regulate their rivals to gain advantages. litigation will supplant innovation. instead of investing in tomorrow's technologies, capital wnba diverted to play lawyers' fees. the era of interpret regulatory arbitrage has dawned. and to say that to be's rules don't regulate the interpret is like saying regulating highway on ramps, off ramps and its pavement doesn't equate to regulating the highways themselves. what had been bottom-up, non-governmental and grassroots based governance will become politicized. today the united states is abandoning the long-standing bipartisan and international consensus to insulate it from meddling in favor of a top-down control by unelected political pointees, three of whom will

decide what constitutes reasonable behavior. . the majority is fueling a global

internet regulatory pandemic. internet freedom will not be enhanced. it will suffer. my dissent this morning is based on four primary concerns. first, nothing is broken in the internet access market that needs fixing. second, the fcc does not have the legal authority to issue these rules. third, the proposed rules are likely to cause irreparable harm. and fourth, existing law and internet governance structures provide ample consumer protection in the event of a systemic market failure. before i go further, however, i apologize that my statement does not address some important issues raised by the order. but we received the current draft at 11:42 p.m. last night, and my team is still combing

through it. first, nothing is broken in the internet access that needs fixing. all levels of internet supply chain are thriving due to row boston competition and low market entry barriers. the nipt has flourished because it was privatized in 1994, and at this point i need to dispel a pervasive myth that broadband was once regulated like a phone company. not only was the fec's 2002 cable modem order unanimous t. did not move broad band from title 2. it formalized an effort started under bill canard's fcc but i will include a more thorough history as part of my statement. since its privatization, the internet has migrated further away from government control until today.

its success was the result of bottom up collaboration. no one needs permission to start a website for navigate the web freely. to suggest otherwise is nothing short of fearmongering. myriad suppliers of internet devices, applications, online service are driving productivity and job growth in our country. about 80% of americans own a personal computer, most are connected to the internet, and in the meantime, the internet is going mobile. by this time next year consumers will see more smart phones in the market and future homes. countless applications used on pc's, growth in the number of global applications available to consumers has gone from nearly zero in 2007 to half a million just three years later. mobile app downloads is growing at an annual rate of 92% with an

estimated $50 million applications expected to be downloaded in 2012, probably most of which will be downloaded by my children onto my iphone. fixed and broadband internet access is the fastest penetrating disruptive technology in history. in 2003 only 15% of americans had access to broadband. just seven years later, 95% do. eight announced national broadband providers are building our facilities in addition to the construction work and scores more local and regional providers. more competition is on the way as providers light up recently auctioned spectrum. furthermore, the commission commissions worked to make unlicense use of television of white spaces available to consumer will create even more competition and choice. in short, competition, investment, innovation, productivity and job growth are healthy and dynamic in the

interset sector thanks to bipartisan deregulatory policies that have spanned four decades. the internet has blossomed under current law. policies that pro abundance and competition rather than rationing and unintended consequences that come with regulation are the best antidotes to the potential anti-competitive behavior feared by the rules proponents. but don't take my word for it. every time the government has examined the broadband market, its experts have concluded that no evidence of concentrations or abuses of market power exist. the federal trade commission, f.t.c., premee antitrust organizations, concluded the broadband market was competitive and also warned regulators should be wary of network management rules because of the quote unknown net effect on financial consumers, end quote.

they regulated by financial in 2007 -- as i gused earlier the broadband market has become more competitive since then. more recently the department of justice's antitrust division reached a similar conclusion when it filed comments with us earlier this year. while stounded optimistic regarding the prospects for broadband competition t. also warned against the temptation to regulate, quote to avoid stifling the insfra structure investments needed to expand broadband access, end quote. disturbingly, the commission is taking its radical step today without conducting even a rudimentary market nall sis. -- analysis. perhaps that is because market study would not support the orders predetermined conclusion. my second point is the f.c.c. does not have the legal

authority to issue these rules. time does not allow for me to refute all of the legal arguments raised in the order, the newest version of which we are still reviewing, but i will do my best. i have included a more thorough analysis in the supplemental section of this statement. nonetheless, i will touch on a few of the legal arguments endorsed by the majority. overall the order is designed to circumvent the d.c. circuit's comcast decision but this new effort will fail in court as well. the order makes a first-time claim that somehow through the deregulatory event of section 706, way back in 1996 congress gave the commission direct authority to regulate the internet. the order admits its rational requires the commission to reverse its longstanding interpretation that this section could amaze no additional authority beyond which was is already provided elsewhere in the act. this new conclusion, however, is

suddenly convenient for majority while the grasp for a foundation for its predetermined outcome. instead of, quote, removing barriers to infrastructure investment, end quote, as section 706 encourages, the order fashions illegal fiction to construct additional barriers. this move is arbitrary and capricious season not supported by the evidence in the record or change of law. the commission's gamesmanship in section 706 throughout this year is reminiscent of what was attempted with the contortions soft called 70/70 rule three years ago. i objected to such factual legal manipulations as to then and i object to them now. furthermore, the order desperately scours of act to find it tethered to more of its alleged title one ancillary authority. as expected the order's legal analysis ignores the fundamental teachings of the comcast case, that titles two, three and six of the communications act give

the s.e.c. the power to regulate specific recognized classes of electronic communication services which consist of common carriage telephony, broadcasting and other licensed, wireless services and multichannel video programming services. despite the desires of some, congress has not established a new title of the act to police internet network management, not even implicitly. the absence of statutory authority is perhaps why members of congress introduced legislation to give the f.c.c. such powers. in other words, if the act already gave the commission a legal tether it seeks, why was legislation needed in the first place. i'm afraid this leaky ship of an order is attempting to sail through a regulatory fog without the necessary ballast of factual or legal substance.

the courts will easily think it. in another act of legal flight of hand the order claims it does not attempt to classify broadband services as title 2 common carrier services. functionally that is precisely what the majority is attempting to do to title one information services, title three licensed wireless services and title six, video services by subjecting them to nondiscrimination obligations in the absence of a congressional mandate. what we have before us today is a title 2 order dressed in a thread bearer title 1 disguise. thankfully the banks have seen this bait and switch maneuver by the f.c.c. before and they have struck it down each team. the order's expansive grasp for jurisdictional power here is likely to review any reviewing court -- alarm any reviewing

court because the efrlt appears to have no limiting principle. if we were to accept the order's argument, it would free the commission from its congressional tether, to quote my past cords. as the supreme court explained in midwest video two, quote, without reference to the provisions of the act expressly granting regulatory authority, the commissioner's ancillary restriction would be unbounded, end quote. i am relieved, however, in the order the commission is explicitly refraining from regulating coffee shops. in short, if this order stands, there's no end in sight to the commission's powers. i also have concerns regarding the constitutional implications of the order, esspecial lits trampling on the first and fifth amendments. again, in the observance of time those thoughts are contained in my extended written remarks. my third concern is that the commission's rules will cause irreparable harm to broadband

investment and consumers. the observation from last january regarding the competitive nature of the broad band market raises the important issue of likely irreparable arm to be brought about by these new rules. in addition to government agencies, investors, investment analysts and broad bant companies themselves have told us network management rules would create uncertainty to the point where crucial investment capital would become harder to find. this point was made over and over again at the fcc's capital formation workshop on october 1, 2009. a diverse gathering of investors and analysts told us that even rules emanating from title one would create uncertainty. other evidence suggests internet management rules could not only make it difficult for companies to, quote, predict their revenues and cash flow, end quote, but a new regime could,

quote, have the perverse effect of raising prices to all users, end quote. additionally today's order implies the f.c.c. has price regulation authority over broadband. in fact the d.c. circuit noted in its comcast decision last spring that the commission's attorneys openly asserted at january's oral argument that, quote, the commission could someday subject broadband service to pervasive rate regulation to ensure that a broadband company provides the service at reasonable charges. end quote. nothing indicates that the commission has changed its mind since then. in fact the order appears to support both direct and indirect price regulation of broadband services. moreover as lobbying groups accept the order's invitation to file complaints asking the government to distort the market further, the commission will be under increasing pressure from political interest groups to

expand its power and influence over the broadband market. in fact, some of my colleagues today are complaining that the order doesn't go far enough. each complaint filed about create more uncertainty as the enforcement process becomes a de facto rulemaking circus, just as the commission attempted in the ill-fated comcast case. how does this framework create regulatory certainty. even european commission recognized the harm such rules would cause to the capital markets when it decided last month not to impose measures similar to these. part of the argument in favor of new rules alleges that giant corporations will serve as hostile gatekeepers to the internet. first, in the almost nine years since those fears were first sewn, net regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged

misconduct out of an infinite number of internet communications. all -- all of those cases were resolved in favor of consumers under current law. more importantly, however, many broadband providers are not large companies. many are small businesses. taken, for example, larette, a fixed wireless internet service provider serving rural communities in wyoming. they told the commission that the imposition of network management rules will impede its ability to obtain investment capital and will limit the company's, quote, ability to deploy new service to currently unserved and underserved areas, end quote. furthermore, larette echoed the views of many others by observing, the thing that's would drive up cost would deter future investment in our company and others like it.

additionally, quote, to mandate overly burdensome network policies would foster lower quality of service, raise operating costs, which in turn would raze prices for all sub, -- raise prices for all subscribers or create largee back log at the f.c.c. in which it would be too expensive for small companies to proceed. and it would card harm due to the, quote, deleterious damage and impact these damaging effects would be likely to occur even if the commission's order was later invalidated, nullified or effectively modified by a court challenge or congressional action, end quote. and many other small businesses have echoed these concerns and all of this is in the record. less investment, less innovation, increased business

cost, increase prices to consumers, disadvantages, jobs lost and all of us in the name of promoting the exact opposite? the evidence in the record simply does not support majority'sout come-driven conclusions. in short, the commission's action today runs directly counterer to the laudable broadband deployment and adoption goals of the national broadband plan. no government has ever succeeded in mandating investment and innovation and nothing has been holding back -- nothing has been holding back internet investment and innovation until now. the fourth point of my dissent is existing law provides ample consumer protection. to reiterate, the order fails to put forth iege a factual or legal base social security for regulatory intervention. repeated government and economic analyses reached the same conclusion. no concentrations or abuses of

market power exist in the broad band space. if market failure were to occur, however, america's antitrust and consumer protection laws stand at the ready. both the department of justice and the federal trade commission are well equipped to cure any market ills. in fact, the antitrust law section of the american bar association agrees, nowhere does the order attempt to explain why these laws are insufficient in its quest for more regulation. moreover, for several years now i have been advocating a potentially effective approach that won't get overturned on appeal. in lieu of new rules, which will be tied up in court for years now, the f.c.c. could create a new role for itself by partnering with already-established nongovernmental internet government's groups, engineers, consumer groups, academics, economists, antitrust experts, consumer protection agencies,

industry associations and many others. to spot light allegations of anti-competitive conduct in the broadband market and work together to resolve them. since it was privatized, internet governance has always been based on a foundation of bottom up collaboration and cooperation rather than top down regulation. this truly light touch approach has created a nearly perfect track record of resolving internet management conflict without government intervention. unfortunately, the majority has not even considered this idea for a moment. but once today's order is overturned on appeal, it is still my hope that the f.c.c. will consider and adopt this constructive proposal. and some what's past is indeed prologue. where we left the saga of the

f.c.c.'s last net neutrality before was with a spectacular failure in the appellate courts. today the f.c.c. seems determined to make the same mistake instead of learning from it. the only illness apparent from this order is regulatory hubris. fortunately cures for this malady are obtainable in court. for all of the foregoing reasons i respectfully -- just in case you're guessing -- dissent. thank you, mr. chairman. >> commissioner clyburn please. >> thank you. a few weeks ago i discussed the importance of collaboration and tackled one of the important yet difficult policy issues before us today. i want to pause for a moment and thank my very overworked but dedicated staff, angela, louis

and dramb gramaldi and their families, commissioner cotts and his staff, thank you very much. office of the chairman, the commission staff and the thousands of stakeholders who engaged with us over the past 16 months in crafting a framework that gives both broadband providers and consumers clear guidance about what provider behavior is acceptable and what is not. it was the result of all of your engagement from the filings you made to the many meeting we had that we have been able to get to this point today. your dedication to the process and that of those whom you represent should be commended. of course, as we all know, compromises typically must be made as many different interests collaborate on critical and significant issues. as a result, it is often the case that one cannot be completely satisfied with the outcome. nonetheless, it is my belief we have made great progress in this

proceeding and through this order we are ensuring that the internet will remain open for the benefit of many consumers. after all they are the ultimate beneficiaries of an open internet. left to my own devices, there are several issues i would have tackled differently. as such i am approving a part and concurring in part to today's order. while i appreciate the chairman's recognition of some of my concerns and the adjustments made in the order to allay those concerned, there are several areas i would have strengthened so that more consumers would benefit from their protections we are adopting. first, would i have extended all of the fixed rules to mobile so that those consumers who heavily or exclusively rely upon mobile broadband will be fully protected. there is evidence in our record that some communities, namely

african-american and hispanic, user rely upon mobile internet access much more than than other socioeconomic groups. so while this order does not go as far as i would like in protecting mobile consumers, i am pleased that it is quite clear that we are not preapproving any action by mobile providers that would violate the fixed rules and the general prince pims of internet openness. moreover, the order provides for the ongoing monitoring of the mobile broadband marketplace, including the commission's intention to create an open internet advisory committee. that body's specific mission will be to assess and report to the commission new developments and concern and immobile broadband industry. i expect that the committee will closely observe the effects of that woo for fixing mobile

providers or have on consumers who have chosen to cut the broadband cord as well as the effects on intermodal competition. to theand, the commission will stand ready to protect mobile consumers from my actions by providers that are inconsistent with an open internet. second, i would have prohibited pay-for-priority arrangements all together. the order stresses the various harmful effects of these arrangements, including the serious threat to innovation on the internet. i believe prohibiting such arrangements would be more appropriate based on the evidence before us. nonetheless, should providers enter into such arrangements as they are subsequently challenged at the commission, providers will have to demonstrate that the arrangement is not harmful and is consistent with the public interest. third, an open internet should be available to all end users,

residential, enterprise, for profit or not. this order goes along way towards protecting an open internet for residents, small businesses, schools, libraries, patrons of coffee shops, book stores and the like. but i worry those who may not fit into these categories will have to negotiate for access to the open internet than they may be denied such access. we should carefully monitor an open internet is truly available to all end users and correct course if needed. i open the aforementioned open internet advisory committee can track any harmful effects on those end users who do not currently qualify for protections adopted today at the committee recommend commission action as necessary. finally earlier this year, i stated my preference for the commission's legal authority over broadband internet access

service. while the route taken here is not the one i originally referred, i believe it is appropriate for the commission to act to protect an open internet. i know there will be many lawyers studying the legal authority cited in this order in the weeks, months and perhaps years ahead and additional review will determine the fate of this order. i sincerely hope that the commission's authority to protect consumer's access to an open internet is upheld. today the i net is at critical to the nation for communicating as our legacy telephone, broadcast and mobile phone networks. as zrabed -- described more fully in the order, without an open internet, consumers will have fewer choices and opportunities, which have the potential toim pact many aspects of their lives. they're ability to obtain an education, telecommute, look for

a job, search for information online, shop, make investment decisions, communicate with friends, family and colleagues, obtain news and i can go on and on but i won't given the length of the meeting today. accordingly, i believe that it is necessary and appropriate that broadband providers operate pursuant to a legal policy and framework that ensures that the internet remains open under the commission's watchful eye. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, mr. chairman. respectfully, i really, really, really dissent. i disagree with the policy, i disagree with the politics and i disagree with the procedure of this item. like my colleague commissioner mcdowell, i also have a longer written statement that i will ask you to put into the record and try to shorten my remarks here. preserving open internet is

nonnegotiable. it is the bed rom principle shared by all in the internet economy, a building block by which we can all agree. and the internet is open today. the evidence in our proceeding has reaffirmed government action is not necessary to preserve it. yet the majority inacts decisively to adopt net neutrality rules posing the heavy hand of government into how that will be managed and operated. the data most certainly does not drive us to this result. and the final analysis, the commission intervenes to regulate the internet because it wants to, not because it needs to. i cannot support this decision. it is not a consumer driven or engineering focus decision. it's not motivate bid tangible, competitive harm or market failure. the majority bypasses the market power analysis all together and acts on speculative harms alone. they are unable to identify a single, ongoing practice they

find problematic. in the end the internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today. the majority does all of this without any apparent appreciation of the regulatory costs and distortive effects of government micromanagement of broadband networks. did the commission kill the future of the internet today? of course not. but in this dynamic industry, they have no rational means to estimate the real damage they did to the future development of business models, network management techniques and core networks. the commission put its thumb on the scale to where innovation and the economy will be focused and how future networks will be financed. the order repeatedly expresses concerns about the significant consequences to internet-edged companies if their incentive to innovate an investment in chilled. the majority ignores the same grave consequences of government action chilling the network's

analogous to innovate and invest. it is inarguably the industry does not take a wholistic view of the economy. why do we intervene in the one sector of the economy that is working so well to create high-paying jobs, untold consumer choice and entrepreneurial opportunity? the only reason left is to deliver on one of the president's campaign promises, i must respectfully dissent. i have seven principle objections to this order. i have one more than that but i have a plane to catch so you're lucky. before i start, i want to touch on the question of regulatory certainty. the net neutrality and title two proceedings have been an economic drag on operators for over a year. i empathize with businesses that desperately need certainty to help jump-start efforts to help invest and recover economically. it was our stable regulatory foundation that gave investors the confidence to pump billions

into the internet economy and i share ziret to find a new stable footing. i object, however, to the majority suggesting its action is premised on providing regulatory certainty. at best the majority solved the problem of its own making. i also have some apprehension whether our illegally precarious action today could provide the certainty promised and whether our decision will unfortunately add to that uncertainty. concern number one, the majority's decision lacks an analytical framework to justify government intervention. competition and consumer demand have ensured that the internet remains open and the majority offers no record of evidence to suggest otherwise. the majority works to metaphor. there are cracks in the infrastructure. but a record does not support a conclusion of any real structural failing. at best there's a burned-out bulb in the christmas lights and we endeavored to replace the entire electrical system to fix

it. there's no global problem, no crisis of magnitude to justify the majority's overreach. the majority's repeated fallback is that network operators have incentives to act badly. the language is consistently conditional. the word could alone appears 61 times. throughout the decision, the majority presumed the malign intent on the part of broadband providers for which there's no factual foundation. this line of reasoning is flatly inconsistent with a decade of actual industry practice. if the incentives or miscon 0 duct are so strong, one would assume the evidence to the record would include widespread examples of anti-competitive conduct. there is no such evidence. given the nonexistent factual record to support its action, the majority is left to grand declarations about the internet as an indispensable platform supporting our nation's economic and civic life. to mask the clear deficiencies of its analysis.

