication within the department's intelligence community. i have directed a zero based review of the department's intelligence missions organizations, relationships, and contracts to be completed by november 1. these steps will only apply to the department of defense intelligence organizations, the new director of national intelligence has indicated to me an interest in pursuing a parallel accords added effort using the same business rules for the national intelligence organizations. the last decade has also seen a signet and growth in new offices and organizations, including two new combat and convents and defense agencies. the flattening in trimming

structures, we also look to eliminate outright organizations that perform duplicative functions or outlived their original purpose. the office of the assistant secretary of defense and networks and information integration, was set up in 2003 for command, control, and communications split off from intelligence. the resulting arrangements for dealing with enterprise i.t. and hardware issues, has since become redundant and cumbersome. i have directed the elimination of nii. their operational functions will be assigned to other organizations and most of their acquisition functions will transfer. we will stand up and refashion and responsibility for daily operations will be assigned.

the business transformation agency was established in 2006 to foster a deep modernization of this department's business practices. they have shifted more of its -- a function that can be confirmed by another -- a number of other organization. the mission has largely been legislatively assigned to other organizations. i directed the elimination of the bta. the joint forces commander was originally established to infused and compelled to-into everything that the military does, especially the training, dr. development, and the provision of forces for operations.

it was understood at the time that the benefits of improving were deemed to outweigh the results -- the result in extra bureaucracy. propelled by decades of experience, the u.s. military has largely embraced joining us. we must always remain vigilant against backsliding in this front. training joint forces, generating joint forces, creating a joint forces and experimenting with that doctrine are all important tasks. they do not require a separate command, which entails about 2800 positions and 3000 contractors. i am recommending the closure of this organization. the remaining responsibilities

will be evaluated and those determined to be essential and still necessary to protect joining us will be reassigned to other agencies. as a result of closing are consolidating these three organizations, a substantial number of full-time employees will have to find other positions were no longer work for this department. like millions of americans affected by this tough economic climate, i know these changes will likely mean real hardship for displaced employees and their families. i have vast the secretary of defense for personnel and readiness to work with the leaders of the affected organizations to do everything possible to assist their employees and what may be difficult transition. i do so with great appreciation and admiration for the services employees have rendered. the ultimate success of these

initiatives, as well as -- in the end, it will depend on a fundamental change across our defense institutions. the culture of endless money that has taken place must be replaced by a culture of savings. i am directing that any new proposal initiative, large or small, be it policy, program, come with a cost estimate. that price tag will help us determine whether it is worth the cost, either in dollar terms are in the diversion of limited manpower resources. the way to make something get it done in this building is to set short deadlines and provide visibility and oversight from the very top. to see these initiatives through, to measurable results, i've appointed a task force

chairman and chief of staff. this task force will develop action plans and will oversee their implementation. taken together, these initiatives in the context of the four major tracks i have described, represents an aggressive effort not only to reduce costs but to reaffirm the culture of this department. this effort will not end this fall or next february. instilling habits of restraint, by subtracting as well as adding, elevating affordability, it is a project for years in the making. it will reflect itself in ways small -- big and small. i want to reemphasize that this

agenda is not about cutting the department's budget. it is about reforming and reshaping priorities to ensure that in tough budgetary times, we can focus defense resources where they need and where american at -- investment in future capabilities and an armed men and women in uniform. to see these initiatives in context, i think you need to step back and see them as the next move in a process that has meant going on for two years. it began at the national defense university in september of two dozen 8. -- 2008. the decisions on the alternate engine earlier this year and the eisenhower library speech.

