spring inside. look, when countries try to ban guns, you are not going to get into hired guns away from criminals. we have a huge drug-gang problem in this country. about a year ago, the obama administration said 80% of all the crime in the united states was a gang-related. we know how hard it is -- it is very difficult for them to get the weapons to protect drugs. if we cannot stop them from getting guns, somehow you are going to stop them from getting a logger clip, that is just not serious. guest: the only reason to get a 30-round clip is for killing more people. in 2004, you did not see many of these in circulation. more people were killed in the shootout on tucson on saturday then the ok corral.

this is a common-sense thing that we can do. host: as this conversation >> we go to live coverage of tim valente -- polenti, who recently stepped down as governor. he is promoting his book.

this is live coverage. >> derrek wallbank, washington correspondent, and pamela stevens, a producer on msnbc. [applause] the state of minnesota may have had its and greatest profile in national politics when walter mondale served input the white house. then, the supreme court justices, informally called the

minnesota twins, hailed from this state. our guest insists he is officially undecided about whether to run for president. now, a fellow minnesota republican and a key party favorite michele bachmann is an insinuating she may steal his thunder. he has just finished serving two terms as governor. the new governor inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit. now, he is launching his book tour, a step that is a common prelude to a presidential quest. he said he will announce by the end of march whether he will seek the republican nomination. other stops on the book tour include new hampshire and iowa. we will let you draw your own conclusions. [laughter] today, he will tell us about his book, "courage and to stand

and," about his time in the governor's office and his years in state government. he presided as governor when the bridge collapsed over the river, shining a nationwide spotlight on the need to repair infrastructure. he has spoken here before, on 2008, when he was considered to be on the short list for the vice-presidential noggin by -- presidential nod by john mccain. please welcome timi polente to the national press club. [applause]

>> thank you very much, or as president obama would say, you are welcome. we will miss you when you go on to your next assignment. we are honored that you have done such a diligent job of making sure that this institution plays the role of a letter informing our citizenry so that we can have -- pan of better informing our citizenry so that we can better serve our democracy. let's give allen are round of applause. -- a round of applause. [applause] we all know the live in the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. we are blessed to live in this nation. but as i travel around and you travel around this country and our respective states, you get a clear sense as you talk to people, listen to the dialogue, listen to the debate, that something is amiss.

american confidence, optimism, a sense of hope for the future is diminished. there is worry in the air. people are wondering if the american dream still rings true and is still a guarantee and an opportunity for them and for their families. off and there is a lot of discussion -- there is a lot of discussion in these recent hours and days about the incident in an arizona. in aftermath of that -- in the instant aftermath of that event, there was instant discussion. one of the things i presided over during my time as governor was the bridge collapse. this was a terrible tragedy. 35 people lost their lives. 145 others were injured and heard. but a number of lessons came out of that terrible tragedy. number one, as americans always

do and as we in minnesota always do when there is a time of tragedy, everyday people who happen to be nearby ran not away but ran towards the danger. they wanted to help others. they wanted to do what they can to make the situation better, to rescue and held in the recovery -- held in the recovery. there are astounding story -- recovery.e there are astounding stories of heroism. as we come together in condolence and concern and empathy, lessons emerge. and the books i am here to launch today is a book and not and lessons learned during my time as governor, but lessons learned during times of crisis. and one of the lessons learned is that people in responsible positions need to step toward

and make sure that we make good statements. but they need to be accurate statement. they need to be based on good intermission. we cannot have a functioning democracy unless we have an informed citizenry, and we cannot have an informed citizenry unless they have a good and accurate information. a national press club plays a vital role in the fabric of our democracy, the well-being, the health of our democracy. and i take the sentiment i expressed to alan very seriously. thank you for the work you do. we also know that in those instances where reality in fact give way to condemnation based not on fact or allegation or judgment based not on fact, it becomes very corrosive, not only to the debate, but to democracy more broadly. in my experience with the bridge collapse, we had individuals and others making very severe

judgments in the early moments and hours of the prices the turned out to be flat wrong. a year -- early hours of of that crisis and that turned out to be flat rompwrong. a year later, we have learned that there was a design flaw dating back to the early 1960's. we saw some of the same early reactions after the tragedy of few days ago. i come here in the spirit of accurate and fair discourse. the way that we can help ensure that is to question each other, of each other accountable and exchange in that kind of dialogue. what i would like to talk to you about today is the sentiment that i talked about earlier, the sense for many in our country that the american dream is somehow slipping away, of aiding

the grasp of our citizens -- evading the grass of our citizens at a level that is more troubling than most of us can remember in our lifetimes. i want to talk to you today about restoring the american dream by restoring american common sense. we have all learned about the concept of common sense through various channels or experiences in our life. for various people in the room and may be different, but ingredients include our upbringing, our values system, our life experiences, our world view and and philosophies, and a variety of other things. for me, these benchmarks and lessons were formed in my home town of salt st. paul. this book is written it with an attention to my background. it is a small suburb outside of st. paul. it was the home to some of the

world's largest stockyard and meatpacking plant. that was an enormous part of the community, culture and economy of my home town. so many families up and down the street and across our city were connected economically to these economy in ourpprovof town. those plans systematically and summarily shot down and the economic foundation of my childhood and my a neighborhood began to unravel in pretty severe ways. the trauma of the visits on people and families when their livelihood are questioned and destabilize and called into doubt is almost unimaginable, unless you have experienced that yourself. i know that many of us in the room have. it is not unlike the worry we see in the country today.