in doing so they ignore the f.c.c.'s warning that regulators should be aware of enacting net neutrality regulation slowlyy to prevent perspective harm. i share the f.t.c.'s concern. concern in two, the majority ace claim that consumers will benefit if this government overreach is unsupported and deeply flawed. the majority repeatedly couches this as a pro consumer or consumer-driven approach. they try to frame this as big business gatekeeper versus the consumer of the but upon closer inspection the order is focused on promoting the edge, internet applications and services over networks and consumers. i strongly disagree promoting the edge over the networks because there was no choice necessary. in this instance having a cup cange and eating it too is san actual option. in the majority's request to suggest allegations that broadband providers might try to

appear winners and losers, the government picked its own winners. in the long term i'm worried that the government's micromanagement of tomorrow's internet will leave consumers worse off. efforts to ensure all americans have access for bargains will be put at risk. adoption efforts to get the third of american households that are not broadband subscribers online will be challenged. if network upgrades oirm provements are delayed or foregone, entrepreneurs won't be able to create and consumers won't be able to use the next great application. forgive me if i do not view these potential developments as pro consumer. the orders analysis of the new rules also contradicts any claimed consumer focus. with respect to paid priorization, the majority concludes prioritization arrangements with consumers would be unlikely to violate our rules and in contrast deals with third party internet companies would raise significant cause for concern.

in other words charging end users consumers is fine but charging internet companies is not. by seeking to carve out application providers from any future compensation models, the practical effect of this decision may be that the cost of building out tomorrow's networks will be bourne by the consumers. the price tag is estimated to be $182 billion in the next five years alone. sy similar preference for companies over consumers is reflected by the transparency. transparency should be about giving consumers the basic tools to make informed decisions. we should be working across the internet economy towards standardized disclosures to inform consumer choice to suggest sunlight, good and bad, on practices of networks, politics and devices. that is not the approach majority takes. the language of the order is exceedingly prescriptive.

the authority can cease to micromanage how information is conveyed to broadband consumer and edged companies. by doing so the order sets up transparency regime that may be so detailed and engineering focus that the average consumer will be no better off. concern number three, majority's focus on preserving network operators current conditions will distort tomorrow's internet. given the dynamic nature of the internet, focusing on preserving today's networks and practices is the wrong objective. the internet is not a mature market and networks cannot stand still. the capacity to meet the escalating demands of existing users, let alone new users, will strain the resources of all operators and test network management practices. there also continues to be a great amount of experimentation in business models consumer expectations. the threat of government sense

ure will unmistakablely chill new developments and inhibit the ability of networks to evolve. innovate at your own risk is the wrong message to send but i'm afraid it's the message that will be received. i'm troubled by the negative treatment of so many vital components of our broadband networks. our modern broadband networks receive in this order. we have turned priorization into a dirty word. to me it is about quality of service and optimizing services for realtime applications. 4g won't even work properly without priorization. specialized services should be embraced. they have been primary drivers, voice and video competition and have been critical to justify the cost of today's and tomorrow's networks. network management is similarly viewed as a potential loophole for misconduct. not an engineering marvel. i do not think the majority believes any of these

functionalities are inherently problematic but the overwhelming focus on the potential for wrongdoing is misplaced. it's there to highlight potential areas of concern but only a context of a much more balanced and objective presentation. concern number four, the majority puts the commission in the unworkable role of internet referee. the genius of the internet to date was the central command, no internet authority to dick eight how innovation was to occur no. one must ask for permission. the majority altered fundamentally the winning formula forcing the commission into the role of judging how broadband networks will evolve. by adopting rules that will require significant interpretation, by creating new, undefined terms and by mud ling its analysis of cautionary notes, the majority has ensured that the new innovation and new practices will be subject to its

approval. this adds delay and uncertainty and i fear the government will take two prominent a role in shaping tomorrow's internet. concern number five, and this one's big, the majority regulates an entire sector of the internet without any legitimate legal authority to do so. the f.c.c. attempted to enforce net neutrality principles. the commission will return to court with the became base sick infirmities. first, we have no authority to support this decision. second the majority's legal theories will give the commission an unbounded right to adopt any policies it wants to promote its particular vision of the internet. the f.c.c. literally has no power tookt until and unless congress gives it power. congress has never given the commission authority to regulate

internet network management, a fact validated by the court in comcast. the majority however, tries the everything but kitchen sink defense. 24 claims statutory basis. the majority elects sure quantity to make up for policy and in doing so contorts letter and spirit of the anth to try to justify rules adopted in a result-oriented process. the bulk of the legal support is based on ancillary authority grounds that are indistinguishable for ones rejected by comcast. so i will therefore focus on section 706-a. i'm not persuaded by the majority's intent to twist a 14-year-old deregulatory policy statement into an affirmative grant of authority. section 706-a directs the commission to encourage broadband deployment, relying on authority elsewhere in the act.

our decisions are informed by sections 706. it's a guide post over how to use our statutory mandated responsibilities. the commission held long ago that the most logical statutory interpretation is that section 706 does not constitute an independent grant of authority. the core of the majority's analysis is its mischaracterization of the 1998 advanced services order. under the majority's view, the commission has never interpreted section 706 in its totality. the commission raises identical argument to the comcast cord and it was appropriately rejected. even if 706 were a grant of authority, that could not support the descriptive and projective accent that raises

barriers to broadband investments. the text of 706-a is clear, it is about enkirging broadband deployment with a clear regulatory focus on removing barriers to infrastructure investment. the commission has no authority to arrest obstacles in the name of removing them. it strengthens all credibility to contend all net neutrality regulations. by reading out of the regulation any deleag for groikous the deployment purpose and the movement of barrier limitation, the commission has given itself plenty of authority to regulate the internet. anything that regulates the cycle in the internet ecosystem can be regulated. this is my biggest concern with majority 706-a nall sis. in essence, the majority has replaced an unbounded ancillary authority rejected by the comcast court with an equally unbounded direct authority, trading one unlimited power for

another is far from comforting to me. when they are going to explicitly decline to apply our rules to coffee shops, book stores and airlines, it illustrates the lack of any aser obtainable outer limits to our authority. i also have to believe that a court will be exceptal of the timing and manner in which the majority has discovered, section 706-a to be a superpower, unlocked only after an adverse court opinion and political pressure to provide some legal foundation to justify sweeping net neutrality rules. concern number six. and this is a misthake made undermine our agency's mission. we are a creature of congress not congress itself. using a legislative proposal to

base our actions underscores the squort act beyond the appropriate role of an independent agency. when the decision makes political decisions and takes actions best left to effected officials our agencies turn more partisan and more controversial. issues of this magnitude with such significant long-term consequences are decisions best left to congress. and concern number seven, opportunity cost. by that i mean we have squandered months on this effort devoting resources and political capital away from real problems that lie within our core competencies. this spring a unanimous commission called for action on broadband deployment and adoption, spectrum reform, universal service and internet car yesh compensation reform and the public safety network. 6 our focus belongs on that

agenda, an actual progress, pro-jobs game plan. starting today we should redouble our efforts to craft policy to create the regulatory environment necessary to attract the billions more in risk capital necessary to expand and improve our broadband infrastructure. i feel today's action is not the end of this debate because of this significant consequences for the internet. for the jurisdictional authority of this agency and for the proper role of the f.c.c. this debate may well move to different fora but i fear it will continue to take up too. oxygen in our community. that said, i remain always the optimist. ok, i have to admit this was actually really good test of it. but still, i believe when we work together, there is really much good that we can do. i hope that the new year brings a fresh perspective on our nation's communication challenges and renewed focus on working collaboratively

together. while i may disagree with our decision, i do want to thank all of you at the table and those that have worked through -- on this issue through thanksgiving, much of the holiday season and a power outage. you guys sure earned a christmas break this year. importantly i also want to thank my staff for their unbelievably hard work these past few weeks. in particular, i want to express my gratitude to brad gilland, who i just couldn't have done without your tireless ok now kind of tired ability to get everything on the checklist done, your unflappable good nature and truly inspiring awe work product. thank you to all of you and thank you also to your families, particularly grateful to hillary. i'm certain she would have had you spend your holiday season a little differently. i feel compelled to make one last statement. we can disagree about policy decisions as we do here but we

should all agree that an openp sound process is critical to our decision making. politically when the mistakes are as high as this. future shape of the internet policy and millions of jobs that depend upon it. regrettably i think this process failed every step of the way. the most significant failure actually happened to be the last one, my office as mentioned did not receive a copy of today's order until 11:30 last night and had significant changes from the previous draft. 12 hours before the meeting is not sufficient, given the magnitude of the issues that are at stake and the sheer number of changes again that have been made, it's inexcuseable and mr. chairman you have set a higher bar for this agency to be data driven and transparent and you have lived up to that. but not here. this is an inopportune time to do that. this proceeding did not need to be done in such a rushed and ill-considered manner this month.

i think we can all do better and let's do so in the new year. >> well, let me start with a quote. the web as we know it is being threatened. that's tim burners-lee, the inventor of the world wide web in a recent article. he continued, and i quote, a neutral community medium is the basis of a fair, competitive market economy of democracy and of science, although the internet and web generally thrived on lack of ren lation, some basic values have to be legally preserved. today for the first time the s.e.c. is adopting rules to preserve basing internet values. while the commission had in the past pursued partisan enforcement internet principles, we have not had properly adopted rules.

now for the first time we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve internet freedom and openness. to be clear as we stand here now the freedom and openness of the internet are unprotected. no rules on the books to protect basic internet values. no prose sess for monitoring internet openness as technology and business models evolved. no recourse for innovators, consumers are speakers harmed by improper practices. and more brickability for internet service providers so they can feekively manage and invest nment broadband networks. that will change once we strote approve the strong and balanced order. the vote on the order comes after many months of debate, which is often produced more heat than light. almost everyone says they agree the openness of the internet is essential, that openness has unleashed an enormous wave of

innovation, economic growth, job creation, small business generation and vibrant free expression. and, of course, that's right. but despite a shared allegiance to the internet, there's been intense disagreement about the role of government in preserving internet freedom and openness. on one end of the spectrum there are those that say government should do nothing at all. on open internet. and on the other end are those who would adopt extensive overly detailed and rigid regulations. a few on each side imposed litmus tests. to some unless their test is met, open internet rules are fake net neutrality. to others, unless their test is met, open internet rules are, quote, a government takeover of the internet. now, that's hutes pa, if i can borrow one of your phrases, commissioner mcdowell.

for myself i object both extremes in favor of a nonand sensical ideological framework that protects freedom and openness and remotes robust unovation and investment throughout the broadband ecosystem. none of these goals are abstractions. they live or die not in theory but in practice. in the hard work of grappling with technology, business and real world consumer experiences. and we do encounter familiar arguments the we heard some today, the kind trotted out opposed to the action since we're dealing with nonfiction rather than fiction, there are many points that don't need response but let me touch on a couple. we're told by some, for example, not to try to fix what isn't broken and that rules of the road protecting internet freedom

would discourage innovation and investment. but countless innovators, investors and business executives say just the opposite. including many who generally oppose government regulation. over the course of this procedure we have heard from so many entrepreneurs and engineers, venture capitalists, creeds's and others working daily to prevent and distribute new nint products and therefore maintain u.s. leadership in innovation. their message has been clear, the next decade of innovation in this sector is at risk without sensible f.c.c. rules of the road. as one leading early stage investor put it in thoughts echoed in a letter we received from 30 prominent venture capitalists, quote, the lack of basic rules of the road for what net woik providers and others can and can't do is starting to hamper innovation and growth.

as we heard in the letter from more than two dozen leading technology c.e.o.'s, quote, common sense baseline rules are critical to ensuring the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and global competitiveness. the innovators, entrepreneurs, vital need for massive investment in broadband infrastructure. based on their end market experience, they provide incentives to limit their positions as gate keepers as ways of stiflization and limit the benefits of the internet. they point out after the commission on a bipartisan basis announced open internet principles in 2005 we have seen clear and troubling deviations from open practices. given the importance of an open internet to our economic future, given the poimly irreversible nature of some harmful practices and given the competition issues

among broadband providers, our record is filled with filings from businesses and consumer groups alike that it is essential to fulfill its historic role as cop on the beat to ensure the vitality of our communications network and to empower and protect entrepreneurs and consumers of those networks. now at the same time government must not overreach by imposing rules that are overly restrictive or that assume perfect knowledge about this dynamic and rapidly changing marketplace. we know that to meet our broadband speed and deployment goals for the country, broadband providers must have the business incentives to invest many billions of dollars to build out their networks, and me have the ability to run their networks effectively to experiment with new business models to further drive private investment. today we're adopting a seft

high-level rules of the road that strikes the right balance between these imperatives. it will have free certainty for businesses, investors and entrepreneurs. in key respects the interests of edge innovators entrepreneurs creating internet service applications, their interests, interest of broadband providers and of american consumers are aligned. innovation at the edge tantalizes consumer demand for broadband, consumer demand spurs private investment and innovation and faster broadband networks and faster network sparks ever cooler innovation at the edge. i believe our action today will foster an ongoing cycle of massive investment innovation and consumer demand both at the edge and in the core of broadband networks. our action will strengthen the

internet job creation engine. our action will advance our goal of having america's broadband networks be the freest and fastest in the world. our action will ensure internet freedom at home, a foundation for fighting for internet freedom around the world. the crux of the order we're adopting, which is based on a strong and sound legal framework rooted in the communications act is freight forward. it is intended to design and rules to provide internet freedom and openness. first, consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their internet access and how their network is being managed. the transparency rule we adopt today will give consumers and innovators the clear and simple information they need to make informed choices in choosing networks or designing the next killer app.

shining a lot on network management practices in a nonprescriptive way will also have an important deter and effect on bad conduct. consumers and innovators have a right stoned and receive lawful traffic. to go where they want, say what they want, experiment with ideas on the internet, commercial and social and use the devices of their choice. the rules thus prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and connection of devices to the network. third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. no central authority public or private should have the power to pick winners or losers on the internet. that's the role of the commercial market and the marketplace of ideas. we're adopting a ban on unreasonable discrimination and

we're making it clear we're not approving so-called pay for priority arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but no others. the rule states the rules will discretionalize the standards because it isn't consistent for an oint knelt for broadband providers to skew the marketplace by favoring one idea or application or service over another by vehiclively prioritizing internet traffic. fourth, the rules recognize broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks, to deal with congestion, security and other issues. and we also recognize the importance and value of business model experimentation such as tiered pricing. these are practical necessities and will help promote investment in and expansion of high-speed broadband networks. so, for example, the order makes clear that broadband providers can engage in reasonable network

management providing certainty. fifth, the principle of internet openness applies to mobile broadband. there's been some confusion on this so let me be clear. there's one internet and it must remain an open platform. however, consumers and innovators access it. so today we're adopting for the first time broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and consumers and prohibiting mobile broadband providers from blocking websites or blocking certain competitive applications. .

in a way that is consistent with internet freedom and openness. any reduction in mobile internet openness would be a cause for concern, as would any reduction in innovation and a mess and in mobile broadband applications -- that the pennant in a net openness. sixth and finally, today's order -- that would affect internet openness. 6 and finally, i am pleased that

we have committed to creating an open internet advisory committee that will assist the commission in monitoring the state of openness and the affects of our role. we're launching an internet app challenge that will foster private sector development of applications to empower consumers with information about their own broadband connections, which will also help protect internet openness. the rules of the road we adopt today are rooted in the ideas articulated by republican chairman michael powell and kevin martin, and endorsed in a unanimous ftc -- fcc policy statement. they are grounded in the record we have developed over the past 14 months, included more than 100,000 public comments, numerous public workshops, and hundreds of meetings with stakeholders ranging across the spectrum.

the list of participants also includes supportive input from the ftc and doj to the opposite effect of what we heard earlier. the chairman of the ftc participated in person in our proceedings. i am proud of the process that we and the staff have run at the commission. as a been one the most transparent in the fcc is 3 -- it has been one of the most transparent in the fcc's history. i'm proud of the results would have garnered broad support from the technology industry, the indignation -- internet innovation alliance, and hundreds of technology companies represented by those groups, as well as many other technology companies, support from investors of all sizes, including some of the nation's preeminent venture-capital lists and engine investors. r framework has drawn support -- our framework has drawn support from the consumers union, the center for democracy and

technology and the communication workers of america, and i thank them and the other groups that have worked so hard for many months on these issues. our free work has been supported by a number of broadband providers as well -- framework has been supported by a number broadband providers as well to recognize the sensible balance of our actions and bringing -- the value of bring certainty to this issue. we want to find common ground on this challenging issue. here at the fcc as well as by private parties and in congress. i thank those who took the time to take on these difficult issues, seeking to bridge gaps and find solutions, and who supported us in our efforts to do the same. i want to praise and thank my colleagues, particularly for their bigger and constancy in pushing this commission to -- vigor and constancy in pushing

this commission to focus on what is interest -- in the interests of consumers. mentioned the open internet advisory committee. that idea came out of discussions that we had and i think it will be an important part of our ongoing process. commissioner mcdowell and commissioner baker, this commission does tend to agree overwhelmingly on the issues before us. i look forward to working together on a series of items to serve the public and grow our economy. i cannot express enough appreciation to the remarkable staff of the fcc who have worked so hard and so well to wrestle with difficult issues and turn complex ideas into simple rules. even as, at the commission, we have done more than one thing at once, it has been an extraordinary challenge for many of the staff at the commission. we cannot honor your service enough. that includes many offices and

,ureaus at the s.e.c. -- fcc some represented by the leadership on the panel, many others working hard behind them, including our offer some general counsel, strategic planning, internet the technology, wireless, wired both. it stretches across the commission. we find increasingly that almost everything we work on requires coordination and collaboration among our staff. we see that in a healthy, productive, interactive way from issues easy to hard. i appreciate that. let me join my colleagues in thanking all of the staff of eight floor -- a -- the 8th floor, in particular my team.