i am determined to change the way this department has done business for a long time. earlier decisions are part of a broad campaign that would be on going. today's announcement represents a down payment to demonstrate that i intend to continue to move aggressively to achieve broad goals of making this department more efficient, and ensuring that we put our resources were there the most needed. >> you mention some of the other high-profile cost-saving efforts. given that several of those, you so far failed to convince congress that this is the best way to save money, what confidence do you have that they

will go along with this? >> first of all, in april of 2009, most people were deeply skeptical that i would be successful in getting the congress to go along with the number of the program cancellations and changes that we made. yet we were successful. the position that i have made clear, to which the president has spoken, is also clear. that bill i am confident will be vetoed. any bill that takes the alternate engine to the president, i am confident will be vetoed. i think you have to have some perspective here. take the example of the virginia

delegation. if as a result of these efforts, i am able to have a billion or $2 billion to the navy's shipbuilding program, virginia may come out with a lot more jobs than it loses. this is why the point needs to be emphasized again and again. this is not about cutting the defense budget. this is about a reallocation. while there will be -- the issues are not as clear-cut in terms of people affected when you are talking about a big acquisition program, i think that the chances for being successful in these efforts are actually very good. for one thing, there are two things that make this difference than past efforts.

one is, this is not a budget cutting exercise. the second is that the services need -- get to keep the savings they identify and invest in higher priority thing. in the past, mining's that have been saved had been called off. -- money that has been saved has been called off. so they lost programs. here they have the opportunity to add to the investments they are making their highest priorities. i think the congress and is building, under the current economic circumstances and budgetary pressures, will see this as an opportunity to protect our forced modernization and forced structure. the leadershipo of both the authorizing

committees and the appropriations committees and while i sketched this in broad terms, i did talk about the eliminations and so on. the people that i have talked to were supportive. >> he made some comments earlier that you were against unwise cuts in the defense department budget. is that a fear that you have right now? if these steps are not taken fully, there will be pressure to take more drastic action? >> i think that if we are to make a compelling argument for sustaining the topline of the department of defense to the congress, we have to demonstrate a compelling arguments that we had in fact tackled the things that worry them.

pour acquisition practices, pork business practices, excessive reliance on contractors, waste, abuse. we need to be able to show that we are doing something about these programs in a systematic way that affects every part of the crop -- the department. we have a pretty good opportunity to make our case. my greatest fear is that an economic tough times, people see the defense budget as the place to solve the nation's deficit problems, to find money for other parts of the government. my responsibility to the president and to the congress is to present them with a program that i believe is necessary to defend this nation. as i look around the world and see a more unstable world, more

failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in the military's, as they look at places like iran and north korea and elsewhere around the world, as i look at the new kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise missiles and so on, my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense budget but we have done four times before. that is slash its in an effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. i think that would be disastrous in the world and byron that we see today and what we're likely to see in the years to come. but if you were to grasp the defense budget going back the last 40 or 50 years, it would like the e cagy of life differ

belated heart. what we need is modest sustainable growth that allows us to make sensible investment decisions and not have these giant increases and giant decreases that make efficiency and doing acquisition in the sense almost impossible. my hope is that through all these efforts, we will make a persuasive case that we are spending tax dollars wisely in the department of defense and in areas where they would like to see it spent and that is an capabilities and an arc structure and investment for the future. >> secretary, you said that you are not happy with the results that you've got from the direction you gave last year. what makes you think you will be any more successful in driving through some of the changes between now and

november? >> part of the problem was that as we were reducing contractors, we were not seen the savings we had hoped. the problem with contractors is and what we have learned is that you really do not get at contractors by cutting people. you give a contractor a certain amount of money and they go higher how many people they need to perform that contract. the only way you did at the contractor base is to cut the dollars. if you add it up, we're looking at cutting a third of the budget for services and support contractors over the next three years. that we are convinced is a way to get a handle on this problem. >> you go to a place like

afghanistan, there are thousands and thousands of contractors. there are 2000 private contractors train afghan security forces. talk about that as being a problem. with the allies not pulling their weight and then contractors doing the jobs that used to be done by a soldier. >> i think that is a mixing things. nato -- are partners have done a lot. if you would ask me a year ago of we would have nearly 50,000 partner troops in afghanistan, i would have thought that a very tall order. i think -- there are still shortfalls, but the primary shortfall is about 750. i think that the use -- there

are a lot of things that contractors do that soldiers used to do. peel potatoes, do the dishes. i think contractors ought to do that stuff. if i had a highly trained combat infantry, i do not want and spending their time doing that stuff. i think it is sensible and it is cheaper. the other aspect of it with respect to contractors in iraq and afghanistan is i see that as a transitory issue. in number of contractors in iraq have already come down pretty dramatically. at some point, we will see that in afghanistan. what i am looking at in this department is a phenomenon that started a long time ago which has accelerated significantly. that is not a transitory phenomenon.