amidst all of that, when i was 16, my mother passed away pretty quickly of cancer. not too many years after that, my father, those so was the truckdriver pad -- my father, who was a truck driver for most of his life, lost his job. many people in my family did not go to college because they did not have the capacity or the opportunity. in their american dream, they were able to prosper and to raise a family, but they did things like working in oil refineries. my other brother recently retired after working 40 plus years as a produce an organic produce store. my a sister works as a one-on- one special-education paid. my other sister works as a secretary, an executive assistant in the same company. i share the with you because some of you were old enough to remember reagan democrats, laura

as they have now been and relabeled, it -- or as they now sam's clubabeled comeuppanc, republicans. certainly in my mother and father's generation, or my grandmother and grandmothers generation, if you missed the educational run for whatever reason, your disadvantage, disconnected, disenfranchised, this respected. as long as you were not disabled, you could often go get what my father called a strong- packed and jobs. you could go down to the meat packing plants and cut meat or unload freight. you could drive a forklift. you could do the hard work of what existed in the stockyards or plants or related industries in towns like that all over america. it was really in the fallback or

safety net for the american dream for those who could not grab onto the education or skills that was necessary to access the economy of the day and that time. but as we all painfully no, -- painfully know, things have changed. those things were the fall back for the american middle-class. they have migrated away and disappeared for various reasons. our as the point where power fellow citizens and those to come behind them have to have the skills to access the jobs and economy of today because if you do not, your marginalized in our society and our economy in ways that are extremely difficult and extremely hard to overcome in this hybrid- competitive global economy that we live in. i want to -- hyper-competitive

global economy that we live in. i want to talk to you about that, but i also want to talk about the role the government should play in the lives of our citizens in the context of what are those american common sense values the will help get us back on track caspa? i want to share five of them with you. the first one is not very complex. it is common sense. we have all seen it and experienced it. if you ask people from minnesota, if you ask americans what matters most to you, most often they will say, you know, i am a person of faith and that matters a lot. right behind that they will say, i love my family and that matters most to me. after that, they will begin put -- after that, they will describe a series of things at that and bring them joy, get them motivated. they will say, i want to get my

basement finished or riot and concerned about how to pay for health care. i want to -- or i am concerned about how to pay for health care. i want to go to the super bowl. i would like to go duck hunting. i want to put my kids through college, or a variety of other things. the point of all of that is that you cannot do any of that, you cannot have a pathway to most of that unless you have money. for most americans, their pathway to opportunities for money is having a job. there is a great debate in this nation now, as there should be, about what are those things we can do to make it more likely not less likely that jobs are going to start year, as a year and grow your. as all of the politicians run all over the country and say they are the jobs politicians, they are the jobs leader, let's make sure that we ask and answer the question by going to the people who actually provide the

jobs, and you actually have done the work of taking the risk, having a dream, having an invention, having an innovation, willing to invest, willing to add a role, willing to provide equipment, willing to do research, willing to commercialize a year in the united states of america. when you actually talk to the people who will keep the private sector economy growing, there are clear and consistent answers that come back to policy makers. those answers do not mess reside in the minds of the politicians and most of them -- do not invest reside in the minds of politicians, most -- do not best reside in the minds of haveicians, most of thewhom not done that type of work they are claiming they can provide.

most of the job providers will say that you have to keep costs and competitive, as measured by taxes, as measured by the costs and burdens associated with regulation, the costs and burdens associated with the time it takes to get a permit, a workers' compensation costs, and unemployment insurance costs, energy costs, and all of the other costs that come with that basket of the burdens that data to doing business in a city, in the county, in this state, in the nation. how do we compare it to the rest of the market, not as measured by the rhetoric of a politician, but as measured by the objective-or you can put up and say how is my state, how been--- objective dashboard you can put

up and say how is my state, how is my nation doing compared to the rest of the world? we have to do those things with strategic prison is in better going to stimulate and ignite -- strategic precision that are going to stimulate and ignite job growth in this country. in minnesota, our unemployment rate as i left the governorship was about 7%, significantly lower than the national average. our job growth rate since the crash was approaching three times the national average. our income growth in 2010 was double the national average and personal incomes in our state are amongst the highest in the country. many other measures of that type of growth in my state. we have to be responsible. we cannot spend more than we

have. you cannot do it as an individual. you cannot do it as a family. you cannot do it as a business. you cannot do it as a state, by law, in 49 states. it certainly cannot do it as a federal government. we have a government now in washington d.c. that again about $2.2 trillion last year and they spent $3.7 trillion. there are deficits as far as the eye can see. this is not a matter of right versus left. this is a matter of common sense. it is a matter of eighth grade mathematics. it is not going to work. it is irresponsible. it is unsustainable. it is reckless, and it will certainly take us down the path that we are seeing unfolding in parts of europe. just because we followed and greece as a democracy does not mean we need to follow it into bankruptcy. [applause]