you have each gone well above and beyond the call of duty, keeping a wonderful sense of humor every day, a terrific spirit. you make each other smarter qd make me a lot smarter. i thank you for that. i apologize to your families, but i know they join me in honoring your service. thanks to the work of these incredible public servants, thanks to our new media office, which has worked around the clock since the beginning of this proceeding to make sure that everything we do is available online. we have set a new president -- precedent in the ways that we of opened up this proceeding, permitting people to file comments on line, to participate interactively on line. the new media team makes it look easy to the people who

participate, but it is very hard to do, especially given the infrastructure challenges we have at the fcc. i banked each of you -- thank each of you for your work. thank you to all of the incredible public servants i have mentioned. today, a strengthened the fcc is adopting rules to ensure that the internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation, to empower consumers and entrepreneurs, and to protect free expression. these rules will increase certainty in the marketplace, spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks, and contribute to a 21st-century job creation engine in the united states. these rules will fill many promises, including a promise to the future, a promise to the companies that do not yet exist, and the entrepreneurs who have

not yet started work in their dorm rooms or garage. for all of that, i will be very proud to cast my vote. with that, let's proceed to the vote. all those in favor, say aye or concur. >> concur. [laughter] >> trigger finger. all those opposed, say nay. >> nay. >> nay. >> the ayes have it. the request for editorial privilege is granted. we have not adjourned yet. let me ask my colleagues did they have been announcements to make. -- if they have any announcements to make. >> my team does not like to be that publicly -- thanked publicly. i get yelled at when i do that.

for all of the sick children they have had to deal with, the long hours they have put in, the spouses they have left behind -- didn't of money to thank them, -- they do not want me to thank them, so i will honor that. we do have two law clerks or leaving, we want to honor them for their service -- whoa re -- who are leaving and we want to honor them for their service. >> let me say goodbye to many members of the fcc family. in keeping with tradition, many longtime employees will be retiring at the end of this month, just the beginning of next year. our employees are the fcc's greatest asset. each of our retirees have made enormous contributions to this agency. together, the individuals retiring represent many centuries of service, advancing the agency's mission of promoting opportunity and

prosperity for communications technology. i am not going to acknowledge all of them individually, but i want to mention that thanks to mary beth and steve, we had a wonderful even bang that honored -- event that honored all of the 30-plessy -- 30-plus year employees, 150-year, and 145- year -- one 50-year and one 45- year employee who was honored. we need to get the incredible histories of people to have seen these technologies advance year after year, decade after decade, while the commission, our predecessors, wrestled with a she's a lot like those we wrestle with -- issues a lot like those that we wrestle with to date. i'm glad commission room was packed that day.

president kennedy said that our success depends on the quality of our career public servants. it is often fashionable to say the opposite. those of us who work here understand how hard and how well the staff of the fcc works. please join me in thanking all of our staff, including, especially, are retirees for their service and wishing them well. [applause] on that note, i would like to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season. see you in the new year. madam secretary, please announce the date of the next fcc meeting. >> the next to a meeting of the federal communications commission is tuesday, january 25, 2011. >> we are now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> ahead today on c-span, queen noor of jordan talks about nuclear disarmament and her support for the start treaty between the u.s. and russia. after that, a discussion on the history in impact of televised presidential debates. and our "newsmakers"interview with one of the candidates running against michael steele to chair the republican national committee. >> i think a mistake a lot of british people who follow british politics make is to think that they are broadly comparable -- the british and the american system. that your president is like our prime minister and that you have two houses of your parliament and we have to two of ours --

two of our. well, no. our prime minister has much more power than your president. >> "q&a" tonight of about the power of the prime minister, taxes, social issues, and the cost of living -- tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "q&a." >> now a discussion on nuclear disarmament with queen noor of jordan. she spoke in support of the start reduction treaty that was just ratified by the u.s. senate. is is about 90 minutes. -- this is about 90 minutes. >> good evening, i am david mckean, president of the john f. kennedy presidential library foundation. on behalf of myself and my colleagues, i would like to thank you for coming this evening. i encourage all of you, if you are not already, to become

members of the library. i also encourage you to go to our what the bank at j -- website at jfklibrary.org to learn about activities surrounding the 50th anniversary of president kenny's these -- president kennedy's inauguration. i thank the sponsors to make this possible, including boston capital and the boston foundation, along with our media sponsors, the boston globe and others. these forms are rebroadcast -- forums are rebroadcast on a couple of networks. today's discussion is a timely one. the united states senate is currently pondering the new start treaty, a product of the first arms negotiations with russia in nearly a decade. at the moment, it is not clear whether or not there will be a

vote on ratification during the so-called linda succession -- lame-duck session. let me paraphrase an article in the "washington post." it is about the ramifications of failing to ratify the new start treaty. "boehner cooperation with russia on iran, a setback for -- no more cooperation with russia on iran, no cooperation with the world trade exhort -- organization, a terrible example for china and india, slim prospects for un cooperation, and the united states and russian presidents would look ridiculous." opposition to the treaty is all the more puzzling, given the fact that secretary of state hillary clinton recently said, "america's entire military leadership as well as six former secretaries of state, five

former secretaries of defense, three former national security advisors, and seven commanders of the u.s. strategic it meant -- strategic command support this treaty and support it now." sometimes you wonder if anybody is paying attention. because, the world has now lived with nuclear-weapons or so many years and because the cold war is over, there is something of a complacency about the nuclear threat, but no one should be complacent. make no mistake about it, the threat exists. the start treaty aside, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world today, spread among many nations. the danger of course is that somehow, someday a terrorist organization or a terrorist state will either attain or develop a nuclear weapons capability.

we are honored to have queen noor with us. she is the commissioner of the international commission on missing persons, a board member of refugees international, an expert adviser to the united nations as well as an adviser to numerous other organizations. she is also a founding leader of global 0, an international movement working for the world wide elimination of nuclear weapons. she represented global zero at the historic 2009 u.n. security council meeting, which endorsed the goals of global 0, and she was an adviser to this year's count down to zero, a documentary about the escalating global nuclear arms

strategy. if that is not enough, her family has a connection to this library. her father was appointed by president kennedy to have the federal aviation -- head the federal aviation and ministry . jonathan schell has written a book about the peril of nuclear weapons, which received the national book award and the national critics award. he was a staff writer at the new yorker for many years. he went to kennedy school's institute of politics. since 1998, has been a senior fellow -- he has been a senior fellow and correspondent for "the nation" magazine. his recent articles have. in a number of -- have appeared

in a number of publications. we also have with us gramm allison, the director of the schools -- graham allison, the director of the school's belfer center. his book is now in its third printing and was selected by "the new york times" as one of the most beautiful books -- notable books of 2004. please join me in welcoming our panel. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] i got lost on the sequencing of things today. it is an enormous privilege and pleasure to be here tonight. i thank the library for inviting me to visit and to choose a

topic of -- that i thought would be of interest to all of you, and then for enabling me to participate with two such articulate and passionate and knowledgeable experts on the subject that brings us here together tonight. that is a particular privilege and i am bery -- very humbled be in their presence. i have come to this issue -- not entirely -- in part by way of president kennedy and the spirit of his administration that an accused me and so many of my generation. i was in middle school in washington, d.c., during his administration.

there was a sense of optimism and idealism and responsibility to serve. he was one of my early heroes alongside martin luther king and sargent shriver, founder of the peace corps. that became my goal as a young girl, to join the peace corps. that is the period during which my social and political consciousness developed, and so it makes this a very special moment for me to be here in the building that honors and keeps alive his memory and spirit and extraordinary contributions to this country and to the world. i look at the historic step thezero -- towards zero from the perspective of my u.s.-based childhood, under the terrifying chattel -- shadow of the images

of hiroshima and nagasaki and the policy of mutually-assured destruction, but also through the past 35 years of my life and work in the developing world, and also as a moslem and a mother -- muslim and a mother. for me, as a global citizen, that horror is compounded by the growing threat of proliferation and nuclear terrorism, which are increasing the odds of what president kennedy warned about in a very important speech to the united nations, where he expressed his realization and commitment to working for a world without nuclear weapons. and i see the potential for continuing and expanding what are already irrational arms races in regions that the middle

east and east asia, increasing security -- increasing insecurity and the eating of a desperately-needed human development resources, especially when so many populations are under severe economic pressures and the destabilizing consequences of climate change. i believe we are at a nuclear tipping point, beyond which there may be no turning back, and at the same time we are witnessing the greatest opportunity in decades to mobilize what international polling shows us is majority support in nuclear and non- nuclear states for zero. as a moslem -- muslim, i share the moral and spiritual concerns about the genocide or role of nuclear weapons, first expressed by the scientists who created them and witness the horror of their destructive impact and were the first advocates for

what we are talking about tonight. the holy koran declares that killing an innocent is tantamount -- one innocent life -- tantamount to killing all of mankind. we know that terrorist are trying to buy, build, or steal a bomb. there is enough highly-enriched uranium in the world to build more than 100,000 bombs. we believe that global 0 -- the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear terrorism is to drain the swamp. arsenals have been reduced from the cold war high of 70,000 to the 23,000 in the world today. that is the fact that many people do not realize and it sets a precedent that should not be ignored. at global zero we're working to ensure their ratification of the new start treaty by the u.s. senate. that wil -- we will discuss

later. i do not think there is a need for me to go into that in detail. over the past few years, since we launched global zero, the movement has grown to 300 leaders, former head of state on national security advisers, defense ministers, military commanders -- from the nuclear states as well as some non- nuclear states and hundreds of thousands of citizens worldwide. our commission has developed a step-by-step plan for eliminating -- that shows how a nuclear weapons could be eliminated within two decades. it lays out the steps to elimination. it has garnered a great deal of media coverage. we have produced countdown to zero, a major theatrical film on the nuclear threat, with the team behind "and inconvenient truth -- an inconvenient truth." i think i will leave it there

and we will engage in further discussion. as a founding leader of local zero, it is, again, -- global 0, it is, again, an enormous privilege to be here. you were the berthing agent for global zero -- birthing agent for global zero. >> that's too mcuh. i did -- too much. i did have my hand in it. >> thank you for being here for this discussion. thank you to the library for making this possible and bring us together tonight. [applause] >> i was thinking that she would start. >> let us know how far this is coming down. we did not mean to be under her

e. there is a new film that has been created by the producer of "an in a convenient truth," -- "an inconvenient truth," the movie about climate and for which al gore received the global price. it is called "countdown -- the nobel prize. it is called "countdown to zero." we'll see if this works. >> we estimate that there are about 23,000 nuclear weapons in

the world. >> they have been focused on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons. >> [unintelligible] >> iran, north korea -- they are prepared to start trading nuclear-weapons technology. >> they want to kill millions of americans. you will not do that by hijacking airplanes and crushing them into buildings. >> the united states launched a rocket from norway to study the northern lights. we told the russians that we were going to do that. they opened up command-and- control launch codes, put it on

the desk and said, we're under attack. fortunately, yeltsin was not nk and did not believe what the military was telling him. >> it does not take the manhattan project. >> have to ensure that a terrorist does not succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon. . the altman number is 9. >> we would be a better off without it. >> none. >> none. >> the weapons of war must be

abolished before they abolish house. -- abolish us. [applause] >> can i add one thing? and has already been released in 85 cities in the united states. i think it has come to boston. and will be released on dvd on november 23rd. a great christmas present and something that should be circulated as widely as possible. >> a good advertisement. i think, as a film device for capturing some much complexity, the producers, binder and

walker, did an extraordinary job. it is a very engaging movie. i second the the queen's suggestion. you're involved, i think, as a consultant. i would be interested in both with you in the jonathan would say about the filming as a way to get into this topic. >> i brought an international perspective to the film. that is where i advised in various ways of looking at where the big picture is concerned and how we can make the film resonate as effectively and compellingly as possible and in many different states, not just for an american audience. that is where i focused on.

jonathan could probably address this. >> i was not much involved tell you the truth. the way i see it is an attempt to add a missing piece to the puzzle. there is one wonderful development that has occurred in the last six or seven years, with no small thanks to global 0, and that is that the officials who were involved in the cold war and that thereafter have almost unanimously embraced the idea of going to zero nuclear weapons or free world.o there was a steel wall of resistance from those people. to me, this movie reflects this wonderful change.

it was like a door opening. the missing piece in the follows public involvement. it plummeted since the end of the world war. the opportunity is here. now we have the advocacy by those most involved and we do not have the public involvement in this. the movie is taking a giant step in the direction of the bringing that about. i am very much encouraged to see how many people here we have here this evening in that perspective. >> that the texas up from there. it is an often observed point, mentioned this,vs that if you talk about nuclear weapons, they said that is what the cold war is about. the cold war ended before i was born and someone.

why is this still is subject now? those of us to study know that even though the cold war ended, the physical objects, the nuclear bombs or the material from which you can make nuclear bombs like enriched uranium and plutonium have a lines of tens of thousands of years said they do not just go away. i think it is correct that it is not very vivid. >> i grew up as a young child and we went through, i do not know how many of you remember duck and cover. i was in school in california at the time. i was ducking under a wooden

desk and that was supposed to protect me from a nuclear holocaust between the united states and russia. it was terrifying to grow up with. it did not leave me for a very, very long time. we have student chapters now around the united states, one at harvard, and in other countries throughout the world that are expanding at a reasonably fast rate right now. and the stated seeing these films are quite stunned. first of all, as he said, there are not aware. there have not been discussions since the 1980's about these issues. and has not been front and center. it has become much more complex and dangerous that over the years that they cannot quite believe that we have not addressed this. at the same time, was very disheartening is that they have

become very anxious to engage in this and use their voices and to help mobilize others in their communities to get involved as well. as you said, the key is public opinion. it is not only in this country, but it is public opinion in all of the states that have to support in some cases the courageous decisions that leaders are committed to but need the grass-roots support for or to turn the mind set of leaders who have used nuclear weapons as a status symbol to support their own domestic credibility or under the guise of necessary security to secure their states against neighboring house style states. it is our detriment that is

about that and perhaps the two of you can develop that further. >> why do you not go first? >> you can. >> it is a peculiar situation that we are in a nuclear rage. we developed the conviction during the cold war and it was a two-hour thing. in reality, the dilemma of was the knowledge of how to develop nuclear weapons that would be available to wall. scientists back in 1945 understood that. that is about nuclear proliferation room beyond states to terrorist groups. i think the new underlying reality which, in a sense, is a

deeper reality than the cold war is beginning to surface now and we can see it. gramm has written eloquently about the senate think the movie picks up this story, too. it is just picking its nose up out of the water and people beginning to see this and react. we have to encompass and grasp with this new shape is. we cannot just go along with the old cold war rhetoric. we need to see what it is today and how it is approaching this with new avenues and new directions. >> i struggle with this. during the cold war, it was such a day vivid reality of that it could be a war to kill us all. as i grew up in college and i

work for the defense department and otherwise, and you could genuinely feel the possibility. president kennedy would go back to the cuban missile crisis in 1962 there was a fight about a one in three chance of going to a nuclear war. the people who lived experience in the american and soviet governments never got over it. the scent of nuclear burning in the year, as one had said. i spoke to dick lugar about this recently. how did things look? we were going back-and-forth.

i good indiana, i am there for three weeks, no one asks me about start, no one asks me about nuclear weapons. i talked my colleagues in the senate and they said the senate is not interested. i think, and i applaud very much the film as a way to try to raise consciousness, but i still do not think it has broken through sufficiently. i think it is one that requires a lot more imagination. it is so exciting for someone like you to be taking a really serious interest in raising consciousness. >> we screen the film at the cannes film festival among a

variety of locations. and no friend of mine was there, george lucas. -- an old friend of mine was there. i was tapping in his experience of how we could insurer -- ensure to get this the amount and circulated. his responses one that reflects the believe 7 number of different experts which is that it is non -- the belief of a number of different experts which that it is not the belief that a bomb off, it is just a question of land. his comment to me was that we really would not make progress until the first bomb goes off. in fierce as i was by the spirit of president kennedy, i am

devoting myself to try and minimize the likelihood that a dirty bomb will go off even though when understand the perspective of those who feel it is inevitable. that is the moment at which we will mobilize, but it will also have devastating repercussions in terms of the psyche of people in every country in the world. also with the nature of our society would be. we have to work to prevent it occurring, i believe. that is why i am involved. >> president obama gets this issue, i think. i do not know, for the audience, how much to track the conversation, but this is back

in the airport to thousand nine speaking to nato and the prague -- this is back in april 2009. the april -- the europeans are worried about a breakdown. he then got a chance in september 2009 to go to the u.n. as the leaders go every year. it just happened that the u.s. was the chair of the security council. they said they wanted to talk about nuclear weapons. they said, "forget about it. they were in the midst of a financial crisis. that was not the topic. being in charge, that is what they wanted to do. last april they had a nuclear security summit, the first-ever gathering of the heads of state

for a single topic, the securing of all nuclear materials. it was the biggest gathering of heads of state at the invitation of the american presidents since fdr invited people to san francisco for what became the u.n. he is invested in this topic which is on the one hand. on the other hand, the new start treaty which david referred to in the introduction is a modest reduction, not dramatic, not significantly different from the trend in line that goes right from president kennedy and president reagan when we began trying to limit and then reduced the number is struggling for life in the u.s. senate.

it does not seem encouraging. what is encouraging here? >> there are lots of encouraging things. you mention we have a president who's committed to the united states and nuclear weapons which is a very big deal. if you ask the public how they would like to get rid of nuclear weapons, 75% say yes, they do not care, but they say yes. the majority of a retired officials, current and former secretaries of state and defense, have signed up for a world free of nuclear weapons. this is what is so mysterious. the more i think about this the more mysterious it becomes about me. the longer ago, the less i know. to wit, how is it that in 2010

that this very modest, common- sense approach 3d -- common treaty may not pass in the senate? these tactical weapons in europe were put there to prevent a soviet attack on nato forces in western europe. the last, i looked, the cold war was over the soviet union was not there anymore. this is a remnant of their remnant of this strange shot a leftover from the cold war. yes, today in native there is a meeting in early reports are that they will be unable -- today there is a meeting in nato and they will be unable to withdraw these weapons. for all the positive energies

that are in favor of reducing nuclear weapons that they are incredibly tenaciously in our world. they have this sort of momentum that comes from the weapons themselves almost as if human beings were irrelevant. i do not know where it comes from. maybe queen nor or -- noor or graham can comment done those. why is this becoming a policy- free zone? there is a mysterious momentum more inertia of their that is getting in the way. >> the other side of the point of what you are saying is that president obama has a partner in president medvedev. but they have made joint commitment and the start treaty

is a joint treaty and it was preceded by a joint statement said commitments that have been reiterated time and time again. the history of the start treaty is a non-partisan history of and it has non-carsten non-partisan or bipartisan support which is how would pass through the first committee in the senate. i cannot speak to the history of of the psychology of man well enough to answer that question. one month -- one book, "american prometheus," is a good book about the beginning, oppenheimer, and the other scientists and the mentality and struggle that is at play today really within the u.s. government. it is quite extraordinary that

we keep repeating history. what is different today, as you have already heard, is that not only are there nine states and the potential for more perforation -- a proliferation is that the year -- there are non-state actors who are poised and trying very hard to acquire weapons-grade material that is not well secured. then you have states like pakistan that where competing forces have said they will use the nuclear arsenal to attack the u.s. these are not to be dismissed. within states with arsenals and

among these non-state actors. there is a chilling countdown to zero of a citizen of a former soviet state trying to sell h.e.u. to people he believe represent members of a terrorist organization. he's trying to sell this. he's poor. his greatest and -- his greatest ambition in life is to have a lamb beginning. this is just one snapshot -- is to have lamborghini. you can see what motivates people who may well have access to these poorly stored materials

in the soviet union and elsewhere. we have to drain the swamp to protect ourselves. it is not just a question of the nuclear states that are beginning to accept that the weapons make them less secure. >> just another footnote on the film, and as artistic element of the film were the photos of oppenheimer who was the mastermind for the first american nuclear bomb. he became haunted by what he had done. there is a fantastic set of pictures that occur from time to time in the film. one was that black-and-white image that we had seen.

this is a little bit like listening to the choir in that your 3 people who agree much more substantially. >> you and i used to disagree. maybe we could work cats that are old disagreements for the sake of an argument. >> i will try to stir it. badri -- >> of we're trying to get a better understanding of why anyone would be against the proposition that is being argued. i will play the devil's advocate and there is one point that jonathan wrote about on the first book of this topic which is one of the big obstacles of getting to 0, and there are half of a dozen of them, but let's talk about this one, is what you wrote about in 1982. "excuse me.

we have already learned how to make nuclear weapons. we cannot disinvent this or forget how to make nuclear weapons." if we cannot disinvent, that even if we eliminated all the nuclear weapons, someone could make another nuclear weapon. how many are too many? according to the argument, one is it too many. zero is the right number. then the question is, well if we are at 0 today, how many days away are we from one? if one is not the right number than 10 or 20 darks -- 20? when i worry about this problem, i think we have to recognize your proposition that while we cannot this invent -- disinvent,

people will know how to make nuclear weapons so someone will make a more even if all the current ones were eliminated said then if the person or the party may make nuclear weapons is one that is threatening to me that i need to think about whether i need to be ready to make nuclear weapons, too, or a timetable that is not too far off of there'irs. how do you disinvent nuclear weapons? >> you cannot, of course. just today i coined a very ugly phrase. this is the "undisinventability" of nuclear weapons. >> of the translate it into german, it would work great.