>> mr. secretary, you listed some of the threats that you see in the world. which ones do you see that you need to address particularly with some of this money that you hope to free up for priority programs? >> first of all, the services get to keep the savings they find. my intention is to take the savings that we find from other parts of the department and provide those also to the services. in other words, at the defense agencies, and so on, the savings refined there, they do not get to keep. our intent is to provide -- take that money and provided to the services. i used an example earlier. everybody realizes that we probably need more money in shipbuilding. that would be an area that i

would look to when it comes to the navy in terms of not only letting them keep the money they identify for that purpose, but perhaps if i could provide some additional resources for them. >> is this about preparing for the next four is? >> we have had this conversation before. the overall procurement budgets -- and i confess that i get a little impatient that everything is providing for today's wars. the overall procurement budgets, about half those from to modernization programs. the new ballistic missile, new ships, the tanker, the next generation of long-range strike, the new ground combat the vehicle for the army -- all

these services have these modernization programs. half of the procurement budget goes before those modernization programs. about 40% goes for dual purpose things that are used and what ever the specter of combat. only about 10% for the kind of course we are encouraged the cost of the wars that we are in are fundamentally paid by the overseas contingency operating funds. this is not about finding money for the wars that we are in today. we have that money. is about protecting money for the future. >> you talk about reducing intelligence contracts. do have concerns there is redundancy -- >> let's just say that it is hard for me to believe that in all of these different elements,

the services, the defense agency's, the combat and commands, that there are not redundancies and duplication. it has ground by leaps and bounds over the past decade. you read about that in the washington post. people have not focused icon that was not just about terrorism. a lot of that was the intelligence requirement to fight these wars that we are in. i think we just -- i do not think anybody has stepped back and look at all of this in a very long time, if ever. i cannot remember ever being done. if we do it side by side, i think that there are certainly some savings to be found. what i am really after our

people and not to fire people, but rather the reverse. to take people who are doing a redundant jobs -- and if we are shorts that kind of a specialist, to cover the shortcomings in staffing in afghanistan with some of the savings we find in people who are not. it is just hard for me to imagine with all these big organizations. >> you are eliminating the joint forces command. but will happen to the general? >> i talk to them about this. he supports the decision to eliminate jeff connor spread -- jeff connors.

i think it will take about a year to carry out this change. i have told a raid at his assignment was essentially the same as it was in iraq. i will find a better one for him. >> you did not mention health care. how much longer can you see things going off before you really have to pass on those expenses in terms of reduced coverage? >> health care reform is on my agenda, as is some of these efforts are part of the third track that i was talking about. we have studies going on right now that will help shape our

fy12 budget submission. they involve logistics, health care and personnel policies, more restructuring in order is in it -- organizational changes, continued acquisition reform. i think it is safe to say that as far as i'm concerned, there are no sacred cows. health care cannot be accepted like that. we are being eaten alive by health care. there is a growing understanding on the hill about this. it cost us $19 billion in 2000 or 2001. it will cost is over $50 billion in 2011. it will cost a $65 billion in at 15 -- fy15. it is unsustainable.

therefore, it has to be a part of our efforts. >> you are not exactly working yourself out of a job. have been made your decision about how long you will stay? >> first of all, i think it is important to stress that i believe that this is not just about me. i believe the service secretaries, the chiefs, the comptroller, the director, i believe the senior leadership of this department in this administration is committed to all these activities. very supportive of -- they are doing some things better more far-reaching than some of the things i've talked about. i think there is broad support

in the leadership. of course, the deputy, a day-to-day basis will end up managing this whole thing. all of the senior leadership of is supportive of this. i have every reason to believe that whenever i leave, that these efforts will continue. the president is committed to its. the congress is committed to its. i think a lot of this will continue. as far as i'm concerned, all i will say that i am going to be here longer than i or other saw. >> mr. secretary, these are major changes that you are discussing today. to what extent are they just the tip of the iceberg? do you see beyond what you are