of course, the question is, how do you do that? the politics are difficult. the rhetoric is difficult. i will tell you about difficult. i am from the state of mccarthy, mondale, humphrey, a wellstone, ventura, al franken. if we can shrink government in minnesota, as frank sinatra would sing about new york, if we can do it there we can do it anywhere. i was born in the year 1960. yes, that makes me 50 years old this year. i got my aarp card in the mail not long ago. i did not keep it. [laughter] yet. from 1960 until i became governor 40 years -- 42 years,

until 2002, the average increase in spending in my stay -- in my state was 21%. 40 years. there is no way you can sustain that. during my time as governor, we have it down to about 1% per year. it is a transformation, but it was a difficult transformation. there are powerful forces that wanted to say, we cannot reduce our spending pattern. we have to get back to the way it was. we must not reduce government's footprint. we cannot prioritize. we have to raise taxes. i drew a line in the sand and said no. we have to live within our means. and just like families, just like everybody else. this was not a matter of political rhetoric. it was a matter of math and basic economics. in my state, the principle

remains. i talk a lot about sam's club republicans. and what i mean by that is the when you look at the people who shop the sam's club, walmart, cosco, kmart, or if you have a little extra change in your march pocket, you may go up market, what used -- in your pocket, you may go up market, what you see is people looking for the best value. uc families getting huge volumes of toilet paper, doritos, and all of the staples of life, trying to minimize the burden that they put on their family with their shopping experience and so that their children and loved ones can have more opportunities. the very thing i want to mention to you is this, common- sense principle. people spend money differently

if the least some of it is their own money. now, if you have time in your busy life to read white papers and go to seminars and stay up all night and watch cable tv, or read all kinds of turtles, i hope you do. those are valuable -- read all kinds of journals, i hope you do. those are valuable experiences. but if you do not, here is something i advise. one weekend, go to two weddings. go to one where there is an open bar and go to one where there is a cash bar. you will see very different behavior. i said this in the new york very -- not very long ago, and someone said, who has a cash bar any more? i did not have the hard to say that in minnesota we still have

the dollar danced for the bride and groom to raise money as we send the off on their new adventure. the point is this, people need to have some responsibility about making a wise choices. the myth is the bill go somewhere else and it is all free. that is a system that i assure you is doomed to fail. that, unfortunately, is most the government. it is particularly most of our health care system as i have described the phenomenon. i will not go through it all, but let me just camp on that as one example of many. if you look at what is driving much of government spending, it is indeed the health care issue. it is driving budgets at a rate and pace that exceeds almost everything else.

if we do not solve this problem, really solve this problem, it will take down the country or at least inherit from within. president obama stood in iowa and said he was going to do health care reform with an emphasis on cost containment on a bipartisan basis and we were going to tackle this issue with articular emphasis on the part of health care that challenges and worries most americans, which is, am i going to be able to afford it, andy broken that promise. that is not what he delivered to the country and that is not going to work. we need to have systems where consumers or at least purchasers are in charge. user-friendly information about price and quality pet the providers of the service have incentive to dupont -- nevada the providers of the service of

incentive to do more -- that the providers of the service of incentive to do more than just provide quantity. that is not what our health care system currently is in minnesota. what is the look like on the ground? i will give you a quick example. our state employees were struggling with health care costs. we said, how about a new system where if you choose, you can go wherever you want, but if you choose to go somewhere that is hiring costs and lower in quality or efficiency, you are going to pay more. if you go somewhere that is better in outcomes and lower in cost, you will pay less. 90 percent of our employees, now that they have some financial

scan in the game, migrated to lower cost providers. the premium increases have now been 0% for three or four of the last six or seven years. almost unheard of in the health care market. why? because consumers are now in charge. they have information accountability around price and quality measures. we have begun the process of paying providers not just on volume, but for better outcomes and better health. fifth the next principle is this. allyson nation, -- of the next principle is this. as a nation, if we are not going to be the biggest or the cheapest, then we darn well better be the smartest. the comparative advantage for the united states of america is that our people are educated. they are skilled.

they are innovative. they are inventive. they are collaborative. they have the ability to see, create an inventor in ways that much of the world has not yet known. but they are working on it, and we need to not just keep pace, we need to be ahead of that. this goes right to the issue of our education system in this nation. you cannot have a successful country with one-third of our future citizens being relatively unskilled tory essentially on supposed -- essentially an unskilled or an educated. it is not going to work socially, morally, economically, strategically, and it presents an economic imperative for the nation. as time magazine pointed out, we now have one-third of our children in the united states of america and not completing high school. if you do not complete high school and maintain an educational skill level behind

that, you cannot access the economy of today and/or tomorrow. you become marginalized citizen in our country and with the strong back jobs being gone, there is nowhere for you to go. you either become trapped in a bunch of part-time service jobs or you become a ward of an estate in whole or apart, and then the call comes corporate -- ward of the state in whole or in part, and then the call comes for more government. the reason is they cannot pay for it themselves. the reason they cannot pay for themselves is because they do not have the skills or education to access the economy of tomorrow. it is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken. the link in the chain that is going to have to be severed so that we can move on to the next level of performance here is this.