>> it is very dramatic. -- germanic. this is a question that i have given a lot of thought to. it is perfectly true that you cannot disinvent them, so a world without them is under threat from a breakout. what i came to believe pretty soon after writing that book that graham mentioned is that what people are forgetting is that if it comes to that to men they also have the same ability that it is undisinventable for them, too. if you look to the balance of forces at zero, it is not just one country that will pop up with a nuclear weapon to rule

the world. they are in a very short order going to face other nuclear powers not to mention the mass conventional light of the world. -- might of the world. like to speak of weaponless deterrent. it is not such a big watershed as it looks like when the last piece of hardware is disassembled. when you think about it, it turns ... -- turns out that zero could be nothing other than a technical arrangement where you have driven it back a certain point. maybe you just pull apart the weapons and put components in certain places. the only way you can get to what i would call an apples -- an absolute zero is a political

decision. you're either ban their production as a crime against community for any purpose whatsoever. that is a stage beyond what may serve as an interim zero to this political absolute zero. >> is the speculation a better than nine states with nuclear weapons? >> that is right and it is the comparison people often fail to make. they speak of this as you can wave of the merits and demerits of the world without nuclear weapons without comparing it to our current world which is one of spreading technical know-how, as we have discussed. we are to the point in a nuclear age which was baked into the cake at the very beginning when it would spread beyond states to groups that are not states and with all of the terrorists that flow from that. you have to compare our

existing, immediate, and near future of our current path with the admitted dangers that to persist in a world without nuclear weapons. >> i would save absolutely what you said, i understand and i think it is a strong part of the argument. let's imagine stolen. he had no problem -- let's imagine stalin. he had no problem telling russians. whether he has agreed to do something, a law, a treaty, whether you have to do something dastardly, that was not a problem for him. now there is a world in which there are nuclear weapons that have been eliminated. i at least half ask myself how many days we are aware from

enough nuclear weapons to make a significant difference in terms of the threat made about when he gets there and when i may get their. what is his time line? how do i even know what his time line is? do i think it is weeks, months? should i be prepared? ok. let's be prepared. >> him a suspect us of having in tensions. >> he was a very suspicious guy. and maybe even with some grounding in some cases. sir jonathan is playing the american here.

do you think he could be getting started today? well, he might. we do not want to fall behind. we don't want them to get there before i do or vice versa. in security studies are theory, if iience feared h get there first, you are not going any further. if you do, there'll be one nuclear bomb that drops. how about two or three or four? how'd you get around that dilemma? >> those are tough questions, for sure. >> in the first place, as i say, the actual steps, the nuts and bolts of an abolition agreement cannot be anything but an agreement on where both

stand, so the starting line is the same. i am prepared to admit that if you have a major state, a formerly nuclear states such as russia or the soviet union when you speak of stalin, that seeks to break out, then probably the only response is to break out yourself. i think that an abolition agreement such as proposed by global 0, that actually depends on a willingness -- readiness of those great powers to do it. there is not a magical group carlsberg -- route kohlberg machine. you have to make a political judgment to begin with that the

powers are sincere. otherwise, you get into these very subtle questions. in other words, evaluating how much is it worthwhile for a power to gain a nuclear advantage for one or two months, or whatever would have been decided in a lot of political suspicions and political reality. if you look into that question, and i don't want to go on too long, but it turns out that it is worth a lot less in that time period that you might be facing than would seem at first blush when people say that in the lead of the blind, the one eyed man is king, and so forth. >> what would you say about the

general topic? >> one of the facts today is of course that no nation has been able to develop weapons grade materials without detection by intelligence agencies, since 1945, to date. the other is that for example, the global zero plan encompasses, as does any reasonable plan, verification, safeguards, interested inspections, which is also part of the start treaty. one of the arguments being made by many, because as the start treaty laps on the first of december, since that time, many are concerned has been no inspection of the russian arsenals, and vice versa. the point is that there are a variety of steps that would form part of an agreement that include a very intrusive set of safeguards and verification procedures, and the other fact

that i am not sure if perhaps in the future that to be somehow worked around, but to date there has been no manufacturer of weapons grade material without detection by another state. so you are not talking about a few months after weapon goes off. you are talking about a period of time after the detection of the process starting to create weapons grade material. that is maybe a smaller time frame, at least to date. >> exactly. i think there is great reassurance to be had in the record of inspection. we can think of iraq after the first gulf war and other examples, but it has been rather encouraging. >> the record of the iaea in its inspection of the places is allowed to inspect is

outstanding. its record about what was the reality before the 2003 iraq i invasion turned out to be a whole lot better than american intelligence judgment. let me take one more ankle and we will get some questions from the audience where you are supposed to be filling out a card if you have one. they will collect them and bring the men. queen noor, you get a chance to see this from a non "american , even though you were born in america and you are streaming in from a country that is america friendly, but you are still able to look a little bit outside. americans are so preoccupied with ourselves and our view of the world and how things are. what do americans mostly miss about this topic, from an

international perspective? >> a thing because i had the luxury of growing up and being educated in this country, it became easy to consider myself a citizen of the world once i had lived and worked in other countries. without that an inmate -- in any way diminishing my attachment to this country or stored or any other. i feel that what is missed, a lot of it is in the film, " countdown to zero." it was described as making the reality of the current state of affairs, and also the history that has taken us to this point, mary excess of will to any audience. -- very accessible. one of the areas not discussed that is extremely important in

the larger international community when looking at this subject and looking at the tensions that have been increasing in terms of rhetoric and international discourse over proliferation in particular is the fact that much of the international community views the nuclear state positions, if you will, to date, as having been a position of setting double standards. relief from the start, actually, but certainly today, that is a very important issue that needs to be tackled, and why global 0 or at least an international, multilateral framework that brings together the nuclear states, that needs to be

preceded -- the new start treaty and then another commitment to cuts by the united states and russia. that needs to be preceded by another stage of cuts. and then you have a chance of bringing -- setting up a multilateral process that will bring in most if not eventually all of the other nuclear states. it is critical that that process leads to a commitment to a set of requirements and responsibilities and standards that apply to everyone equally. then, i think, you begin to have a dynamic in place that will liers ifery clear out liar

proliferation continues when all nuclear states have agreed to the goal of zero. i may not have articulated that very well, but the double standard is a very important issue that resonates a round of world that is never discussed in this country, and yet is critical when you look at countries like iran or north korea or india and pakistan and israel, or looking at any potential new nuclear state. >> i think that is absolutely a key thing. i am very much in favor of a firm and highly articulated commitment to war without nuclear weapons as an immediate factor -- a world without nuclear weapons. nuclear powers decided seriously and believably to do without nuclear weapons themselves are

going to be much more committed and much more persuasive in arguing, pressuring, what have you, other states into either rolling back their own arsenals or rolling back their nuclear programs and not heading down that path. i think that the commitment -- i like to say i am in favor of our front loaded approach. right now we have sort of let's take a step and then late what the net step would be. i think we are building a tremendous force for non- proliferation by taking a gradual approach. >> queen noor, you underline to the double standard proposition. on a couple of occasions when serving in the u.s. government i have found myself trying to explain why nuclear weapons are good for the u.s. and bad for somebody else. [laughter] of course there are about 11

good reasons, but if you are not a diplomat, conveying them without smiling is difficult. i think there is no question there is the dimension of the issue. there is another question i wanted to raise, which is if without nuclear weapons -- let's imagine a world without nuclear weapons. but big military asymmetries' where there are big and strong states and little weak states. imagine a big strong stakes from time to time decide that when a little, smaller state is doing, they don't like them pursuing it, they don't like their human rights record, or they don't like their seeming to be threatening. ,o any case, they decide know

we should talk you in making over to be a difference type of country. i am the leader of a small, weaker country, those nuclear weapons would provide a security blanket or equalizer. imagine saddam hussein having a nuclear arsenal. with the u.s. have attacked him and toppled him in 2003? had this question at least been thought of by someone like kim jong il or maybe i even the movers in tehran? without nuclear weapons, i can come in and destroy you or your regime. are you going to be happy to be without that potential security just because i have said i am

forswearing nuclear weapons? >> i will comment on that. i will make a factual point. we do live in such a world right now. in other words, we have countries that only have nuclear weapons but also -- as a factual matter, there are 184 countries in the world that have nevertheless agreed to not except those advantages by getting an agreement under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. this problem does not seem as a factual matter to be a very great one. it certainly would be a handful of countries that would be thinking in the way you suggest, but she would have to work out some security arrangement with them or you would agree not to attack them. >> iran has committed to a

weapons of mass destruction freed, larger middle east zone. it has committed to that. various ayatollahs have come out and said these are weapons of genocide, they are taboo in islam. it is back to the point you are making before, if you have an international norm that is committed to it by the nuclear states and you are moving toward zero in a proportion that an equitable fashion, then you will be able to mobilize what is not possible now, much more likely an international consensus, to target anyone who breaks out or resist joining what has become an international norm, binding everyone to the same obligation. i think that is part of another

asset to the process. right now, you cannot galvanized international consensus on those states that are potential proliferators because there are those double standards in place. there is no international consensus. i think it is 187 states, possibly, and there are states to have given up their nuclear weapons program such as south africa, who had an established nuclear weapons program. it is proven it can be done. there are states and latin america that are on their way and could have met together and agreed to pull back and to commit to a nuclear-free zone in latin america, if only india and pakistan might see their way to that. there are examples and precedents. >> for people who do not follow this technical banter, when i

give my little quiz for students, how many states have nuclear weapons and eliminated them? one, for sure, made six nuclear bombs itself and eliminated six nuclear bombs. that is south africa. three other states, ukraine, kazakhstan, and belarus, have all been zeroed out. this is not an inconceivable thing. the second point you make which is extremely important, how many states have started down the path seriously to nuclear weapons and stopped before they got there were backed up? the answer is twice as many as those who have got nuclear- weapons, including brazil, sweden, italy, quite a number of states. >> the smart states. [laughter]

>> let me go to questions from the audience. i am going to simply read the question and we will see who wants to answer. given broad, tacit, public support for a new start, it appears that the primary motivation of opposing republican senators is the lack of political costs. how would you suggest enhancing public awareness to ensure senators are conscious of the political cost and therefore respond to this public interest? cracks in the lame-duck session? -- >> in the lame-duck session? [laughter] >> that is for you. >> that is for you, you are the american. [laughter] i never wanted to be a politician.

>> i was at a session last night at the kennedy school in the title of it was "strange bedfellows." it was jeb bush, who was the governor of florida from 1998 to 2008. he has been a visiting fellow at the kennedy school. michelle lee, who is the kennedy school graduate, who was the chancellor of the d.c. school system who lost her job when the mayor lost his job over the fact that they were making such serious progress in education in d.c. margaret spelling, who is a fellow at the school who was

george bush's secretary of education, and john podesta, who was clinton's chief of staff and who is very interesting in education -- interested in education. someone asked how is it that somehow or other a state like florida, who under jeb bush went from being close to the bottom in terms of performance in high schools and grade schools, came to be in the top quartile of? every year it has been getting better, and he did not get much credit for it. similarly, in the d.c. case, in two years, they had changed things dramatically, but did not get a lot of public credit for it.

the argument that michelle lee made, she said how are you going to get those politicians now to act on this basis? it is not one where sensible republicans and democrats have a difference of view. this panel was about 90% to be agreed among themselves. michelle said, if on one hand you have do-footers from the kennedy school to have good arguments and go to senator jones and say here are the seven departments why you should do this in the public interest, and on the other hand, an organized group comes and says we will give you money and workers for your campaign, which one does the senator follow? i would say that is the question. >> that is what we produced the

film and why meetings like this are important. one of our partners is the history channel with countdown to 0, which is also going to get the message out. would you do in this narrow time frame of the lame-duck session, i don't know, except that i think there is a lot that can be done. it needs people like both of you and others who are experts in just to flood washington, i think, and just make this argument. this is an issue that i don't think has yet been decided. there is tending to be a kind of pessimism about whether or not the senate will pass this treaty, or whether or not that will be able to bring it up with the votes that are necessary. on the other hand there are those who feel there is the possibility there, because u.s. military leadership supports this. as you mentioned, all the political leaders of both parties -- there is no logical

reason at all, and every reason for supporting this treaty. it would just be that worst side of american politics if it does not come up and be voted on. >> to go back to michele's. , if i were a senator and i of that by not voting for something the great majority of my constituents want, i would be in jeopardy. i think this would impact my thinking. i think there may be something more concrete that citizens can do in terms of communicating their view that this is an extremely important issue about which the national security

establishment is virtually unanimous. it is not like there is not a strong argument on substantive grounds. >> if there were an nra for this issue, start would have been passed months ago. >> did anyone see jon stewart last night? it was pretty funny. he was taking the media out of fox news and their attacks on george soros and he brought in rupert murdoch and yet shall boards and all the puppets and all the paraphernalia of glenn beck targeting it george soros. it came to mind as we were talking, because the accusations are that there are these puppet masters that have resources and have media control who are able to do exactly what we are talking about.

but i would imagine it -- i know there are a great many people who are committed to this, but it is going to be a very complex process. i don't think we should give up. i would ask our audience, anyone of you who can have any impact on any group or individual or political decision maker, to please engage, because one person at -- we were talking earlier about the assassination beforee minister rabin' we came on stage. the impact that one person can have on the direction on which critical events ago they can have an impact for generations. i would say that everyone of you in this audience should consider themselves -- assume that responsibility that president kennedy advocated so

beautifully. ask what you can do, because everyone can do something. sometimes it can be the thing that tips the balance. >> another question from the audience. i think the reason for the entrenchment of the nuclear arsenal is fear. each country fears to be the first to get rid of its nuclear weapons, because of the lack of trust that the other countries will follow suit. doesn't the u.s., by refusing to ratify the new start treaty, reinforce that fear? >> yes. [laughter]

maybe i should make that the shortest answer. >> it reinforces all the worst aspects of a political system, a country that should be a leader in the world, and plays to the worst forces, the most dangerous forces at play in this larger issue. >> if you remember, and i have to remind myself every now and then what a nuclear weapon really is and what these things do, and if you recall that there is no city on earth that cannot be leveled by a nuclear weapon of the appropriate size. of all the hundreds of thousands, even millions of people killed and casualties, if you introduce such an instrument into the relationship between countries, then you have a cycle such as you get from

nothing else. i think the question is a very deep one. we are in the grip of fear, and i think that does go a long way to explain why we cannot dig ourselves out, because the very fact of these horrible, horrible instruments, the very presence, even when we are not thinking about it, even when the public is in different, what kind of know that we are under the mushroom cloud. it seems to be independent even of political quarrel. it seems political quarrels can come and go and that fear persists and causes us to clutch on to our nuclear weapons. >> is a question of fear or a question of domestic politics as it is a question in a number of other nuclear states? are the senators afraid, do they

not have access to all the rational arguments being made by the military? >> i think they played to fear. >> but this is domestic politics and lack of statesmanship. >> i think it is. >> this is traditionally a bipartisan issue. >> is something is a matter simply a domestic politics, and if the citizens who are required to vote for me have a very strong view and express it, maybe i will change my position. >> there should be much more passion out there about this issue. that is the problem. >> here is a question about nuclear terrorism. the main obstacle to eliminating the threat of nuclear terrorism is stopping the smuggling of illicit nuclear materials, with

the queen had referred to earlier. all of the disruptions of smuggling have essentially been locked. in the film, the chief intelligence searcher for this makes the point that in every case in which nuclear weapons usable material has been intercepted, it has not been reported missing. every case. what can the international community do to address this issue, if we cannot stop smuggling marijuana from mexico, what can we do to improve the likelihood that we would stop nuclear smuggling? >> drained the swamps. >> since you have written a whole book on this, i reluctant to turn it over to you, but i think you should answer. >> i short answer would be that

the likelihood of a country like the u.s., as open as we are, preventing terrorists smuggling of nuclear bombs successfully to an american city, if terrorists get a nuclear bomb, is pretty low. we should work hard, and it is good to have higher fences and more barriers and more complications, but if we know for sure that drugs come to our cities, we know for sure that people come illegally into the country, all of the trails along which drugs come to a city or the same trails that could be used in bringing a nuclear bomb to a city. as sam nunn likes to say, every mile away from the source it easier for the terrorists and harder for the defenders. the point is then that at the

source, all nuclear weapons should be locked down to a gold standard, which was the focus of this nuclear security summit. if it were openly eliminated so that there were no nuclear materials, then there would be no nuclear terrorism. >> that is another component of zero.l we have not talked about globalizing the fuel supply. you have an international as ization of that critical fuel supply. >> it parallels the path to stopping nuclear weapons. >> in the sam nunn metaphor, he

has a good metaphor in which he says for those who find the idea of a world free of nuclear weapons still a little far- fetched, and i would say that includes me, i am a doubting thomas supporter -- he says let me explain to you how you can think about it, and i like this metaphor a lot. he uses it as a way to help audiences understand. zero is like the top of the mound, and from the valley, where we are now, seeing the top of the mountain is pretty hazy. unit of -- there are clouds and various mountain ranges. but you have an idea of what the direction is. the task is to start working your way up to the base camps.