announcing today, the need for further tightening? looking at eliminating other commands? >> i think that this is a dynamic process. i expected to continue. it is not the work of one year or one budget cycle. i would not necessarily describe it as the tip of the iceberg. if 90% of an iceberg was under water, this is a pretty good percentage of it, but not all. we've got four tracks under way. i would tell you that these services are thinking about some pretty dramatic things. they are not ready to talk about it. they have not made any decisions yet. but the kind of options they're looking at are pretty impressive. i think there is -- i think this

will be an ongoing process and we will learn as the golan. -- as they go along. i think we will learn some things that will give us some future opportunities or targets or whenever you want to call them. i think we have to keep after it. >> last question. >> you mentioned reports. the recent report sparked discussion about the value of its. it sounds like those are the kind of thing that you're describing. >> i actually think that the qdr has value. i think that the outside -- what i told them was that i think the outside review actually would be

better before it was written. to have them to assess the world and to assess the kind of agenda that they look at it because then it can actually informant preparation with an outside perspective that may allow it to look more broadly at things. it is of limited value because it is already done and printed. i think it is one of those things that has value, but the outside review should be done at the front end of the process. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, a debate

between the republican candidates. after that, to views of national security with retired general michael hayden, the former head of the cia. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the agriculture department's comment on civil-rights and diversity will include remarks by john leonard. that is on c-span2 at 8:00. a briefing on the 2010 census. robert gross will discuss the field work already done and the data processing that is still ahead. >> the c-span network provide coverage of politics, public affairs, books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, and online.

find their content anytime through c-span and their video library. we take c-span on the road with their digital bus and local content vehicle. it is washington your way. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> the candidates in tomorrows georgette republican primary runoff for governor met yesterday in a final debate. the winner of the race will face a former democratic governor the debate was organized by the atlanta press corps. this is a half hour.

>> good evening. i am the host of "all things considered." we welcome our television viewers, are live studio audience, and our listeners on a radio to the 2010 primary election runoff debates. the debate tonight is organized by the atlanta press club. this is the debate among the republican candidate in the primary election runoff for governor. let's meet does to a candidate now. they are nathan deal, a former congressman, and karen handel, a former secretary of state of georgia. here is our formats. in the first round, each candidate will answer a question from one of our three panelists. in the second round, the candidates will ask questions of one another. each candidate will have time for every bottle. in the third round, the

panelists will continue questioning the candidate. finally, each candidate will have 30 seconds to make a closing statement. let's meet are three distinguished panelists selected by the atlanta press club. first, erin hayes, a writer for the associated press. next we have charles richardson. our final panelist is the reporter and producer for "morning edition" for public broadcasting and atlanta. first-round has each candidate being passed a question by one of our panelists. the candidates will have 60 seconds to answer each question. as a moderator, i will determine whether a rebuttal is necessary. >> good evening, secretary. this question is for both of

you. over the weekend, the governor pledged to bring unity to the republican party. are either of you willing to make this same pledge here tonight? >> we will give you each 60 seconds. >> absolutely. in the republican party, we talk a lot about competition. we believe that competition is good. i think that those four campaigns as well. it has been tenacious. i think that makes us stronger candidate spread so absolutely. i will do what is absolute best for the state and for our party. having a republican is what is going to be in the best interest of georgia. >> i am a very dedicated republican as well. i do not think i have run a campaign which i have been divisive. i have not caused this party to

have divisions. i am not the candidate who has attacked our fellow candidates in this primary election process. it is gone to take some time to be able to heal some of the ones that have been inflicted here. i look forward to the opportunity to be a part of what we will be doing going forward. i believe that i will be the nominee and i believe i >> why would anyone want to be governor of this state? we have a $16 million shortfall that does not count all the millions that we have taken out of the budget. what would you do specifically to get georgia back on track? >> to answer your question, why anyone would want to be governor, you have to believe that public service is an honorable undertaking. and i have believed that for all of my adult life. i have served at every level in government in trying to make things better for our state and