the number one determining factor of how a child is going to do in school is the degree and level and intensity and frequency of their parents engagements in their lives, there's no allies in particular. the second most important determining factor -- a their school and lives and in particular. the second most important determining factor is to do is teaching. are we recruiting the best and brightest to come into teaching? do we have rigorous requirements before we allow them to come into colleges of education? are those colleges of education requiring mastery, not just teaching methodology. before we let them out of the colleges of education, can they demonstrate minimal and hopefully beyond that competency? are we measuring their effectiveness once they are in the profession by whether students are learning, how fast they are learning, what they are

learning? we also have to of mechanisms in place for teachers, if they are not doing the job, to develop them professionally and if need be moved them out. fit teachers' union in this nation -- i love teachers. pile of educators. they worked too hard and they do not i love educators. they work too hard and they do not get paid enough. but they are working in a system designed in the 1950's and it is not the 1950's anymore. and we had a woman in this district who was dismissed because of her views. while we were waiting for superman, super woman was pushed aside. she was a democrat. she told the truth. she was told. she was courageous. she spoke truth to power and

they kicked her out. [applause] and one last thing, in minnesota we have an great test scores. some of the highest in the country. peel back the onion. that is if you come from an area of the advantage or at least reasonable functionality. if you come from a background of socio-economic unraveling, the numbers tell a different story. we are the first state in the nation to offer performance papy. this issue is so important to our country. we cannot let a labor organization and the interest of adults and ahead of the strategic and moral interests of our children any longer. when people say, what can we do about it?

first thing they do is to eliminate the scholarship for poor children to go to a school of their choice, shame on them. critics of school choice and say, you're going to take the wealthy, the healthy, the advantage and give them a chance to flee the public schools. you're going to leave behind a more challenged population. it is going to get worse. how can you defend that? how can you even suggest that? and i look those critics in the eye and give them an alternative proposal. what if we gave that choice, the scholarship, the freedom, only to the poor, the disabled, those who are already failing? coup in the room is opposed to giving a chance to it is in a

and -- who in the room is opposed to giving that chance to a disadvantaged child? and stand up and raise your hand. they cannot. you may have learned this in sports, in business, in an alley, in a bar, but it is always troop. -- always true. bullies respect strength, not weakness. when america projects are image around the world, we need to do a duet with strength. we need to make sure there is not equivocation, uncertainty, and daylight between us and our allies around the world. there is a troubling development on this front under our current leadership. and i will give you a couple of examples. president bush negotiated anti- missile defense systems with two

of our best allies in the world, the czech republic and poland. president obama came in a and reversed that decision and pulled the rug out beneath them after they had already extended their necks out a long way politically. one leader was quoted in a publication as saying, "you cannot trust the united states anymore. they are only out for themselves." not long ago, the leaders of israel were questioning whether we really did stand shoulder to shoulder with them. the threats from their enemies were enhanced because of the question of where the united states stood. be strong.lipto i will close a look forward to your questions, but none of this will be easy. but this is the united states of

america. we have seen and difficulties before, and we have always overcome, but we need to do a with a clarion call for what made us great. pitt prosperity were easy, everybody around the world were and -- if prosperity were easy, everybody around the world would be prosperous. if freedom easy, if security worries the, everyone would be secure and free -- if freedom were easy, if security were easy, and everyone around the world would be free and secure. it is not. saddling the west was not easy. going to the moon was not easy. the heroism and commitment of the people on flight 93 was not easy. this is nine easy. -- this is not about easy. it is not about going tom and kicking back in front of our respective televisions. this is about putting our heads

down and plowing forward, and getting it done. thank you for listening. i appreciate it. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we have no shortage of questions from our audience as well as several set came in online. what did you think of president obama's speech last night? >> i was not able to watch it live or in its entirety. i can only comment on the exercise of on the news. from my standpoint, the president, the leader of our nation at this moment needs to make sure that in conveying empathy, a condolence, and the sentiment of the country -- from what i could say, he did a fine job.

>> what was your opinion of john boehner attending an rnc fund- raiser instead of the memorial? >> there was some suggestion that the invitation to the memorial came very late, after year already made other commitments. i cannot speak to -- after he had already made other commitments. i cannot speak to the facts and that and or the mechanics of it. i can say that the speaker is a good person and i believe the invitation came late after yet made other arrangements. and -- after he had made other arrangements. >> why did your opinion of government expansion become so severe during the president obama administration when the bush and administration also

expanded government significantly? >> there is a difference between some very and tyranny. when the government pushes into the province of family, private markets an entrepreneur of activity -- and entrepreneurial activity, it basically says, do not take the initiative. you do not have to take responsibility there. we will do it. you do not have to have the activities necessary to put together the safety net or program because we will do that. sometimes it happens in big ways like health care. other times it is incremental ways that you hardly notice, but a more government pushes in itself and pushes out industriousness, accountability, a charity, neighborhood, family

and the like, we moved down the continuum. as it relates to republicans, you had issues where republicans, i think, many conservatives said we do not want the federal government telling us what to do an education. the federal government said, if we are going to spend some money on education, we want to make sure we have accountability for how is spent. i do not think it is fair to say that poor republicans did not express concern about federalism. >> there was also a reference to the bush and administration, the patriot act and things like that. when there have and republican increases in the scope of the federal government, do you think there is a different dynamic at play then when you see it happen the other way around?