a base camp that get you from where we are now to all nuclear weapons and materials that exist locked up as good as gold is not the end of the journey, but if you fail to get their, after a nuclear bomb or to have gone off in various cities, it will be a world so chaotic. the proposition is, we have it almost unanimous for people who work the securities of these issues, the concept of where we need to be going. when you get to a base camp, as you do when climbing mountains, all of a sudden you look up and think, look at that, there is a peek up there that i could not see very clearly from lower.

here is another question from the audience. who profits from the proliferation of nuclear weapons? >> a very good question. what about the corporations or individuals who profit from this? we were chatting a little bit about this before. what about that? >> all weapons systems have profits attached to the corporations that make those profits. if there is no countervailing force, those pressures will prevail. it is kind of business as usual. but these are not unbeatable pressures, and in fact we see that the arsenals of the united states and russia actually have been cut by more than half since the height of the cold war. as far as financial pressures

are concerned, that alone shows you that these can be defeated. by political will. >> i like that answer. >> earlier we were chatting a little bit about the father of the pakistan nuclear bomb program. here is a fellow who built the pakistani nuclear bomb program and was a hero in pakistan, who simultaneously was the world's first nuclear black marketeer, selling nuclear weapons and materials to buyers everywhere. he sold to libya, iran, north

korea. he was not infrequent visitor to saudi. his travel itinerary was quite remarkable. he amassed a substantial fortune for himself. he had 17 palatial houses in different parts of the world by the time he was finally apprehended. what about that dimension? >> why was the hero in pakistan? because the united states did not share nuclear technology in russia in the 1940's, some would say, and then come to a mutual agreement not to use it. but that is a moot point. but the u.s. and russia started along their trail, then china felt that it had -- i don't know that china came before france

and great britain. then china injured, for obvious reasons. you can understand, they felt they had better be a nuclear power as the other powers that were felt it was necessary for their security, then india felt if china had the weapon it needed to acquire the weapon, because there were longstanding tensions between india and china. and then pakistan in 1974 decided if india has a weapon, then we will get the weapons. that is why he is a hero and pakistan. the weapon became an iconic symbol of national pride and an instrument of security, of defense of security, so to speak. that is how they arrived at that crazy point. that is my answer to the question. >> i think that is a good answer. unfortunately, that is another

dynamic of the issue that has to be taken into account. unfortunately, it is my responsibility as a moderator to say that we have come to the witching hour. let me not try to summarize but simply to say this film, count down to zero, i think it is a good introduction to the topic for those who want to go little further. it be on dvd on november 23. >> the these two gentlemen have written some extraordinary books about the subject that are also, like the film, wonderful. >> there will be a discussion of this with highlights of the film done at the kennedy school forum on december 1, and valerie

plsmr will be there for this -- valerie plame will be there for discussion. on behalf of the library and the audience, i want to say what an honor it has been to be part of a panel with queen noor and how much we admire her taking her time, energy, and imagination to devote to this topic, and to say to jonathan that we have enjoyed being part of the panel, so thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> just ahead on c-span, recollections of the first televised presidential debate

that in 1960 between john kennedy and richard nixon. and presidential debate preparation, history, and usefulness. then a conversation about job availability for veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan. in an interview with gentry collins, who is challenging michael steele in his reelection bid as rnc chairman. >> i think a mistake a lot of british people who follow british politics make is to think that they are broadly comfortable with the american system. that your president is like our prime minister and you have your parliament and we have to a large. well, no, our prime minister has a lot more power than your president. >> "q&a" continues to not with interviews from london, comparing the british and american forms of government. the power of the prime minister,

taxes, social issues, and the cost of living. tonight at 8:00 eastern on "q&a". >> monday on "washington journal," steven emerson, head of the investigating project on terrorism talks about islamic radicalism within the u.s.. darrell west exam and u.s. immigration policy in his book, and part of our series on food policy, attorney sarah klein looks at new food safety legislation passed by congress. we begin with the day's news and your calls, e-mail's, and tweaks, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. monday is day one of american university's annual campaign management institute, a training students to work on political campaigns. we'll hear from political consultants and strategists from both parties. topics include the general political environment and the

chicago mayor's race. we'll have live coverage starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> now, views on the first televised presidential debate back in 1960, which john kennedy and richard nixon. former abc news anger charles gibson and 1988 democratic nominee michael dukakis recall that in counter. they talk about presidential debate preparation, usefulness, and likely changes in the future. this is just under an hour and 20 minutes. >> it is being hosted commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the first present -- first televised presidential debate between then senator kennedy and vice president richard nixon. my name is carl cannon. i am the executive director of politics daily. i was a fellow at the institute

politics and i am happy to be back. i like to recognize before we cluver.enter john kohlber he is the interim director of the institute of politics. he was a lifelong friend of ted kennedy and the kennedy family and has been on the board since 1975. he is a great friend to harvard and the kennedy school and the institute of politics. as we mark the 50th anniversary of the kennedy-nixon presidential debate, it seems old hat, but that was the first presidential debate we ever had. i really honored. these people have all had a role in presidential debates, and it is a very interesting panel.

our speakers, i will introduce them briefly. you probably know most of them. i will start with governor michael dukakis. he began his career as a town meeting member in massachusetts and he rose through the ranks of democratic politics and became lieutenant governor. he was governor of massachusetts. he was such a successful governor that the democrats nominated him for the presidency in 1988. he is on this panel the only person who has actually participated in a presidential debate. he will talk about that. on his left is trawls gibson. he has seen it -- charles gibson. he has seen every presidential debate. >> everyone. >> he has also covered every presidential campaign for the last 30 years. charlie moderated a presidential

debate between george w. bush and senator john kerry in 2004 and moderated the debate two years ago during the democratic primary. next to charlie is a social order nor and founder of a personal -- social on japan noe. he will help us look into the future and zero presidential debates are headed. to my immediate left is mike mccurry. i have known mike and he is a princeton man. i have known him since he started in politics. he has had a long career in democratic politics but also is a spokesman for the state

department and the white house. he set a standard for openness in dealing with the press, and effectiveness for the president. these are two skills that you have to negotiate, and he is really the standard by which modern press secretaries are measured. he was also co-chairman of the president -- commission on presidential debates. i am trying to get him to wear the hat where he prepped candidates, the official hat. nicole wallison is director of communications in at the doorstep bush white house -- indeed george w. bush white house. she and mike are friends. nicole also earned a reputation as a person who argued within the white house for more openness. she also worked on the sarah

palin campaign, and if i favre heard tonight, it is not because she is the only one or the only republican -- if i favre heard tonight. the if i favor her tonight. please, no speeches, just make your question, and identify yourself before you ask your question. with that we are going to see a clip from the kennedy-nixon debate era to help get us started. >> in 1950, only 4 million homes have a television, but by 1960, it reached 44 million homes. it was september 26, 1960.

congress had made possible direct presidential debates by presidential candidates for the first time. chicago was chosen as the scene for the first great debate. in the studio, producer don hewitt prepared for the arrival of nixon and kennedy. representatives inspected and approved each detail of preparation, down to the shade of gray in the painting of the set. vice-president nixon was the first to arrive. he had campaigned right for the morning and paused only in an afternoon for solitary rest, without staff or entourage. now he listens while the rules of tv debate are explained. >> i think what he will say is

the first question now to senator kennedy. you may not want to get up until he is finished. howard will hit the gavel. >> so do you want to quit quickly? >> when you see 30 seconds -- howard will give you a few seconds over the cut. >> i understand. >> looking right at the camera here, can you look this way please?

[crosstalk] >> i leave first thing in the morning. >> thanks very much. >> come on, come on. can we clear the shot? if everybody will move back, please. >> david, will you hit the one minute switch, please? >> can you hear me now, speaking? is that about the right tone of voice? it is a pleasure to be here tonight to participate in this program which opens up a series of discussions, sometimes known as great debates. >> both of silence as their time

approaches, composing themselves as the largest audience in political history prepares to measure to men for leadership. all across the nation, parents quiet their children. is 8:30, as millions been forward to hear the future president. >> it really separate slashes, a magic mascara. >> originally scheduled programs will love the scene tonight. next week at this time of the andy griffith show and hennessy will be seen on most of these stations. >> and good evening. >> of television and radio stations of the united states and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities for discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the

presidency. the candidates need no introduction. is president richard m. nixon and the democratic candidate, senator john f. kennedy. according to rules set by the candidates themselves, each man will make an opening statement of approximately eight minutes duration and a closing statement of approximately three minutes duration. the candidates will answer or comment on answers to questions put by a panel of correspondence. >> the audience for the first debate is almost too huge to measure. researchers will claim each debate caught the attention of almost 70 million americans. >> and now for the first opening statement by senator john f. kennedy. >> mr. smith, mr. nixon, in the election of 1860, abraham lincoln said the question was whether this nation could exist half slave or half free. in the election of 1960 and with the world around us, the

question is whether the world will exist half slave or half free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road we are taking, or whether it will move in the direction of slavery. i think it will depend in great measure upon what we do here in the united states. on the kind of society that we build, on the kind of strength that we maintain. >> the subject of the chicago debate was domestic affairs. kennedy spent a relaxing day preparing as if for a college exam. kennedy directs himself not so much to nixon as to the unseen audience is of the nation. >> in 1930 -- in 1933, franklin roosevelt set that this generation of americans has a rendezvous with destiny. i think our generation of americans has the same right to boo. the question now is, can freedom be maintained under the most severe attack has ever known? i think it can be, and i think in the final analysis, it depends upon what we do here.

i think it is time america started moving again. >> and now the opening statement by vice-president richard m. nixon. >> nixon addresses himself chiefly to kennedy, and debater style. >> the things that senator kennedy has said, many of us can agree with. there is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the united states without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. there is no question but that this nation cannot stand still, because we are in a deadly competition, competition not only with the men in the kremlin but the men in peking. we are ahead in this competition, as senator kennedy has implied. but when you are in a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. and i subscribe completely to the spirit that senator kennedy

has expressed tonight, the spirit that the united states should move ahead. where, then, do we disagree? i think we disagree on the application of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made on many occasions during his campaign, to the effect that the united states has been standing still. >> the nixon campaign stressed the vice president's superior maturity and experience, but face to face, the two men seemed evenly matched. with this debate, the nixon claim is shaken. nixon in his first debate leaves a disappointing image in the minds of millions of americans. for years, men and women will argue won or lost the chicago debate, but political analysts will agree that the debates were the most important single episode of the campaign. >> governor, i like to start with you.

first of all, do you remember that debate? >> nobody watched the debate for gets it. >> did you ever imagine you, yourself would be a presidential nominee? >> never. >> tell us what your reaction was. >> the rap bob and kennedy going into the debate was that he was young and experience and not really up to the job. the single most important thing that happened in that debate was when it was over, it was clear that he was certainly the match for nixon in that respect. the whole idea that he was too young to have experience and that kind of thing just went by the boards. that did not mean that the race was over. this was a very tough race. that particular part of it, in the sense that he is 42 and young, and was the up to this leadership in the cold war, which you can see from the

introduction is so dominated our lives at the time, he effectively ended that discussion. >> let me stay with you for one more question. you just graduated from harvard law school that year. did you get personal inspiration from this? >> in my own case, there were two people that had a profound influence on me and propelled me into elective politics. one was a guy named joe mccarthy who got me so mad. >> your not talking about the baseball manager. >> he had other problems. [laughter] >> or joe mccarthy was once so drunk that he walked away from the pitcher's mound. those were the days when boos and major league baseball went hand in hand. the first time i really started

thinking about maybe going into elected politics, and if you think this is tough, you should have been there then. this was a scary time in american political history. kennedy was an enormous inspiration to all of us. he had extraordinary appeal to young people. i really watched him in action for the first time here at harvard when i was in law school. he had come over from a meeting are -- a meeting of the harvard corporation. he came over to us and they stood in one corner and we stood in the other corner. he came into this group with about 400 harvard law school students. he said i am not going to make a speech and started answering questions. it was one of most impressive performances i ever saw.

he really had an enormous impact on those of us who were just beginning to come of age politically. he was a massachusetts guy with the political -- interesting political situation. he was an enormous influence. point of fact, after i took the bar exam, we went there to see -- we were not delegates or anything like that. we were just beginning to be involved in local politics. when he won the nomination, the wyoming nomination went for him. he thanked us personally in an informal chat at night. we were there and it was a great moment. >> charlie gibson, you are in high school in this debate happen. i don't know if this is the

reason, but you spent the rest of your professional life in television. was this an inspiring? >> i grew up in georgetown. then-senator kennedy lived two blocks away. the guy who lived across the street was a fellow named david bruce, rumored to be the secretary of state. i was up doing my homework one night and the motorcade pulled up in front of my house. i saw the president-elect go into david bruce's house. i thought, i got a scoop. david bruce is going to be secretary of state. as is often the case in my journalistic career, i was wrong because the next day he name someone else. he went in to tell david burris he did not get the job. i was watching the whole thing

transpire. but all of us in our lives try to prove to our parents that we are worth a dam, and they tell it -- and my father was a television junkie. television was in its infancy as it was pointed out there. we had just died one not long before the debate occurred. he mentioned that the audience was 70 million people. there were four debates. kennedy wanted five and nixon wanted one. they agree to four. the audience was about 70 million for all four. it's interesting because for the first obama-mccain debate at 52 million people. and the country is much larger. about a third of the people,

about as many people who voted. i thought clearly kennedy won the debate because as the governor points out, nixon's argument is that this man was not experienced enough. just as a high-school student, nixon blue that argument in that first baseman when he stands up and agrees with kennedy three- time cy -- three times. he conceded that kennedy was qualified to be president which undercuts his argument. nixon had had a need are -- knee operation and had a staff infection. he had lost 20 pounds and had not bought new clothes. that was more significant to me than the make-up argument. the whole atmosphere of kennedy's and confidence, nixon on certain, all that made it

very clear that kennedy was on the rise. and the very young don hewitt, four years later he would love to tell the story that nixon had refused the makeup lady who was there. kennedy did, too, but kennedy look better. four years later, at the republican convention where barry goldwater was nominated, nixon introduced him and he was getting make-up. hewitt said that nixon -- he told nixon that if he had let frannie make him up, cold water would be introducing him. >> you don't have anywhere near

the kind of atmosphere you have these days. you have a large amount people. some are for you and summer for the other guy. >> that 70 million figure reminds me, that was pretty close to what the sarah palin- joe biden numbers were. an interesting development which you had a much more significant larger audience for the bus president. i would ask you and mike mccurry, keep in mind that thing we saw in nixon and kennedy. by colleague wrote a piece about the preparation. nixon was alone in solitude. you can imagine him being a loner. kennedy was his aides, looking at 3 by 5 cards. in your experience, does the preparation of a debate to you about the person?

if the american people could see the preparation, with they know how to vote? >> people officially get it right. why do i still sweat? the sara pale and preparations were extraordinary in that seat came in debt that debate -- >> you should get a free pass. >> always try to protect me. palin came and stood the only debate on the heels of four interviews in wasilla, four work with charlie. two or three with katie couric. saturday night live had lampooned. . had said that she

could see russia from her house. that moment of the debate, whether not the mccain-pale and ticket existed at the morning after was on the line. i don't know that anyone is prepared under such high stakes. i have to cut her some slack in terms of what the preparation might have been. senator mccain prepared the way probably many senators prepare. p.m. lindsey graham and joe lieberman were debating each other. i think that is something of a lot of senators lean into those deliberations when they prepare for a debate for the presidency, an entirely different exercise. fore've not had a senator president since then.