our nation. that is why i want to be governor. i believe that tough times requires people who can make tough decisions. i am the only candidate who has put forward a proposal for tax reform that i believe is the way to make our economy grow. it would bring us to the top one-third in the country in terms of a favorable business climate, and i think that is what we do, grow ourselves out of this downturn. >> that includes round one. now the candidates get to ask questions of each other. you have 30 seconds for the question. 66 -- 60's question -- 60 seconds to respond, and the questioner will have 30 seconds for a bottle. bair random selection, nathan deal asks the first question. >> karen, as you know, georgians have pushed for conservative budgeting for our state, commonly known as zero based

budgeting. ended discussions that we have had, you had indicated that you did not favor going to a zero based budgeting approach. i would simply ask you why not, and what would be your answer to getting this budget back in balance? >> nathan, you know that that is not true. you have been on the campaign trail with me. what i have said consistently is that i do not need legislation to do zero based budgeting. i was already doing it in the secretary of state office. i will obviously sign that. but i do not needed to actually do it because i come from the private sector. i did not build my career in washington. the way to balance the budget is to start with zero. by our ties programs every single years. just because you got so much money this year does not mean you look at the same amount next year.

certainly we need to have a serious budget constraints put in place. i am the only candidate who has proposed permanently downsizing our state government. >> mr. deal, you have 30 seconds. >> i know that that is not what you said. early in our discussion, i know that what you said was that you did not need anything to require you to do it. but families don't need anything to required to do it either but that is what they have to do. that is the responsible thing. the further think we need to look beyond where we are instead of just saying to bureaucrats what the priority arts. that is what i would do as governor. >> thank you, mr. deal. karen handel. >> nathan, a few commented several times that that job governor is been a chief executive officer of this date. i like to share specific examples of your executive

management experience where you have actually manage the budget day to day, managed a team of employees, and actually implemented programs where you are being held accountable for the results of that initiative. >> i'm glad you asked me that, karen. unlike you, i am a small business person. i started a small business. i had to make payrolls and major that my employees got compensated. that they have the coverage that they need. it is true that i have not work for fortune 500 company like you have but i have managed the business. i think that that is the important and vision. as a member congress, i had demanded a congressional office in iraq average return over $100,000 every year of the money appropriated for my office, because i can disown efficiently and i understood the importance of making sure taxpayers' money was handled appropriately. i think that i had the experience, i think i'm the only one who has that, quite frankly, and i have done that for many years practicing my profession

for over 20 years in a small community here in north georgia. i think that is the best way people can understand how budgets work, to actually have to live up to one. >> miss handle, if you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> this is one of the key distinctions between myself and my opponent. i bring executive management experience to be the ceo of this date. as the ball in county commission chairman, i was responsible for a $1 billion budget -- a $1 million budget. -- a $1 billion budget. i have also run a small business, the chamber commerce, where i was responsible for leading that organization, bringing it to in sought -- to solvency. >> make the deal, you may ask your second question. jim and karen, we've all talked about the importance of having

good transportation solutions. i have been but one that had set for example that on highway 400, we should remove the toll, because we have collected the money to pay for. we promised the people using the road rather north bolten or those above that they would not have to pay a toll was the project is paid for. which you support holding on existing roads just to raise revenue for the project? >> absolutely not. i would support tolling for new capacity. i would support bringing it down if we were not going to invest those >> back. but as someone who travels georgia 400 every single day, if you look at the models that had been out there, removing the tolls would increase congestion by 18%. do we want to upgrade where it

comes into the connector and make sure that we can have expanded capacity on 400. when to invest the >> in that area, by all means, bring that down. >> i think it is important to live up to our obligations in our promises to the public. if we're going to ask them to accept toll roads in the future, we have to show a good faith in what we have done. i am one of those that believes that these good people who had paid this call for all of those years should not be asked to continue to pay it just for other projects, even if it be a project within the general card. i don't think that is the best way to solve the solution to the problem of transportation gridlock. we need to show good faith to the people who trusted us because if we did not, they will not trust us again. >> thank you, mr. deal. karen handel, last question in this round is your second question.