>> i think the question is whether there is hypocrisy in republicans taking swings at president obama and colosio compared to the voices four years ago, eight years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. probably. but i think it is also true that the conservative movement in its current form has that clearly in focus, and i think you will see a consistent and clear message, not just for six months, but for the foreseeable future. >> president obama initially called for bipartisan health care reform. at the same time that the health care debate was going on, republican leaders said their strategy was to say no an to everything the administration put forth. is the republican party solely to blame for the lack of

bipartisanship in the health care debate? >> no. >> and the reagan mantle has always been an very attractive for poor republican presidential hopefuls. how do you see yourself for republican presidential hopefuls. how do you see yourself in the reagan mold? >> i believe ronald reagan was one of the best presidents in the history of the country. the question is, what can we learn from him substantively and stylistically. substantively, he understood that while the government played certain limited roles, and that when it overreaches and becomes inefficient, bureaucratic, and inefficient and in an effective -- ineffective, the government should be limited. he believe the american power was the entrepreneurialism. . he wanted to unleash more of

that spirit. a bigger and also learn stylistically from ronald reagan. ronald -- i think we can also learn stylistically from ronald reagan. yet strong views, strong convictions. the confidence in knowing -- he had the confidence in knowing who he was. that is the were planted in the right place. he was a movement conservative, but you did not see him very often antonin or judge or get angry. -- and demesne -- demean or judges get angry. was a thoughtful person interpersonally. i think at the end of the day, americans are not looking just

for an indictment of the problem. they want a way out. what is a better way forward? and ronald reagan was able to do that? substantively and stylistically, and the country really needs it now -- ronald reagan was able to do that substantively and stylistically, and the country really needs it now. >> jimmy carter and ronald reagan announced their candidacies here. how would america be different today had you been chosen as john mccain as running mate rather than sarah palin? >> with all due respect to my friend john mccain, i do not think it was going to matter to the pick as his vice- presidential running mate. i believe that once the economy cratered, he or whoever the republican candidate turned out

to be was likely to lose the election. i think we would have ended up in the same spot. >> the palin candidacy provided her with international exposure which continues today. what has her effect then on america? >> large. i do not know her well, but i have had the chance to spend time with her at governors conferences. a couple of things, several things. one, i think she is a remarkable leader. as to this notion that somehow she is not worthy of consideration for national office, she had more executive experience before being selected as vice-president and then president obama had before he became president. that included being a mayor, the chief executive of a pipeline commission, envying a governor.

there is an -- and being a governor. there is also a double standard because if you went to a different type of school in a certain part of the country or if you were some kind of law review editor, that is more valuable than a few are from a place like alaska or minnesota. there is a sense a and that is not up to our standards, in some people's eyes. i don't agree with that. lastly, as relates to arizona, there has been debate back-and- andh regarding the towne, and i believe she was falsely accused. people blamed her for that incident, and the facts do not bear that out. >> we have questions about

specific political issues rather than politics. the transition to that. if walmart were an individual country, it would be one of china's largest trading partners. does that ever bother you when you think about the plots of america's manufacturing jobs? a think the real question here is about our trade. as it relates to china in particular, they are a large and rising power. we want our relationship with them to be constructive, but let's not be a pollyanna. this is a competition. we need to open our eyes a little bit as relates to china's intentions relative to the interests of the united states of america. i am for free trade. i think president obama should

be pushing and advancing free- trade agreements. i am for free trade, but i am not for being a chump'. there are some individuals and entities around the world to do not play by the rules. as that happens, the answer cannot be that we are afraid to call that out. we are afraid to allow them to account under the systems, rules capps spent -- afraid to hold them to account under the systems, rules that have unestablished. it is hard to do that when china holds one of the linchpins to our economy, namely, we are so unable to control our own finances the we have to mortgage part of our future to places like china. when that happens, you give the control not just of a portion of your economy, but a portion of your moral authority and influence around the world.

it is really hard to tell of your banker. so, you will notice in the discussions with government officials and business officials and others, one of their reports about their discussions with chinese leaders is that there is a new degree of assertiveness and in those discussions, not unrelated to america's perceived weakness and an ability to control our own finances and be fiscally responsible and stopped being an editor nation when it comes to -- a beggar-nation when it comes to places like china. >> how would more restrictive immigration policies affect industries that are important to minnesota and the midwest?