>> it is fun watching the whole operation before the debate began. none of this -- as a result of this experience in 1960, so consequential -- several things happened. there was not another televised debate for 15 years, until 4- carter -- ford-carter, because of a transformer the nature of that event. another thing, the idea that you would waltz into the room and start looking around and say, here are the rules, don hewitt making up the rules as he was going on. that is now heavily litigated in negotiated. we would even down to the wall through where you get to see the face for the first time, which

is what we witnessed earlier in that clip. that is all heavily litigated by the campaigns because it is so consequential. yes, we have now reached 70 million people in audience every time, but this is still at fundamentally important moment in our democracy -- when these candidates get together and i saw on op-ed piece saying that they are controlled. not really. we're moving toward much more interaction. we have moments in these debates were if you get the true glimpse of what these candidates are about. we see some truths that help us make some decisions as to we support and help support, who seems to get it into does not get it. charlie was right. actually, gov. dukakis said it. the fact that nixon repeated the key slogan of the kennedy

campaign, we've got to give our country moving again, which is what the kennedy campaign was all but kent -- about, it was probably more significant than anything in the theatrics of this moment. he bought into the central premise is that john kennedy -- the central premise that john kennedy was bringing to the campaign. now i'm co-chairman of the presidential commission on debates. these are so fundamentally important to the way that we elect presidents. the theater of this is interesting. but we miss the substance of sometimes. >> an authentic moment where there is any risk for candidates. debates are still risky. i agree. >> gerald ford agreed to debate jimmy carter because he was way

down in the polls. but he made mistakes. they make mistakes in debates and it is hard to get -- we will get to that. i want to bring in german do here. this technology was on the cutting edge. i want ask you a couple of questions. but what will we be doing 50 years from now or even two years from now. we have technology we're not using. >> the internet gives people an opportunity to participate on twitter on blogs. the psychology has changed. one other reason we did not get 7 million people is because the internet have become the -- >> of our times. if people do not have to be there watching a real time. -- has become the tivo of our times. people do not have to be there watching real-time. they do not have to be

descriptive, but they do have to be so negotiator litigated. technology can allow everyone to ask questions and vote which questions they want answered. they can allow that candidates to answer the questions on line, not necessarily on television. and then you can vote on whether the candidate asked the question. it can open up the process the third-party candidates, one of the major reasons why the two of major parties negotiate to block out third-party candidates coming in to participate in the debates. the technology offers an abundance. this offered an amazing economy of scarcity at a time when it was the main vehicle for people to find out him permission. there is a new kid on the block and it is called the internet. global communications is going

to change the face of politics and debate. judith we solicited, because i was considered a good gimmick, questions on the internet. i that 30,000 questions. they were about 25,000 people who were spring loaded in the past opposition. -- it was amazing to me the vitriol and those questions. or this is the same -- the greatest thing since sliced bread. the majority -- 99.9% of the questions were worthless. >> that is the same on the blocks to date. look at the comments on blogs. we do not have a great tools for filtering comments. but the technology exists.

it allows people to actually vote on the question that think is the most relevant. the community of people who look at that question can also vote them down, and at i should be more specific. there's a platform -- i run a platform called 10questions.com, allowing people the vote them up or down, and they gave people six weeks to do that. the top-10 questions were given to the primary candidates, both republicans and democrats. the candidates were given four weeks to respond. they can take as long or short as they want to answer the question. the contest. pfizer's, they could speak about it, we would not necessarily have to choose the president on the ability to choose a president based on 60 and 90 seconds.

and then you could vote on whether the candidate answered the question. >> let me jump in. i want to correct one piece of information and also pose a question to you, if you do not mind. the commission on presidential debates is nonpositive -- non- partisan. paul kirk, the former chairman of the democratic party, and a former chairman of the republican party, let's have a structured institutionalized way in which we have these presidential debates. it was exactly the reason that it was possible -- indian people will not remember this -- but candidates were saying maybe i will not debate. there used to be debates about debates that would occur. by no means are third-party six good for you have to demonstrate that you have the capacity to win an electoral college majority.

you also have to demonstrate to got like 15% support in the country. that's why ross perot has been included in the debate, if you remembered. i remembered clinton and bush and ross perot was there too. here's my question. the internet is a vibrant, robust, wonderful interactive place where we get different ideas. there been experiments with how the internet can be interactive in debates, and during the primary season in 2008, we had some of those. some were very successful and they allow the public to generate questions that came up from below cover from the grassroots and got into the debate. some of it was snowmen asking questions of presidential candidates.

i don't think we will have major presidential candidates -- debates where we make it so democratize, we allow everyone to submit their questions. how can we take this great soul, the internet, and bring it into this process in a way that respects the dignity of a process that the american people now rely on? they rely on seeing these debates and on a dignified, appropriate forum that frankly the internet cannot always replicate. >> i agree with you that they are very powerful tools for getting people a glimpse of how candidates perform and who they are. but the goal of our democracy is an informed citizenry and the technology is very brand new. the first iteration of that was cnn choosing questions that were

sent by the internet. mike harris did not know how to create a youtube video question and could not participate. but then lots of things have changed. the technology gets better and better and there is the potential that everybody in the country could participate in a visible and transparent process by which the most important questions facing the country are presented. i like to bring the governor in to this question. i think to be constrained answer a question 60 seconds for 90 seconds off the cut does not lead to select the way that you answer the question, select a setting for answering the question, and allowed that question to live beyond the sound bite of the next day, four people the refer to the video

and see your answer later. for you as a candidate, to be able to engage with the entire american public, not just them watching on television for those 90 minutes, but in an ongoing way, would that be appealing to you as a candidate? >> it is appealing. i agree with mike that for better or for worse, we've become rigid become accustomed to the notion -- we've become accustomed to the notion that we will watch for 90 minutes, three times anyway, in gauging along with the vice-presidential candidates in at least one, and that has its rewards and its risks. nobody knows that better than i do. on the other hand, there are great risks. george h. w. bush looking at his watch seemed to me to be -- how many times did we see bush looking at his watch after the

debate was over? when the debate, i take the lights off and i stick it on the rostrum so that i can look at it. but you want to know where you are. at 20 minutes to go? this poor guy lifted his watch. it was interpreted as indifference, board, could not wait to get off. we get other examples of that. my own view is that we will probably have both. will it will have a series of major events. as many of you know, the best technology of all, the human being walking up to your doorstep having a conversation with you. something which i don't think either political party does well these days. barack obama did it and that is why he was elected.

>> why do we have the first primary in new hampshire? >> a caucuses in iowa. >> i think there is on the part of journalism, a very unfortunate question in the dukakis debate. it was a got a question. when you prepare these things, i think there is a conscious effort now not to have that kind of question. to the extent that you filter what comes through the internet, yes. but we have not in any way found the way to get immediacy from the internet. >> if i ask this question right, it will bring all of you into the answer.

you talked about the gotcha question. i wonder if we've gone too far the other way. in 2008, you did one of the two debates that helped raise the questions about sarah palin being vice-president. that is not the question. when the debate rolled around month so later, senator biden -made numerous statements, wildy inaccurate statements, where that if sarah palin had made them, she would have to resign the next day. we spent more interact -- less money three weeks in iraq and we spent for seven years in afghanistan. all of these kind of things.

the moderators did not do anything. talk to was about the difference between i of portugal reporter and a debate moderator. -- talk to us about the difference between a reporter and the debate moderator. >> so many of the females that i got, the question submitted over the internet, you have to show how her qualifications -- people were angry. at you? people get angry at me later. but the liberals it was almost that they were riding trying to break her. i was offended by the e-mails. the best it buys i got was from mark halperin.

he said, that do not perron interview for sarah palin. prepare an interview for joe biden. asks sarah palin the questions that u.s. joe biden. i thought that was the best piece of advice that i could've gotten. that is what i tried to do. that would get you away fromc awayha questions. -- from gotcha questions. as a moderate, there is no such thing as objects of pity. pure object of pity. you have to strive to be in both roles as absolutely as objective as you can be. calledldn't he have been on the real time? >> what are you going to say?

>> there were people pulled to work fact checking. if you feel there is a follow-up question that you should be ask, you should ask it. but you do not say, senator, you are wrong on that point, or whatever. you would say something that gets around to it in a much more even-handed manner. >> i was going to say that a campaign, particularly our republican campaign, never takes for granted the role of the journalist as or better. the reason charlie was selected for the first five interviews was because there are fewer and fewer arbiters, fewer and fewer people who can stand without judgment and truly reveal someone or a campaign or an issue for the viewer. much has been said and written and criticized about the mccain campaign's decision to speak nchors.ening a

how was interested in -- we're almost at into conversations of. . -- up here. your job is to protect and insulate your candidate from too much risk. what the same time maximizing opportunity. that we seemo me to have consensus around the structure that you advance, which is the sanction debate commission's, which every candidate i work for his public fall on their face. george bush, senator mccain, and judging by that kennedy-nixon standards, he was 0-3. but there is still a trend aversion to risk created and what you exposure candidate to

if you just threw him into a live chat. maybe that is what he party -- the tea party is so angry. >> just because you get an angry e-mail does not mean the internet is full of angry people. there are thought the people, too. then they both have crossed the plate because they teach us something. the issue here is that there is an opportunity to engage the entire american public in the process, much more deeply and to provide the candidates with something that they cannot get from the televised debate, time for them to express themselves in detail. it is not necessarily built around a structured moment. the real opportunity for citizens is to be able to hold their elected leaders accountable, because after they

present their answer, citizens can either mode if they are on a platform or the confront each other. lookit this. political opinion is formed by people talking to each other and they do it in the most common places, around a dining room tables, and a consensus is eventually forms. john kerry is a flip armor. barack obama is a muslim. it gets built up over time. and you do what ever you can to take on that debate. in the 2008 president to campaign, that happened the same way it would in any other candidate. but my 82-year-old dad who would never hold up a sign at a rally, the subject of politics came of around dinner table, he called me up and ask if i could help them with an e-mail. when i went over to his house

and show him how, i lifted the e-mail he was sending, and he was sending around a barack obama youtube video. my father became the 21st century temple of the tier and did not even know it. eer and did not t even know it. only one out of 10 of those views were videos produced by the candidates of the parties themselves. nine at tens videos watch during the campaign were actually it is produced by people trying to influence each other. when howard dean ran and lost, many people said that the internet cannot elect anyone. it will not let anyone. george allen was on elected by the internet. the candidate that understands that this technology allows them

to relate, to validate their opponents, to connect with their citizens, is going to have a huge advantage over the candidate who will stick to television, sound bites, newspaper, and scarcity media. we have a shift in the dynamics. that is what we're talking about. >> it cannot sweat all the way. there will be three times if we're lucky that the major party candidates that will come together -- and maybe two or three, who knows what will happen in 2012 -- but at that moment, going back to what charlie said, we need a moderator who will encourage the candidates to debate. and that is what is revealing, is when they get away from their sound bates and their script and they're prepared moments and they actually looking at each other i tell i -- look at each other eye to eye. my job was to play the

moderator and i prepared cau gotcha questions. what gm did.one what you think about that? he tried to get them to engage with each other. we have some research done at the commission and people want to see these candidates actually get off their scripts and debate each other. they want to get the moderator out of the way. [unintelligible] >> we're not going to get the moderator out of the way. [unintelligible] >> senator mccain suggested that you have the two candidates go around week after week to debate each other, no moderator. talk with one another. >> we have tried to move the

structure of these ritualize debates in that direction. there is more interaction to get people away from 30 seconds and 60 seconds. but campaign operatives, we know we do not like that. >> we talked about when the light would go on. today we're going to stop now for one minute. charlie made a wonderful point. barry goldwater and john f. kennedy were friends. they talked about doing exactly that. jack kennedy was heavily favored in the polls but they talked with themselves, and zero staffers, just debating like the lincoln-douglas debates. wouldn't that the rich and wonderful thing? >> oxford-style. >> i would the state university and i would say someone else. >> i do not mean to be impolite.

i've been getting signals from the onset, but i have to open this up. there are microphones here. you need to go to the microphone and think in your mind before you get to the microphone that you will identify yourself, and you're going actually ask a question, not to a speech like we have been giving. [laughter] we are now open for business. yes? go-ahead. >> i'm a junior at the college. with the birth of the internet, the distance that you put yourself from the candidates. if i write to my local government or my national government, i get a script of letter. you can tell. know of my senator was

liberated. if this is all beautiful and we're connecting many people, but are we disconnecting people from their reality of who that candidate is, what they originally stand for? obama got likely from knocking on doors. are we going towards something that might be at this connection providing a comfort zone of the candidate knowing that they're creating a comfort zone, and ultimately disconnecting from the grassroots and from the constituency? >> i think you're asking two questions. the issue of politicians for the most part, excluding the one sitting two seats from the right, don't know the difference between a server and a waiter. [laughter] they still live in the 20th- century model of sound bites on television, sound bites in

newspapers, a constituent letters, and do not want to engage with during constituency. they elect us if you look at the way that gerrymandering is done in this country. we have a broken politics for a lot of reason. the internet will not necessarily fix it but it may help. the candidate understands that this allows them to engage and validate their citizenry in a process of discussing the issues and knows how to use this technology, he or she has a lot they can. barack obama learned how to be a media organization to deliver massive amounts of media. one of the biggest potential malpractice lawsuits you could have in politics is the squandering of the 13 million people and stopping engagement after he became president. it will not happen instantly but it is a candid it imparted that

wants to engage can use these tools and citizens who want to engage can use these tools will. judith sarah palin is using these tools more expertly than any politician on basket today. >> the she actually tweet? >> she actually tweets. you think the staff or does her pleading? -- you think a staffer does serve tweeting? >> there is a new era where people are starting to use these tools to break that model that you just described. >> i am a freshman at the college. my question was directed not necessarily at the general presidential election debates of more toward the primary debates. if i recall correctly, during 2008, we had debates running up all the way to the summer of 2007 were seen every candidate who would even consider perhaps

running for their respective party. you feel that in the general, this is over saturation, and debate after debate after debate, or did it help the public interest in having as many candidates as possible with as many debates as possible? >> i work for a lot of candidates running for president. most of them have lost. i participated in a lot of primary debates under democratic parties, and they're more like the star wars seen. there is a qualitative difference between the primary debates in which people are trying to get traction and identify constituencies and mobilize sources of support in their party, and some of what we have been talking about tonight in the 50th anniversary that we honor tonight, a presidential debate. i think there is a gravitas that goes with the presidential debate when we have nominated candidates and/or third-party

candidates who are competitive that really requires a different format, a different structure, a different quality. them what we do in the primaries. in the primaries, we should do like we do 2008. some of it with junk and some of it was silly. but some of it was in sight for. we need to let experimentation happened. >> we had 45 debates. i made 39 of them. i actually flew to the mexican border for one of them. you're going at them because people want to hear you, and the party base wants to know who you are. they do not know us. in one of the polls, how was that -- i was at 0.5% when i

started. presidential debates command a much larger audience. >> i am a master's student here at the kennedy school. i a greasy it of the ideal of a door-to-door campaigning, i have done my share for clear met castro, i also follow the twitter feed. social networking can be as door-to-door contact in some ways. i think both parties have done a great job of using the internet to organize the wrong party is. it feels a lot like preaching to the choir. you can see inbound and outbound lakes. how he reached out to moderates in use the internet to foster a common dialogue with each side

only speaking to a self? >> i think this is the moment where the internet -- political thought on the internet will go the ems is a -- go the way of msnbc and box knees. you mix in some hosts, and if they are on the right, you have never heard of them, and i think this is such an interesting moment to be working in this area. you will look back and a few years, this will be the moment when the internet either became that's safe place for people and maybe it will happen around issues. there are interesting things happening on gay marriage. many are coming around the issue. maybe it will foster bipartisan committees around issues such

that we're not all riled up about our primary candidate. >> the internet is a network of networks. how you assemble them an aggregate them is the interesting proposition. if you're a candidate, you cannot go to your individual disaggregated offense and get your slice and talk to them individually and do anything with that. if you cannot assemble them around some larger proposition that creates an argument that some majority and wins an election. that is the challenge for the candidate. how do we take all these networks available in the social media an aggregate them into something they're represents a movement? i think andrea is right that the technology creates the opportunity to do that in no way we have never seen before. if gov. dukakis is right, we will not the door and that is

the old-fashioned way, but the new way is to do that virtually. that is exactly what you're doing. going forward many people here are on twitter? how many people want facebook? if you had a political candidate actually engage with you there, with that impress you? be honest.'s to win an election, in 2008, only 57% of those voted were under age 50. less of them are not on twitter. >> that is not true. you should look at the few studies recently. >> i have. the number of people -- you want to know who does twitter? [unintelligible] >> it is not just twitter. it as facebook. >> let's not oversell.

>> we're here on the 50th anniversary of the first televised debate. i'm about to call on this young lady. >> thank you for coming today. i'm from los angeles, california and i'm a freshman at a college. my grandmother is on facebook. >> your grandmother. >> my question is to mr. material about our role of third-party and the qualifications listed, 50% of the popular support plus the ability to win in the electoral college. with the growth of third-party white ron paul, did you feel like having more ideological diversity in the presidential debates, even if they do not have these legitimate chance of winning to the where political system is structured, would be a good thing? . >> i think there is a principled stand -- to participate in these

debates, fundamentally important to the american people so that they can actually look these candidates in the eye and see them in an unscripted moments, they need to know that that candidate has a mathematical chance of winning so that they can win an electoral college victory. like the american communist party is not going to qualify. they have a constitutionally be able to get elected president, and there are hundreds people running for president of united states that you have never heard of before. they are fringe party candidates. and the important one, they demonstrate some modest level of support in the american people. 15% is not a huge problem.

that is a performance standard that of ron paul or libertarian candidate, anybody could meet that threshold could actually be included in this process, and then get there. i recognize that means that not every party, not here recalls is going to meet that threshold. -- not every cause is going to meet that threshold. but they can use internet and technology to get to a threshold level of support for the mathematically could be included in the debate, that is a good thing an important thing. >> you have been very patient. >> your reference to joe mccarthy and the motivation to get to the politics is ironic, given the close friendship between mccarthy and jack kennedy. there is irony there, do you not think? >> added not think there is irony. >> i'll be finished in about 20

seconds. your reference to this poor guy george bush looking at his watch. you did not invite scrutiny of yourself. you think that bernard shaw's question was illegitimate, something you could not handle? should you be a big boy and if you cannot take questions like that, you should go back somewhere else? had you formulated a better response in these intervening years since that week response back then? >> i have never objected to the question. i insisted that shaw be one of the journalists because -- i have a lot of respect for him. i thought the question was a perfectly good one. my problem was i answered that. i forgot that 90 million people

were watching and deserve something better than that. i thought it was a fair question. if you're as opposed to the death penalty as i am coming you expect a question like that. i did not do a very good job of answering it. >> from the graduate school of design. there is clearly some candidates like bill clinton who are excellent debaters that they want to be great statesman. -- and golan to be great statesman. but some are not good communicators. what are your thoughts on helping to select a good states person as opposed to it just -- to just a good debater? >> do you want to take this

question? >> know. [laughter] question andlent it goes to many respects whether there is a disconnect between the skill of running for president and the skill of being president. many politicians will talk to you about that at great length. it is a frustrating part of the system. i think it is also one of the great disadvantage is that we have in that our system is so long now. we started at the first of the year in 2008 with iowa and new hampshire almost back-to-back. and there was tremendous election fatigue. all of that part of the campaigning skills does not mean necessarily that you'll be a good president. as i walk that in 1960, eisenhower and stevenson ran against each other.

it now becomes critical that you critical to the united states congress. there are a lot of blood dried guys in there and women. -- blow-dried guys in there, and women. >> left the mark -- let the moderator uses' prerogative. i was covering us senator from california. he finished so far back that ronald reagan got more ride in votes on the democratic side. on the plane back to los angeles, cranston limited when you said. he said abraham lincoln could not be elected to date.