>> yesterday i asked you if you believe it was appropriate for elected officials to do business with the state. you said that it was, and as you know, i come from the private sector. in the private sector, that would be deemed a conflict of interest. if you to possibly expand on your explanation on why you think that it's ok for elected officials to do business with the state. >> karen, i understand that you have never had an elected office that is not a full-time job. one were you were not paid a full-time salary by the people of this date. the general assembly members are people who are part-time legislators. that is what republicans stand for, people who will serve their government and their communities and then also at the same time be in the private sector earning a living on their own. i simply said that i do not think we ought to punish those who are willing to offer themselves for public service and a part-time capacity at a very minimal income. if you're going to totally prohibit that, i suppose we

should have prohibited the secretary of state's office from buy computers from hewlett- packard. i don't think those of the kinds of restrictions that people want. what they wanted transparency. want to know that things are being done appropriately. that is what our law requires that i have confidence in the members of the general assembly as they sacrifice their time, and their families time, in order to assert that the people of this date. >> 30 seconds for a bottle. >> actually, i did hold a part- time position, and at the county commission, that was my part- time job and i did not do business with the county. that is something that we're simply going to disagree with. conflict of interest is that parton -- is a big problem in our state. it is important that those people are not benefiting from doing the business of the people. i proposed comprehensive ethics reform and why as governor i will be a strong at the co- leader making sure that you and

have trust in the decisions that i am making on your behalf. >> that includes our sat round of questioning. for those that may be joining our program in progress, this is the debate among the candidates for the georgia republican gubernatorial nomination in a primary runoff coming up this tuesday. for our third round, we return to our panel of journalists who will ask questions of the candidate of his or her choice. and also as questions of both comic just indicate which candidate or both. candidates will be allowed 60 seconds to respond, and as moderator i will determine if an opposing candidate will be given 30 seconds for rebuttal. will begin as round with a question from edgar. >> the whole scholarship is expected to run out of money. enrollment is going up and georgia's colleges and universities. what are some ideas that you

have to save the program? >> we want to make sure that we are being data-driven as we look at the hope scholarship. it is in -- it is too important for us to make a mistake and how we had just buried a couple of things -- hope needs to remain at achievement-based. we are fortunate that the legislature did put in place and triggers that is when it as a couple of years of a safety net so that we can make sure that we deal with this issue in the right way to preserve it for a long hot. and as we make changes, we have got a model that out of cost four to six years to make sure that we are sustaining it in the long term. i want to make sure that yesterday in the debate my opponent made quite a subject of the fact that i do not have a college degree. it is precisely because i do not have that degree that i'm going to be the strongest champion of hope that we have seen in a long time. i know how important that this program is. i want to make sure that every young person who wants to go to college is going have that opportunity to do so.

if mr. deal, said she brought something out of that you said yesterday, if you have 30 seconds. >> it was not me that brought it up. it was the first question was asked of mr. handel. i was just asked to comment as well. i think it is important to keep the hope scholarship success- based. it had been a great program for keeping students to might otherwise migrate because of their excellent grades to other states. will do everything i could be working for robert l. of the to make sure that it continues. >> our next question comes from ms. haines. >> this congress -- this is for congressman deal. securing georgia's borders and your thoughts of the idea in congress to change the 14th amendment guarantees citizenship for people born in the united states. and as you may know -- thank you for the question.

i have been the leader of that issue of birthright citizenship treated as one that our country will adopt. we are one of the few -- only 33 countries in the world still rent birthright citizenship. i don't think the 14th amendment was ever grant -- met to grant's this is shipped to people illegally in our state. what a governor can do, i have been active in that issue. two of the four counties that's currently have the opportunity to participate in enforcing immigration laws are in my congressional district. i was instrumental in helping pass that. i believe that the federal government ought to be spending the money helping communities, states, and counties to assist in making their officers trained so that they can have access to the immigration data base. this is what i would pursue as a governor. but in the meantime, because of the extreme cost associated with illegal immigration, i think the state legislature should adopted something very similar to the arizona statute and we can learn from any of the objections that have been raised