>> we have huge economic sectors of food and food processing. the immigration issue relates to those and others as well. i start with the core values and core principles in mind. one of the pillars of our country is that we are a nation based on the rule of law. you cannot have open, flagrant, sixth gainsustained violations w with large numbers of people in the country looking the other way of the law as written. it is corrosive to our society. people begin to disrespect violations of a lot in new and different ways. and we have seen this many times throughout history. one example is new york city.

if you allow people to be on the sidewalks, they key on the sidewalks. -- if you allow people to urinate on the sidewalks, they and urinate on the sidewalks. if you allow a person snatching to happen, pretty soon you have shootouts. we cannot have a nation based on the rule of law and have this much behavior be in violation of the law. those two things have to be informed. how to do that? if you look in my record in minnesota, i have done a number of things to help the effort, to take a more aggressive posture as it relates to illegal immigration. i will not go through all that. i think it is important to increase significantly the efforts to enforce the border. we need to have a secure and safe country. and we need to have an order

integrity, and it can be done. it can be improved significantly, and there are a variety of techniques for that. we can reinforce the capabilities that we have. i voluntarily send troops to the arizona border as part of operation jumpstart. it works. that was pre-crash and by the way. there are lots and of other aspects to this, but a couple other quick ones. if you want to be serious about reducing and moving toward the elimination of illegal immigration, you have to address in large measure of the core of why they're coming. they are coming for jobs and. you get an i-9 form and someone

gives me her passport, we cannot expect small business owners to verify if those papers are authentic or not. we need to move employers to a system like e-verufyify so thate boat can quickly establish whether the person is here illegally. -- so that the person can quickly establish whether they are here illegally. >> and governor, if you had been president one month ago, would you have signed or vetoed the don't ask don't tell repealed? >>, publicly supported maintaining the don't ask don't

tell policy. one of the rationale for repealing it was how does the military feel about a broadly. they took the survey and a majority, a small majority of those surveyed said they did not think it would make much difference, so they supported repeal. an interesting other thing came out of that. when they serve in combat units and asked how they felt, and when you heard the testimony on capitol hill, not of the military broadly, but of a combat unit leaders, they were not in support of it. they had serious concerns as a related to unit cohesiveness. in many cases, the testimony reflected a concern about the safety of the men and women, in this case men, in combat. i think we need to pay

deference to that, among other concerns. that is what i did not support repealing it. >> we have an important matter to take care of. first, to remind our guests of future speakers. we have an evening event, a night of solidarity with haitian journalists. roceeds and will and benefit haitian journalists and their families. yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the earthquake. on february 3rd, we have chairman ben bernanke of the federal reserve speaking a luncheon. we have the commissioner of the irs. secondly, i'd like to present our guest with a matching set. i hope you and your wife of lovely morning's looking over

the frozen tundra of minnesota with your national press club mud. how do you beat that? >> thank you. >> you can applaud. [applause] >> ticket final questions. -- two final questions. this is the last luncheon i am hosting as the president of the national press club. and i would like to tell you, being president is great. [laughter] i had the honor of being inaugurated last year. myall modern presented me with a bread farce -- myall modern -- my alma mater presented me with

a brett favre and jersey. would you like to take it back with you? [laughter] >> given the you do not seem to want to announce right here right now, although we would be happy to have you back when you do, if you do, and what factors at this point would keep you from deciding to run for the white house? >> thank you. i should mention, since this is the last question, as it relates to running back for president. i am seriously considering it. i have not made a final decision, but i will in the next couple of months. it comes down to two main considerations. one is the needs of the country and what i can bring to the table in leadership, experience

and perspective that i believe would move the country forward. two, it is a deeply personal and impact will position. -- impactful decision. i have children, a wife, and a dog. this will be burdensome to them. i have to make sure they are repaired and equipped if i do this. i have to think about as well myriapods process for being here today. i appreciated -- about that as well. for thank you and for being here today. i appreciate it myri. [applause] >> thank you to the entire national press club staff for all of the great work they have done this year. and for more information or how to acquire a copy of this program, please go to our

website, www.press.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] . .

future with ariane a huffington, cornell west, maria barbaro, and a day milbank beginning at 6:00 eastern on c-span. tomorrow, the republican national committee he likes their new chair. five candidates are looking for the position including current share michael steele. watch the process and the votes starting at 10:30 a.m. eastern. middle and high school students, it is time to off load your videos from the competition. petrify-eight minute -- and get your five-eight minute video in. there is $50,000 in total prize is released -- the cspan studentscam video competition is open forum students.

yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the earthquake in haiti. we will hear from the red cross. she talked about the market's response efforts and donor accountability of the organization from the national press club. this is about one hour. greta afternoon and welcome to the national press club. we are the world's local leading organization for journalists and are committed by committing to a free press worldwide. for more information, visit our website.

i would like to welcome our speaker and guests. i would also like to welcome our cspan and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. first, i would like to introduce our head table guests. from your right, nasir ahmad, liz skinner, geraldine ryerson- cruise, sam worthington, david meltzer, melissa charbonneau,

susie defrancis, rachel ray, edward donohue, april ryan, and finally, brooke stoddard. [applause] today is the one-year anniversary of the earthquake that devastated haiti. , claiming more than 200 lives and destroying many homes leading more than 1 million people homeless. many asian families one year later still need food, shelter, and sanitation. survivors are living in tent camps marked by disturbing