but your point is well taken. this gentleman's question was right at your sweet spot. but instead of just agreeing with that, i would ask you a question. some follow on his, head of the note in your system you will not get aids and a whole slew of staffers asking questions and you and not be taking the measure of the candid, but the whole party? >> the candidate was to answer questions online? heidi think they make decisions now? they talk to their raids, they deliberate, a look at the polls, they look at the statistics, and at some point the president makes a decision. they will answer in the same way. i think that mike is right in that there is something fundamental we learned for the process of the televised debate, but unfortunately in our modern

error, but there is something that might be too artificial about it as well. there is not a great deal of transparency about the way the commission is formed where it gets its money or what the criteria are about that 50%, whether they can get elected not. to the limit tell you about something else. >> the american people look at jack kennedy and the assault that this guy could be president. i think that is something you would not want to take away from the voters. >> but 8 million people watch the obama speech on race in philadelphia, it was shown on the internet, and they took a measure of somebody at a time in crisis. the internet -- not the internet itself, but the ability to communicate with the new medium. that is what we're talking about, whether internet or twitter or facebook, whether the person that is connected to a citizenry that is not

interested in e-government for televised gotcha, but reinventing democracy in the 21st century. >> i think the answer is they're really good leaders, tony blair and bill clinton, can be both. >> i'm a freshman at the college. there seems to be a conflict between the idea of political discussion on television and the internet. is there a way in the traditional televised debate format, we can address concerns for power -- to get the greater for four debates in a televised debate? tv answer is yes. all that andrea says about the interactive nature of the internet and what it provides has to be a robust way for people to come together, convert

debt, evaluate candidates, question each other, and i like his idea of engaging the candidates about that. these events and there are three provincial plates and one vice- presidential debate get kids haggled over some times. but they all look beyond the one moment in which there is an appointment to show up and do it. we do not necessarily have to show up and be there at that moment, although that is when the candidates come together. but the internet offers a great opportunity for people to interact, submit questions, a challenge each other, form debate groups, and go back and forth. that is exactly what we want to do. and who pays for this now are the networks. how many networks are going

have? the rest of that are going to be the communities that support it, the schools, the universities, the communities that sponsored the debate. it is entirely transparent how this commission works and who is on a. it is all about giving the american people a chance. >> they were running for political office today -- if i were running for political office today, i would go every single day and do a chat. i think it is a great opportunity for politicians to communicate. >> president obama has done that. it has not been all that great. >> sarah palin does it. >> we have two more questions. we get people at the microphones. you will get the last question. stay where you are. >> i'm a freshman at the

college. thank you for being here to talk to us. my question is for mr. gibson. seeing as how you were the first mainstream reporter to interview sarah palin, and keeping in mind that you ask her the same questions that you would a vast joe biden, what was your first impression of her qualifications for the role of vice president? [laughter] remember, whatever you say is going to be on the internet. [laughter] [applause] i think it is a matter of fact that it is very difficult for someone to transition from the background that she has, small- town mayor. one of the things that knocks me out walking around wasilla was that she knew every single person at the high school, the policeman, their problems, whatever.

i thought this this was a terrific small-town mayor. then she becomes governor of a very small state, which is not contiguous. i don't mean to of said alaska because it is a beautiful place. she has been a lot of time in the 48. it occurred to me that it is very difficult to make that transition into the national stage. you have to give her credit for doing what she did. >> it is difficult no matter what state you come from. in my case, by 1986, i think i was a pretty good governor and i had a sense that i had a good team and was doing well. the adjustment to the presidential race is huge. although it is too long, one of the advantages of a long primary

is that you spend a lot of time out there, the 99 counties of iowa, and maybe the internet is one answer to that, but i crave the ability to do what i had always done as governor, barbecues, clambakes, in backyards having real discussions. being able to listen. but i do not care who you are, that move from gov. or even congressional office, it is huge. you'll have a lot of difficulty making them. it takes a lot of work and effort. you need that kind of experience which this very long primary -- charlie gibson, the

candidates start in the previous january. you're campaigning for three years before you even get to iowa. and then you win the nomination, you are expected to start all over again and be fresh and different. >> the last question. >> i wish i could ask 10, but i'm a sophomore at the question -- a college. to mr. mccurry, being secretary to president clinton, i imagine there must of been some time with you -- a question that you're asked where there was no possible way that we could come out ahead on this question. is there any -- i am sure that there were many. is there an episode you like to share? >> i'm glad that some many of you are so young that you do not remember the zesty material.

i had one role was to remember it that nobody cared what my opinion was. they only wanted to know what the president wanted to know, what he would say if he was there. how would try to put myself in that frame of mind. i always remembered my family in south carolina. that is where most of my family is from. they had a hard time hearing what they believe that of washington. how can i explain to my cousin's what the answer was or what should be said? if i could get into that frame of mind and represent the president and say what the president would have said, i was in a good place. that is the best you can do. we're talking about the people who put their butts on the line like mike dukakis because it is a lot harder to be out there and be a candidate and hold the

office and run for the office than it is to do what a: i have done, which is to work for these people. it is a great privilege to work for the people that we put up for office. >> i was going to go around the panel and have one more go around. but i think i would like to think the entire panel. i would like to thank, on behalf of the john f. kennedy forum, all of you for coming. i would like to thank you for your leadership of like to mention kaplan -- kaplan mclaughlin. on the fifth anniversary, i would like to thank all of the.

-- all of you. [applause] >> now we get to tell you what we really think. >> thank you. >> coming up on c-span, a conversation about job availability for veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan. and a newsmakers interview with jeffrey collins who is challenging michael steele in his reelection bid as rnc chairman. plus, the launch of a new group called "no labels." >> monday is day one of the american university's annual campaign management institute,

training students to work on political campaigns. we will hear from political consultants and strategists from both parties. topics include the environment and the chicago mayor's race. we will have live coverage starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> along the british people who follow british politics think that they are broadly comparable with the british and american system. your president is like our prime minister in that you have two houses of parliament and we have two of our separate our prime minister has much more power than your president. >> q&a compares the british and american forms of government as we talk about elections and races. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "q&a." c-span's original documentary on

the supreme court has been updated and paris sunday, january 2. you will see the place is only available to the justices and their staff and you will hear how the court works from all of the supreme court justices. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to the country's highest court, fearing for the first time in high- definition on sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, a conversation about the availability of jobs for veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan. from today's washington journal, this is 45 minutes. journal" continues. host: joining us is the executive director of "hire heroes. guest: we are a

transition organization when people transition out of the military. host: from a person who comes out of the military into the private sector, what has to be considered? guest: realistic expectations, what is that veteran qualified and certified to do? what jobs are available for them out there. many of these veterans have a geographic area they would like to work in. some research needs to be done because not everybody's home town may have the jobs available for this skill set that they have and they have been trained and. the other thing that we especially focus on our resume techniques. one of the biggest reasons it is they are not being hired is their resumes are not complete. much of their language still transfers from the military and they still speak in military

terms and acronyms which, unfortunately, when you are trying to get a job, i regular civilian does not understand that. host: does the unemployment rate for veterans come from the fact that there are no jobs or the ones who had a job before they went to the service found their jobs were not there when they came back? guest: it is a combination of both. we have seen both. in many cases, the jobs they left and came back to, there was too much competition out there. our employment pull it is the most talented it's been in decades. there are so many people unemployed. it is difficult and if you don't know the rules of the game and you don't know how to compete or get a resume out there that competes with your peers, you will not get hired. these are some of the things my staff has trained themselves on so we can help veterans and i

believe that we do a better than anyone in the country. host: does the military branch offer some type of transitional assistance? guest: they do. unfortunately, it is poorly coordinated. if we go to a different base in a different area of the country, all of their transition assistance programs will be different. they should be coordinated and there should be one government body for the entire military but there is one for each branch. they take a three-day course and you may have 200 marines in the course and one instructor. there is no way you can get 200 effected resumes bill with one instructor. when i went through a transition assistance program, i sat there for three days and everybody in the room had their cell phones out and books and were not taking notes. since then in 2008, i can tell you that the marine corps and united states army have gone

through great leaps and bounds to improve their transition systems. the issue again is the amount of instructors per students. when we go to bases which we do every month, we bring a one to 3 student-instructor ratio. you will help someone truly quantify their skill set on a resume and understand how to verbally communicate that skill sets. that is what we need the military to transition to. they need to have more people whether they invest in nonprofits and we know money is tight. this is the only way they will succeed to improve transition assistance programs. host: the fall numbers are on your screen. our guest is here until 10:00. we have set aside a special line for veterans.

202-628-0184. you can reach us on e-mail and twitter. someone asks this question -- i have heard that post-traumatic stress disorder is high for veterans. does that proved difficult when searching for a job? guest: it has been difficult. in my experience and i have dealt with many veterans who have ptsd. when that person is busy and their mind is occupied, many of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress are cured. many times, a job, a purpose, be entrusted with responsibility again will cure most of their post traumatic stress for their many stereotypes out there because there have been movies

made. people say they are violent and dangerous but that is incorrect. there is a minute percentage of veterans who are violent. they may be emotional and that is about it for a i have never seen anyone hurt someone else. there should be no stereotypes about hiring a veteran who has post-traumatic stress. when they have responsibility again, most of those symptoms will be cured. these are men and women trusted with millions of dollars in equipment and responsibility more than any civilian. they come home in this economy and they can get a job waiting tables. it is a difficult situation and a normal person who has not been to combat may be a little a emotional during that time of their life, as well. host: when it comes to finding jobs, when they have specialized skills like working on equipment or what have you, is it easier

for them to get the jobs in military construction businesses in d.c. is it hard for them to get work outside of d.c? guest: it differs from job to job. if you have someone who has a specific mechanical skill, yes, there are many contractors out there where they can get jobs and normally they return to what they are comfortable with. at the same time, any veteran regardless of what is of a job they did will come out with a lot of leadership skills and come out with a lot of discipline. they have been through very, very standardized procedures. sometimes companies will hire them in management roles because of their production management capabilities. they can come into a situation that is not standardized and improve upon those procedures.

they can make the overall efficiency better. that's what veterans do and that's why most companies will come to us and say they want to veterans.: veterans off host: off of twitter -- they talk about va assistance. do they offer help? guest: not in those terms. it is difficult to say that the government should have a program for this. we are trying to cut spending. there is a lot of organizations out there that are trying to help. they are just not hands on enough. whether it is apprentice ships, in turn ships, things of that nature should certainly be available. they are available through different non-profit organizations. sometimes it is the nonprofits that is making up the deficit that the programs of the

government have. i would love to see more programs coming from the department of labour or the va or out of the military. right now, the nonprofits are the ones getting it the best and we are the ones doing a better than the government because they depend too much on the internet or web-based portals where you are going to connect and find a job and off load a resume. they will not be able to do that unless they have those skills to do host: so jacksonville, fla.. caller: thank you for letting me on. i have a problem. i don't see investors doing their best for this country. i am a veteran. men and women go out of their way to protect this country. everyone -- every investor is sitting on the sidelines telling

people that they are afraid. it is an excuse not to hire people. they are letting our country go into recession because of their profit motives. these men and women are putting their lives on the line to protect their businesses overseas and protect us in this country. that is an outrageous situation. i hope someone will call all investors to look back into their own citizenship. if they are citizens, they should invest in this country. guest: i love your passion. me and my team agree with you and we think it should absolutely be a priority of our nation to get those veterans first in line for our jobs. they are on the front lines defending this nation. regardless of what conflict we are involved in, there is not a

draft anymore. these men and women are the reason why because they are volunteering to serve overseas and protect this nation. they absolutely desert front of the line treatment plant comes to getting a job back home. it is just a transfer of skills sets. they have all the intangible qualities. no employer will levy the amount of responsibility and these young men and women's shoulders like they have had in iraq and then -- and afghanistan. they deserve a closer look on their resumes and interview skills regardless of what they are communicating. if a young man was in the infantry, it is a difficult communication to communicate those skills to being a manager of a car wash or working at general dynamics for any large company. host: next call is from tennessee, go ahead caller: i

will read it away -- i will reiterate the previous call. i was 20 years old when i transitioned out of the military. it was deflating for me to have some much responsibility at 20 years old. i am now 54 and i have never had that much responsibility. it was the biggest letdown when i got out of the marines and found there was no responsibility in any job i could get. if i think that is one of the biggest psychological problems for returning vets. they are used to being depended on and none of the jobs they can get recognize that. these people are a gold mine. guest: i could not agree with you more. i agree 150%. we try to find employers or companies that have training

programs. our military men and women are used to that environment. they are used to going into a training program and learning a new job. you do that in every phase of your military career. if we can find employers that have those, our veterans are over 80% successful in those jobs. if they leave that job, they leave on their own accord not because they were fired. because they did one job in the military does not mean they cannot come into a bank or a larger company and start from the bottom or middle management and work their way up. they require a little training and they are used to that environment. they have the honor, they have the courage, they have the commitment. that has already been proven. you'll not find that in another part of the population. . .

>> did you have a program in gold helmets to hard hats. that is a nationwide program so if there are any young veterans listening, if you want to be a pipe mechanic or a steve sadr, go down to your local plumber and asked about the helmets to hard hats program.

there are young apprentices that came from the military side. i came from the military side. even though we are generations apart, we all see things and do things the same way. guest: absolutely. and those are great jobsy of these programs that are out there. what their success rates are i don't have in front of me. i know they are advertised on these basis. and if people know they can quantify the percentages of veterans that they've hired in the last year they need to be broadcast. that would be great. host: dallas, texas. on with brian stan of hire heroes. mitch on our independent line.

caller: i'm the recruiter, been recruiting for a long time, and been very upset about the veterans not being hired. and i have some insight. the psychology industry, they are trying to increase their jobs for their skills. and they have been very good at describing the veteran as damaged goods and they need all their services. and i think they've gone way overboard and again painted such a negative picture. a lot of people just don't want to take the risk if they're doing the hiring. and the second thing is that i tried to present a veteran to a person in the human resource department and bristled -- this lady bristled at it. i went on facebook and checked her out and she was a die-hard

democrat and it was almost like, well, i don't want to hire a baby killer. host: go ahead. guest: you know, stories like that are absolutely atrocious and that's an atrocity if that's happening out there. i haven't seen it. i doint have the experience with the psychology industry like our caller did. but obviously i've seen it from hollywood. hollywood's done a great job of painting that picture for people. again, as a nation if that's happening, and there's people out there that are doing that and that are stereo typing veterans and immediately disqualifying them for jobs because of their military service, it's absolutely an atrocity and we should be ashamed of ourselves. host: off of twitter guest: absolutely it has. i can tell you during my time in service i had many veterans transitioned out only to three months later come back on active duty. the hard part there is there's

many veterans today because of their service disability that is can't come back in. they had a career and they were medically discharged out because they can no longer serve, whether it be traumatic brain injuries, post traumatic stress, some sort of injury from combat and we deal with a lot of these veterans, they don't have the choice to go back. they need a job. they need to function in society. the disability they're receiving from the government is certainly not enough to live off of. and they don't want to be that type of person. they want to work, they want to function, to provide and produce. so, again, to answer your question, that's absolutely correct that this environment is pushing people to reinlist in the military. and that's certainly not a bad thing. you know, one thing about the military, in an economy like this, they get paid every two weeks. their pay does not go down. they don't take pay cuts. they don't make large cuts like companies do. so it's certainly a safer environment employment weist. host: our guest served in the

marine corps. two tours in operation iraqi freedom, was awarded the silver star, and was commissioned through the u.s. naval commead my. columbus, ohio, ross. our line for veterans. caller: first, i was a marine, i served, got out. have not had a dd 214 which doesn't help me from getting a job and go through the academy like that. i've been discharged since may 20, 2007. got out and everything, and now i'm wanting to go back in to the army and i can't get back in. it's part of the p the dfd, talking to doctors and the army will allow me to come back because of my medical

condition. obviously the marine corps will not. you know that. once you're discharged you can never go back to the marines. but i'd like to get my dd 214 going on three years now and that's prohibitting me from getting a job. i'm a marines. you know, that's where i belong. that's where i'm supposed to. host: what's a dd 214? caller: just because i have that mindset, then i try to transition over to army, i don't know if that's a -- that's not a bad thing, but i'm a marine. host: thank you, sir. guest: well, it's certainly not a bad thing. all the different service branches, we're brothers and sisters to each other. so there's certainly no dishonor from changing from the marine corps to the army. what that is is your discharge papers. it has your discharge code, honorably discharged, general

discharge and just your military history, the schools you went to. if you google dd 214, there's web sites that can help you. i'm sure that this gentleman had a specific reason and a technical reason on why he could not get his dd 214 or maybe he needed his code changed. so i think there was something specific to his case on why he couldn't get one. normally veterans can go on line and immediately contact through washington and get another copy. host: from fort collins, colorado. josh on our republican line. you're on with brian. go ahead. caller: it's not josh, it's jo st. host: sorry. caller: i'm a military veteran and i etsed in 1986. and due to circumstances, just like many other veterans, school was put off. and initially we had most

veterans had agreed to enter the military instead of mainstream education so they sacrificed quite a bit. just to start out with. the individuals that were in the military and capitted prior to 9/11 have been offered, in my opinion, offered more than the veterans prior to. so what it does is it puts a dilemma. are we looking out more for the individuals of this war as opposed to veam or korean or even just regular military time prior to 9/11? can you answer that? guest: well, i think are you

talking about the g.i. bill possibly and the educational benefits that are given to post 9/11 veterans? obviously the reasoning behind that was post 9/11 veterans have all served during operation enduring freedom and operation iraqi freedom so they're trying to prioritize them in that case. for my organization, it doesn't matter to us. we serve veterans from all demographics. it doesn't matter when they were discharged. as long as they're active in our program, we're going to serve them and look and help them to find jobs, help with the resumes, help with interview skills, search out and present them to companies, and trying to get their foot in the door and get them their interview. so we certainly do not discriminate. why washington does, i mean, you know, i think that answer is obvious just due to the nature of the conflict and the time of our country where we had two wars going on at the same time, they obviously have made it a priority for the g.i. bill and those funds to go to post 9/11 veterans.

or wash funds for that g -- war funds for the g.i. bill. host: are veterans finding jobs if they were promised one? guest: if their job was gaurned, in most cases they do come home and find those jobs. but in some cases those jobs are gone and it's still very difficult for them. in the reserve population, the difficult part is most of the time they're older. they're older veterans. they have families, they have bigger bills. they have more overhead than your young 22, 23, 24-year-old veteran who served four years and got out. so they may not have the opportunity. they don't have the chance to utilize their g.i. bill and say i'm going to go to school for four years because the economy is bad, get my education, get my g.i. bill and then come out and get a job. they don't have the opportunity to do that because they're trying to provide for a family. in many cases when my organization is working with a reserve veteran we have to work that much harder because they

have dire needs right now. they don't need a job six month from now, they need a job right demow because the bills are coming in and the bills are there. so those are things to consider and hopefully we have employers watching the show right now that have jobs and are looking to hire people, and who better to look at first than someone who has proven with honor, courage, commitment and loyalty an these intangible qualities than a veteran who has served in combat. why not give those veterans the first chance for jobs you have. host: littleton, colorado on our independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking the call. i admire what you're doing. over the course of my career i've hired probably a thousand people. i'm not a human resource manager. but one of the things that i have noted over my career is success weist in people who have a lot of self-determination, they work hard, they have a teamwork

environment, they understand that, and they succeed. and i look for that when i'm hiring people. i'm wondering if you wouldn't see some real advantage by developing some communication that's fired out at the fortune 500s because your people, these guys coming back are likely to be very, very successful, whether it's in sales or it's maybe in that lower or middle management if they don't quite have the skillset yet but they have the right character skills to succeed. and that's what i look for. when i can find somebody from the military, they make tremendous lower to middle managers if they have that skillset. if they don't, then that has to be groomed in. but ultimately, they carry those skills that are almost impossible to teach. so it's just a thought for you. maybe that help you move forward with your efforts.