as to whether we can tailor a statured more appropriately this is one where we have had some developments in arizona in the last few days. would it be alright if we as the same question of karen handel? ok. 60 seconds for you. >> a cost george anywhere from $1.5 billion to $2 billion every year. in another court -- is the career washington politician that have to get their responsibilities in this issue and arizona had no choice but to stand up and take the issue into their own hands. i'm good with a ariz.-type is of legislation. we're watching that closely to make sure that as our legislation comes through, i would be a strong proponent making it even stronger than what arizona has. atlanta. i would have our local law

enforcement officials at the table with me working through the enforcement side of it so that we can make sure that they have the tools and resources they need to actually enforce a law. it really does not do much if you just pass legislation and we do not make sure that at the local level, they can be our partners in ensuring this. >> charles richardson, is your time. >> this is for congressman deal. i want to go back to the ethics that you are talking about. he specifically said that these are part-time legislators. but the ethics complaint brought against you, if you are a full- time congressman. this plan that. why is it right in your case as a full-time congressman? >> there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever. first of all, i had no state contract. i receive no state money. it was a cooperative effort. i had no territorial assignment at all. it was a program that the state of georgia put into place, requested people like my business to participate in to

ensure the safety of the driving public in georgia. unfortunately we now are having over 15,000 cars every day -- every year put back on our roads with no safety inspections. i think that is wrong. but there is no comparison here. as a member of the state senate, i complied fully with the state disclosure laws of transparency. and i think that's ever but -- what everyone would expect and that is what i did. >> is returned as a question bridges and -- is to return to ask a question. >> the next governor will have to deal with the deadline of 2012 to deal with atlanta's drinking water. what is your emergency plan? >> says mr. deal answer the last question first, we will give you the first shot. >> as governor i am going to work aggressively to make sure that we do have good, solid progress in dealing with this

issue with the governors in alabama and florida. in the meantime, we have work to do. kudos to the legislation for the conservation legislation. as a prince stepped forward it, and it will send a positive message to our negotiating partners and the courts. i am making sure their we're moving expeditiously on a network of reservoirs, perhaps some smaller networks, because those could be more readily integrated into the community. and more easily permitted and brought on line. in addition to that, we have to press hard at the table in the negotiations. i will be there personally. in the private sector, it is imperative to be at the table personally on these issues and not simply send letters back and forth. lastly, one of the first actions as governor that i will be working on immediately is that court case scenario contingency plan to make sure that that is place. >> mr. deal. >> certainly no one has any

greater experience than i have, adding represented the region for my turn in congress. everything i would do is aggressively bought -- pursue negotiation with the other governors. that is the only way to solve this issue within the remaining two years. in the event that negotiation is not successful, i think we have delayed the predicate for going back to the court and do so with clean hands. the first question i think the judge will ask the state of georgia if we ask for a continuance or an extension of time is, show me what you have done. i think the steps that the general assembly took this year was a good positive step, but what else do we need to do? we need to fix the leaky water pipes where we are wasting water. we need to improve our water treatment facilities so that when the water is treated and returned back into a reservoir or to river basin that the judge would be inclined to give us credit for it. which he did not do in his original opinion. we do need local reservoirs that are controlled by counties and local communities.

judith s. question comes from erin hayes. >> you are recently asked by an and land registration rate is set the state was spending too much money. i believe your answer was administrative services. yet your office of the administration budget increased by 42%. how you reconcile what you say versus what to do? >> that increases specifically related to the creation of the office of inspector general. those of us that have to deal with the state budget means -- know that you cannot just create a new division. we take our inspectors from the various agencies and divisions within the secretary of state's office, consolidated them into the office of inspector general, to make sure that we could get through in the funding was there. there was no new funding for any of that. it was a consolidation of individuals from other areas of the agency to make sure that we

could consolidate our investigative strength to get us up better coverage around the state, especially for elections brought, where we were extraordinarily aggressive in the areas of consumer protection, and having that consolidated agency led by and now a superior court judge, we made huge progress in dealing with the election fraud in the state, in fact, making several cases. >> thank you. our time for questions has expired. now each of the republican candidates in primary runoff with georgia governor will have 30 seconds to make closing statement. karen handel was randomly selected to make the first one. >> bank is a must for getting this opportunity to talk with you this in -- -- this evening. i had the privilege to gore around the state for the past 15 months and it has been an extraordinary thing. i've seen the incredible