reports of violence. debris clogs the capital of port-au-prince. he conditions have sparked a tougher accountability for how funds are spent. today's guest is essential to patient relief efforts. as prison and ceo of the american red cross, gail mcgovern had a largest relief organization. last week, the red cross announced that so far it has spent or signed agreements to spend $245 million on haiti recovery efforts, more than half of what it has collected. haiti as a test -- is a test for the american red cross. when she took the job in 2008, mcgovern was the seventh ceo in seven years hired to restore the red cross' tarnished reputation. the marketing and fund-raising experts last expenses to cut the $200 million debt working to

regain the trust of donors who were wary from reports of red cross plans to divert 9/11 funds and the disorganize response to hurricane katrina. on january 12, 2010, which is also her birthday, the deadly 80 earthquake struck. the day after the quake and a shoe is diagnosed with breast cancer. as she began fighting her personal battle as well as the battle for haiti, she lost the red cross campaign to provide resources and assistance to the patient victims. she is here to discuss how the red cross is spending what it has raised for haiti and give an update on what has accomplished and let out the challenges that lie ahead. please welcome to the national press club, american red cross president and ceo, gail mcgovern. [no audio] [applause] >> thank you very much veryallen and i am really

pleased to be back at the national press club. it is quite an honor and i am grateful for the opportunity to be able to report to you and to the public about our operations in haiti on the one-year anniversary. i plan to talk about how the american red cross is putting your donated dollars to work and i will also talk about some of the challenges we are dealing with and how we plan to move forward to help haiti and its people recover. first i want to point out that even though haiti is by far the largest operation that we have worked on in 2010, it is certainly not the only disaster we have responded to. it is not the only thing we have been focused on this year. one in five people in the united states have been touched by the american red cross. it is unusual for me to meet anyone that knows everything we

do. we respond to 70,000 disasters every single year. we do this with volunteers who where pager's 24-7. these past year, we dealt with major disasters in the u.s. as well. like the floods in tennessee or the tornadoes that hit the south and the midwest or the wild fires in colorado. we are also there to respond to tens of thousands of single family house fires that happen each and every year and probably don't even make the evening news. these seemingly "small disasters" may seem small but if your family is impacted, they are of the epic proportions and we are always there. we are there to provide shelter, food, comfort, and hope. in addition to disaster response, we provide nearly half of the nation's blood supply and

every single one of those 10 million units were donated by a generous and selfless person who really wanted to save lives. we also work with members of the military, veterans, and their families by providing support, and 500,000 emergency communications every single year. that could range from delivering the news of a tragedy at home or to the video connection we set up for a soldier who was deployed so he could teach his teenage son how to shave for the very first time. we also teach lifesaving skills to about 10 million people every year. it is unusual for a month or two to go by when we are not honoring somebody who has -- an ordinary person who has done an extraordinary act. we recently honored a 17-year- old young man who saved his 3- year-old brother from choking because of his red cross

training. the depth and breadth of all that we do still continues to amaze even made. it truly is a privilege to be part of it. one last thing before i start talking about haiti -- 18 months ago, i spoke at the national press club about the challenges of navigating a nonprofit through turbulent economic waters. at that time, i talked about how the red cross was trying to eliminate a $209 million operating deficit over a two- year period. i am pleased to let you know that after a great deal of cost cutting, consolidation, and streamlining, we closed our fiscal year this past june and we did so with a modest surplus. none of these cost-cutting initiatives impacted our ability to fulfill our mission and we are continually seeking ways to be efficient in order to be

outstanding stewards of our donors dollars. now for haiti -- as we all know, one year ago today, haiti was struck by a devastating earthquake 7.0 magnitude that killed an estimated 230,000 people and left an additional 1.3 million people homeless. it flattened homes and destroyed much of the capital city and damaged a government operations including the death of many civil servants. matt merrick, a 36-year-old was the head of the american red cross operations in port-au- prince when the earthquake struck. he and his co-workers dove under their desks when the earthquake started. when it was over, they saw light. they realized that the walls of their building had collapsed around them. matt crawled out from the wreckage and he looked across the hillside to see thousands of

homes that were pancakes. he knew in an instant that many, many people had died. despite the trauma that he himself and his team and experienced,matt and the others spent the night bandaging and cleaning ones. they sent out teams to provide first aid to people who work in hard to reach locations and they did not have stressors said the dug through the rubble to find doors to carry the injured -- they did not have stretchers so they dug through rubble to find doors to carry the injured. my first trip to haiti was a first -- was a couple of days after the earthquake. the deceased were not buried. i saw people walking around the streets of port-au-prince with nothing more than just shock and grief on their faces. the extent of the devastation, the number of injuries, and the smell of death were just indescribable.