i will wait offline to hear your thoughts. guest: absolutely, sir. i agree with you 100%. that's the reason why i'm here on c-span doing this the morning after christmas. that's the reason why we hit the streets every single day. we do a lot of media, we do a lot of different press anannouncements, and we've developed messages that we've put out ourselves as well and we've had to adapt. you're absolutely right. you've got to market the need and you've got to market the needs of these veterans. that's the reason why people donate money to my organization, so we can do this for them. and i agree and hopefully that message is heard by employers. because these young men and women make great employees. they have to discipline, they're going to show up to work on time, give you 100%, and they can lead. they understand true leadership because that's what they've lived for years. at the age of 19 in the military you can be in charge of as many as 10 people. i've noticed in the civilian

world that you're getting someone where you're in charge of three of four. you know, we have young kids in charge of 15, 30. at 24 years old i had several men in the united states marine corps. they understand how to manage egos and things that any employer can utilize those skills. you can teach someone the specifics of your business. host: how is your organization funded? guest: we are funded solely through donations of companies, of individuals, and then we obviously run different fund raisers. we do different golf events. one of the ways you can fund us is to text 50555 and just text hero and you can do nate $10 just from your cell phone. but it's all personal donations, we're a nonprofit organization. and you can go to our website at hire heroes u.s.a..org and

see all the different fund raisers year long, whether different golf events, baseball camps, et cetera but that's how we keep ourselves live so we can serve our veterans. and my organization is comprized of many wounded veterans themselves that are now that joined my team have been trained as career coaches and are now out there trying to help others help jobs. host: 15 more minutes with our guest. chicago, illinois. democrat's line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. brian, i just came here from shoveling snow. i may have missed some of the program. but i would like for you to or i would like to say that the veterans that come from the war are entitled to unemployment compensation because when i came back from vietnam i was never told that by the military and i only found out by a real nice lady in the unemployment

compensation that i was timetted to unemployment. all these veterans, if they are coming back being discharged from the military, they're entitled to unemployment compensation. i don't know if you know but i want to tell that everybody that they are entitled to that from the military. host: i thank the caller. guest: absolutely. and the veterans do know that. but what you're dealing with here in this demographic for military veterans is you don't see a lot of veterans that classify themselves, well, i'm a republican, i'm a democrat, i'm a liberal, -- liberal, but what you can classify them as is proud, they are all very proud and want to work. these are very motivated individuals who have come from an environment where they have a lot of responsibility levied on their shoulders and boo stowed upon them. they want -- bestowed upon them. they want to be an asset. they want to be a player. they don't want to sit on the

sidelines. so many times the veterans that we work with will tell us i'm on unemployment but i want a job. this is not what i want to do. and as we all know, unemployment only last soss long. they want a career. they want a future. they didn't get out of the military to do nothing. they got out of the military to succeed. they want to take the skill sets that they learned, the leadership and thing that is they built upon and that service, they want to be an asset again and they want to grow into whatever new career they choose. so they absolutely know and our organization knows and if we have someone who is truly in dire need, you know, we certainly direct them in the right, put them in the right direction to get that unemployment. but that certainly isn't our ultimate goal. we want them to find a career, find a job, and be successful. because the more successful veterans we have in this country, the more they're going to employ of their own. the faster we're going to see this veteran unemployment rate for young men that are coming back from iraq and afghanistan lower than 20%, just over 120% right now. host: steve from wyoming,

pennsylvania. caller: thank you for receiving my call. i'm a vietnam veteran, four years in the army and i just want to give you my perspective on it. when i came back, in to the civilian life, i really had a rough time adjusting mentally. it took me one year to get my head straight so i can fit into the civilian population. because like you said, it was all military, all discipline. and basically, i had to really adjust. and it took me one year. and i think that all veterans should get one year of housing, one year of a car and insurance and food assistance for one year to get them accustomed to civilian life. and if you start a lobby in congress for this, you've got my vote. and thank you very much for my voice.

guest: we appreciate your vote, sir. we really do and we appreciate your passion for veterans. you know, unfortunately in economic times like this where we have, we're cutting spending so much i don't ever see a program like that evolving but what i do see happening and what i think should happen is going back to the transition assistance programs. three days just isn't enough. and it does take some time to mentally adjust to the civilian life. it's a completely different environment. when you're in the military it's a scomplitely different environment than being a civilian and looking for a job. and, again, that onus is on our government and on our military but it's also on us as a veteran population to do it ourselves. and to research. if i'm a veteran and i know i'm getting out in a year, i know i'm getting out in six months or i'm wounded, i'm at walter reed and i know i'm getting out soon, it's on my shoulders to start researching this as well. and they can certainly come to us, call us, we do hundreds of career counseling sessions a

week with these veterans who may not be ready to find a job yet. they're still months from getting out but they have all these questions. they have hundreds of questions for us. and we've been there. we've walked in their shoes, we've walked down that road. we have those answers. we work with tons of organization that is can help them in any different field they're looking for wlrks financial assistance, education assistance, g.i. bill assistance, we can point them in all you will -- all the right directions. host: fort worth, texas. thanks for waiting. independent line. caller: good morning. and i'm a vietnam veteran. i served special forces in vietnam and i came to the conclusion a long time ago that the government really isn't going to do that much to help us out long term.

short term they may do a little bit, but long term they really aren't. the only president that really went out of his way to help the veteran was president franklin dell nor roosevelt who did the g.i. bill. so i came to the conclusion that we have to use the american free enterprise system to help ourselves. and i came up with an idea, a vision, if you will, some time back. i just can't seem to get it off the ground. i'm not well connected. i really don't know that many people would help. but it's an idea that i've run past several knowledgeable people. host: sorry i accidentally cut him off. guest: well, sir, if you're still watching, certainly we have numerous contact numbers and e-mails on our website. again it's hire heroes u.s.a..org. contact us. i am very fortunate, my team is

very fortunate that we have a lot of connections. and basically we were started by men who basically agreed with the last caller and said, ok, it's up to americans to do something a little bit more for these veterans. hey, i'm a successful american because of these men and women who served overseas. that's how hire heroes u.s.a. was created by men who is a c.e.o. of a company named john bart yiss and he had had enough and he devotes a big part of his life to helping veterans. and if we had more americans like him, you know, the unemployment rate for veterans would be a third of what it is today. host: so call us with your idea . host: off of twilter. guest: absolutely. absolutely. and specifically to answer those questions what happens is a lot of times is we see veterans that are transitioning out of the military.

they think that they have a plan. you know, they have a friend back home who has got a company that does this that's going to pay them this amount of money. they don't put enough detail into their plan and sometimes we as veterans take it for granted how difficult the economy is. and with the military transition assistance programs being poor, like they are right now, they're not warning our veterans enough that, you know what? when you're in the military you get paid every two weeks. but when you get out and don't have a job, that money will run out, you will not be able to pay your rent. that's how that happens. and it's difficult for us because many times these homeless veterans will contact us and our program takes weeks to train them. it takes a couple days to write an effective resume. i9 takes practice sessions. it takes a couple weeks to get your foot in the door for a company that likes your resume and wants to interview homeless veterans don't have that amount of time. so flr specific times where we'll try to raise money for

that specific person and maybe pay their bills before they get evicted so they can keep their cars so they can drive to different places. so if you're a homeless veterans out there, give us a call. do what you can do and we'll do everything we can to help you. host: mr. stan, you were asked about your operation asking if there's a fee for veterans who use your service ors the private companies that work with your organizations. guest: no, there is not. there is a small fee for private organization that is we consider a donation to post their open jons just like they would on monster or linked in. a monthly fee. if they're going to post more than five jobs on our website then we charge a small fee. per month. but for the veterans, everything is absolutely fry. for the bases, the wounded warrior rehabilitation centers that we visit to run our seminars is absolutely free. we do all of this on our own dime and our own dime is all donated dollars from great americans who donate to our organization so that we can continue to help veterans find

jobs. host: wendy on our democrat's line. caller: good morning, gentleman. i'm a veteran and i want to say thank you for what you're doing. i think you're up a against a huge opposition. so i have a comment and a question. when i was exiting out of the navy, the transition program was limited. and it didn't help me. however, before i transitioned out i volunteered for a gentleman who was in the navy as well working to create his own newspaper. and become a publisher. that was an experience that i transitioned into my resume. since i've been out i complete school and competed for an accounting technician position along with another man. we're both two point preference. the government overlooked both of our applications and boats of our percentages to hire someone else. he was a cpa and i have at least more than 24 credits

within the accounting field. host: go ahead and ask your question then. guest: my question is, in response to that, along with several of the callers, i think that becoming an entrepreneur, having a business plan, having innovation to help funnel you into a prodeucing aspect of this country rather than a consumer, because largely they don't have the attitude that they value what we've done in our service and our training and discipline. and i liked your attitude and your speak on how you made that transition to language transition. host: we'll have to leave it there. i also want to add the thought of someone from twitter guest: absolutely they can. and many are doing that. there's no doubt about it. but at the same time, it's easy

to say, hey, be an entrepreneur right now. but banks aren't loaning money so it's difficult to get the startup capital. i think, hopefully if the economy turns in the next anywhere from five to ten to 15 years, i think you will see more iraq and afghanistan vets becoming entrepreneurs and starting their own business, et cetera. but right now it's very difficult to find the funds to do so. you can have the great ideas and leadership skills. but finding the money to do the it in this economy is the reason why we're not seeing as much of that. now, there are programs that we work with that do fund fellowships for veterans as well. an organization i work closely with, a foundation that was found bid the parents of one of my best friends who was killed in iraq, they raised money to sponsor veterans on six-month fellowships to work with organizations like mine where they can learn specific skills to add to their resumes in hopes of finding a job after their six-month fellowship.

so certainly those programs exist as well. but i'm all for veterans becoming entrepreneurs. but the complaints that we're hearing is they just can't find the money to do so. host: ohio, republican line. james. caller: i am a former marine. i'm also service connected at 10%. when i first got out of the service i was told that i got out at 2512, tried to go to the ohio park police. they said you were taught wrong because you were taught how to short cut to get the job done. now being service connected, it's hard to find because once a month turf go to the v.a. to try to make it outside work but it doesn't work that way. the v.a. clinic are only open from 8:00 to 4:00 and most jobs don't provide you for that and the company doesn't want to hire somebody that's going to have to miss one day a month even if they only need two hours of the day. guest: again, it goes back to

just some disappointment in american employers if that's the case. you know, for my organization, i obviously employ a team of seven people that all have run this national organization and luckily due to one due to our performance but due to the donation we receive we continue to grow so we can help veterans. but i have the understanding when i hire a wounded veteran i know that there's going to be doctors appointments at the v.a. that they're required to go to whether they're weekly or monthly. and i don't -- every employer to include regular civil yb employers, they all have personal lives and are all going to have issues and all have times they need to go to the doctor or pick up their child. so it's unfair if a veteran is going to be stereo tippede because they may have to go see a doctor for two hours a day. you're talking about a person who is going to be more productive than a larger population in the country anyway. so it's unfortunate people aren't hiring veterans just due to the fact that they may have to see a doctor once in a

while. shame on you if that's an employer doing so. host: one more call. guest: isn't it true that when the economy was good the military was upset because they didn't want to have to pay bonuses for hiring these guys? and now that when the economy is moork managed out of d.c. it ruined, that instead, these guys get to reinlist or girls and guys, and they're demoted to a lower status. and so that kind of works out good instead of having the competition and having small business and have it be grassroots-made, d.c. would rather handle it all and lead the propaganda parade. so that it doesn't get fixed. host: we'll leave it there. guest: i'm not sure if i understood the question correctly. i know when i got out in 2008, i know they were currently still paying reinlistment

bonuses in some service branches depending on the job specificications for veterans to reinlist. and there's obviously. but veterans do not receive money when they get out of the military unless they have a service connected disability. so i'm not sure i understand that question correctly. host: brian is with the group hired heroes joining us from atlanta, georgia. today. the >> monday steven emerson talks about islamic radicalism within the u.s.. u.s.'ll west examines immigration policy. and part of our week-long series on food policy, attorney sarah client would set new food safety legislation passed by congress. we begin with the day's news and your calls, e-mails, and tweets

live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. monday is day one of american university's annual campaign management institute, a training students to work on political campaigns. we will hear from political call to its and strategists from both parties, topics including the general political environment and the chicago mayor's race. live coverage starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. as the 111th congress drew to a close, senators follow tradition by delivering a tribute to colleagues who will not return in january. tom harkin of iowa talked about byron dorgan and kick barnes who did not seek reelection. this is just under 10 minutes. congress, the senate will lose one of its most popular, articulate, and outspoken

members and i will lose a kindred spirit, a fellow progressive populist, senator byron dorgan, who has spent his entire four decades in elective office fighting on behalf of family farmers and ranchers, struggling small businesses, ordinary working americans, anyone -- anyone who's been run roughshod over by big business, big banks, or big government. both senator dorgan and i are proud of our roots in rural upper midwest. i was raised in cumming, iowa, population 162. he was raised in regent, north dakota, population 211. byron always liked to joke that he graduated in the top ten of his class of nine students. senators on both sides of the aisle have come to respect and admire senator dorgan's distinctive voice here in the senate, a voice that mixes keen intelligence with a great sense of humor, plus a gift for making his arguments with colorful,

compelling stories and language. throughout his more than four decades in public service, he has used that voice to speak out powerfully for farm country and rural america. he has fought hard for policies at the national level to give rural families a better chance at success. he has been a strong supporter of the farm bill's safety net provisions, including countercyclical support for farmers to get them through hard times. and he has been equally outspoken in championing strict limits on federal farm payments to ensure that the lion's share go to small family farms, not big agribusiness and absentee farm owners. as a senior member of the energy and fall resources committee -- energy and natural resources committee and chair of the appropriations committee on energy and water subcommittee, senator dorgan has also been an outspoken champion of clean, renewable, homegrown energy, including wind and solar and biofuels.

he likes to boast that north dakota is -- quote -- "the saudi arabia" of wind. well, my folks in iowa might dispute that claim, but we get the point. and byron and i have both been strong advocates of building a nationwide distribution grid for wind and solar generated energy. mr. president, i'd like to make just one more point about senator dorgan. i guess i can say this now, since he's retiring and a political opponent won't be able to use it against him. byron dorgan is an intellectual. he has a passion for ideas and knowledge. he even writes books. actually, really good book, the kind that show up on "the new york times" best-seller list. i'm a great fan of his 2007 book titled "take this job and ship it," how corporate greed and brain-dead politics are selling out america. and if you want a blistering and i think dead-on account of the causes of the crash of 2008, read byron's other book titled,

"reckless: how debt, deregulation and dark money nearly bankrupted america." mr. president, byron dorgan i consider a great friend, a great senator and a great advocate for all working people in this country. he has accomplished many things in his three terms here in the senate but i can think of no greater accolade than to say simply that he is a good and decent and honest person with a passion for social justice and a determination to make life better for ordinary americans. when the 111th congress comes to a close, of course, my friendship with byron will continue, but i will miss his day-to-day counsel and good humor. i join with the entire senate family in wishing byron and kim the best in the years ahead. mr. president, with the retirement of senator kit bond at the close of this congress, the senate will lose one of its most respected veteran members. a truly distinguished individual

with a distinguished career in public service. will come to an end. of course, you would expect big things from a young man who graduated with honors from princeton, first in his class at the university of virginia law school, and kit bond did not disappoint. at age 30, he became assistant attorney general of missouri, serving under former senator john danforth. at age 33, he was elected governor of the state of missouri, serving two terms. in 1986, he was elected to the senate, where he has now served for nearly a quarter of a century. over the years, kit bond has been a great friend and a frequent collaborator, especially on the appropriations committee. for example, in 1993, when the midwest was devastated by historic floods, senator bond was the senior appropriator in the minority party from the nine impacted states and i was the senior appropriator in the majority party. we took the lead in the senate,

working together very effectively to rally federal assistance to victims all across the strickenned midwest. over the years, we have worked together to improve the locks and dams along the upper mississippi. i can say i think we're both proud of our work in the early part of this decade forging an agreement to authorize the modernization of five of the critical locks so that our goods can operate more efficiently up and down the river. we worked very hard for about four years to bring together a remarkable coalition of industry and agriculture and the environmental community to make this project possible. senator bond and i are members of a breed of senators affectionately known around here as pavers. we both believe very strongly that it's a cardinal responsibility of the federal government to invest generously in a first-class national transportation infrastructure. the roads, the bridges, the locks, the dams and so on, what we call the arteries and the veins of commerce.

mr. president, senator bond and i have also collaborated frequently to boost the rural economy and improve the quality of life for people who live in our rural communities. in particular, we have used funding through the housing and urban development subcommittee of appropriations to improve housing for people of modest means with a particular focus on rural areas. on this score, i would note that senator bond was a -- quote -- "compassionate conservative" long before that term came into fashion. he cares deeply about the well-being of the less fortunate in our society, giving them both a helping hand and a hand up. in the mid-1990's, i was proud to work with senator bond on the first bipartisan welfare reform bill modeled, i might say, on a very successful welfare-to-work program we had in iowa. mr. president, over the years, senator bond has recruited and retained an exceptionally talented staff. in particular, i would like to cite john kemark, his

outstanding lead staffer for many years on the appropriations committee, with whom i had the pleasure of working on many occasions. and i i know that senator bond current chief of staff brian clifinstein who had the good sense to marry a democrat from the state of iowa. mr. president, the senate has been fortunate to have a senator of the high caliber and character of kit bond. in so many ways, he represents the best, gets important things donald and insistence on the highest ethical standards. he has always been determined to do the right thing for the people missouri and the entire united states. for me it's been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 24 years. our friendship, of course, will continue, and i wish kit and linda the very best in the years ahead.

>> john hoeven defeated the democratic candidate 76% in november. at the republican representative will succeed kit bond. he held positions as acting majority leader. >> joining us on newsmaker sues gentry collins. here questionins is read elliott. why do you want to be party chair? >> i am running because, if we will beat barack obama and beat

his ideology in 2012, we have to put them back on track. republicans generally have a good cycle. but that cycle was not driven by the rnc. in many respects, we got away with a better organization at the republican national committee. you have a variety of other committees in a non-presidential cycle that helped capture the energy that was available for republican candidates in 2010. that really cannot happen in 2012. by federal law, there are certain things that only the republican national committee can do. i am running to put it back on track. we can beat barack obama. >> how you win? " you go out and you see as many members as you can. i have been to 20 states already. already.