opportunities that lie ahead for torture. what we need most is a governor who is going to be a strong, tenacious, and at the co-leader who will pull those at it together. ahead,'s best days are ladies and gentlemen, we just have to reach out and grab it. as your governor, that is what we would -- if mr. deal, if you have 30 seconds to close. did i began to serve my country as a teenager when i embarked on a process of becoming an army officer. i assert my local community as a prosecutor, my state is the leader of the state senate, and had the honor to serve in congress. the thing had asked is who we are going to nominate, can make hard decisions? i think i am the one who is qualified. i assure you that having the endorsement of new gingrich and mike huckabee, people who know me and work with me, is great. but i will be a governor who governs with an open mind, an open door, and with a service

mark. i ask for your vote on tuesday. >> that includes our debate and we would like to remind voters the primary runoff election will be held this tuesday, august 10. our thanks to the candidates, karen handel and nathan deal. and to our panel of journalists. we would also like to think the atlanta press club for arranging this debate. for more permission about the lack press club, you may visit their web site. the debates that air on george of public broadcasting will be archived on the press club's web site. the broadcast has been strained alive and will be available on demand on the website, gpb.org. we invited to stay tuned for the primary debate that the candidates and republican runoff for attorney general. that debate is coming up next. thanks. >> s club today series is

made possible by donation from the late tom watson brown. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, a forum on the economic effect on community health centers. in an hour-and-a-half, two views of national security with retired general michael hayden of the cia and the former director of national intelligence, vice admiral mike mcconnell appeared after that, today's news conference with the defense secretary robert gates. 1 washington journal tomorrow

morning, we will talk about the special session of the house week to consider an aid package for the states. our guest will be the chairman of the ways and means committee, representative redundant -- represented said sander levin and tom price. our week-long special on energy issues focus on electrical cars with the ceo compaq power in michigan. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. because the senate passed a bill last week to help states pay for teachers hours and medicaid costs, members of the house will return from there all the great tomorrow morning to vote on that legislation. also on the agenda, a $600 million border security bill. it passes, it will be taken up by the senate in september. legislative work begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> booktv looks at books by

current and former members of cards -- congress, including robert byrd. former house speaker newt gingrich gets his assessment of the obama and ministration in "to save america." charles rangel on his 2007 memoir, "i haven't had a sense." and trent lott on his life and politics. booktv in prime time this week on c-span2. >> the nation's community health centers received $2 billion in the stimulus bill and our scope for another $11 billion over the next five years when the new health care law goes into effect. a center for american progress hosted a discussion the centers affect our communities. this is an hour and half.

>> we have brought together a distinguished group of speakers who will talk to us about the good work of community health centers. not just in terms of increasing health care access, but the economic impact they have on the communities. we will begin our program with a presentation by my colleague, dr. ellen-marie whelan. then we will have a discussion with our invited analysts. today we are releasing a report on community health centers which discusses the insights of

additional health funding from the newly passed affordable care act. this report includes a state-by- state data on how much additional economic activity will be generated and how many new jobs will be created. i want to ask ellen-marie to come up. her research and publications focus on how state providers deliver care, premium care, compared to the effect of this research, and prevention. i will say that she has done so much work. she's been on assault -- on the front lines as a nurse. she has worked on a helper to house her doctorate. she's worked at the university level. alaska to come up to talk about her paper.

>> if you will advance them along. this is an underserved communities, and i've actually had eight long background, posed as a practitioner working in philadelphia, and also doing some academic research. one of the things that is exciting that people are not focusing on is when we invest in community health centers, which

focused on the economic activities, the way the community health centers are engines of economic activity, and the additional jobs that they are creating. later on after i visit my publication, there will be other people working at community centers. -- we're point to try to put face onto these community centers are. i will tell you about who they are, how well they are doing and services, and finally the economic activity. one of the unique thing about community centers is that there are four requirements by law and order to be a community center, and that has been some of the reasons for their underlying success. they have to be located