the city was eerily quiet. no one smiled our laughter or spoke. no one even cried. people were living in makeshift tents that they made from pieces of sheets under little sticks they had pitched. if you want to talk to the residents in these makeshift camps, you literally had to crawl around on your hands and feet to be able to see them. these images are still very, very vivid to me today. i suspect they will be four years to come. the experience fundamentally changed my life. i felt a combination of hard break but also a steely determination to do what ever we possibly could to help the people of haiti recover no matter what. i have pictures of children that i took during that first trip and i have them on my refrigerator. i look at the everyday. they help remind me of our mission and why we need to be

sure that every single dollar that we spend is spent wisely. what also strengthens my result is the incredible outpouring of generosity from the american public. the tremendous need of the haitian people brought out the tremendous part in the people of our country. so many americans reached into their hearts and wallets and they even reached for their cell phones to be able to give. they did so in such tough economic times. i want each and every one of them to know that we are truly grateful for those donations and they are making a difference to the people of haiti. the american red cross has raised $479 million for earthquake relief and recovery efforts. these came in from millions of dollars in various ways and in various sizes like the million dollar debt from a fortune 500

company, the $4 that was raised by a fourth-grade class in massachusetts, or the crumpled dollar bill that came with a note that was sent to me that said, "this is from the tooth fairy. can you give it to the people of haiti? more than 32 million came from text messaging. at just $10 a pop. this is a game changer in the world of fund raising. it shattered all previous records for a mobile giving. i would like to think it introduced a whole new generation to that delicious feeling of getting back, probably for the very first time. with this outpouring of support comes the responsibility for accountability and transparency. this new generation of donors want to know how the red cross is spending their money. i learned that first and when i did take skype interview with

the fourth grade class that raised $400. i expected the conversation to be pretty simplistic. these were 9-year-old kids. i knew we had entered into a new era of transparency when these kids asked me some really tough questions about exactly how they're $400 was going to be spent. i provided them with a lot of details and as i told the class, the red cross is committed to wisely spending the money that our donors have entrusted to us. whenever i make decisions, i tried to imagine that our donors are sitting right there at the table with me and i asked," would they be happy with the way we would be spending the money? would they approve and will it help the people of haiti?" i welcome this level of transparency and i am proud to share decisions with the donors. i am often asked whether we're spending the donor dollars fast enough in haiti.

three months after the earthquake, we told the press and our donors that we estimated that we would spend or what have contracts to spend too it million dollars in the first year following the earthquake. in fact is, to date, we provided more relief than we originally projected. i am proud to report that the american red cross has contracts to spend or we have spent $245 million in the first 12 months. that is more than half of the $479 million that we collected and if you do some quick math, the spending rate of 2/3 of a million dollars every day. that rate as possible because of our large disaster response capacity and we can also identify partners in haiti who can also deliver a massive amounts of assistance to complement our own capabilities. for the next few minutes, i will describe the emergency relief

that we provided in the first year since the earthquake and these are the kinds of services and activities that are urgently needed after a disaster. in haiti, they have literally kept people alive. that is a point or three emphasizing. while conditions in haiti are extremely difficult, these relief efforts made possible by your donations, have saved lives. that otherwise would have been lost. after i describe our relief efforts, i will talk about the challenges we face and the need to be flexible and i will also talk about our plans going forward. i will be using some of the facts and figures that can be found in our one-year 80 report on our website, red cross.org. i will also talk about what the american red cross has done but i will also refer to what we have done as a network with other red cross societies around

the world. our emergency relief efforts to include six different categories -- food, water and sanitation, emergency shelters, livelihoods', health services, and disaster preparedness. i will give you a few details on each and i will start with food. after the earthquake, the american red cross provided the world food program as part of that you and with $30 million in funding and an additional $14 million in ready-to-eat meals. that was enough to feed 1 million people during the height of the earthquake response. this assistance was vital in a country where even prior to the earthquake, 1.9 million people either went to bed hungry or were completely reliant on aid for sustenance. in early spring, the haitian government estate organizations to stop distributing food. they felt it would harm the

local economy, particularly local farmers. our funds were redirected to provide school meals, food for work programs, and nutritional supplements for children under 5 years old or pregnant woman or nursing women. next is the area of water and sanitation. since the earthquake, the global red cross network has been providing clean, drinkable water to hundreds and thousands of people throughout port-au- prince each and every day. we'll also funded latrines to serve 265,000 people who are living in camps and it is important to note that before the earthquake, only one in three people had access to claim potable drinking water and less than 20% had access to latrines or toilets. the american red cross is working to improve drainage around the camps. just imagine living in a home

where every time there's a heavy rain, you are in deep in water and you cannot lay down and your children can lay down and you have to stay up all night. these drainage projects keep residents a dryer, they reduce waterborne disease, and help put people to work. the third area is in the area of emergency preparedness. shelters. more than 1/3 of the tarps and tents provided in the communities came from the red cross. to put that in perspective, if you lay the tarps and tents end to end, they would go from new york city to miami. we are working to get people out of the tents as quickly as possible. at least to the shelters have provided earthquake survivors from protection from the blazing sun and a punishing rains. the american red cross has been

working hard to help the haitian people get back on their feet through jump starting livelihood's great we have to work with the micro-financing partner in haiti. we have helped about 220,000 people do cash grants and business loans. many of these families have received grants that were led by women and that is a particularly vulnerable group economically, as you know. because hundred of thousands of displaced asians left the capital to seek refuge with friends and families in other regions, we are providing support to about 70,000 people who are living with host families. these grants and loans made a real difference for patients like the owner of a small food shop. she lost most of her inventory during the earthquake. thanks to money from the red cross, she reopened per shop, her business is growing again, and once again she can provide support for her family.

there are signs that more and more haitians are getting back on their feet. the u.n. tracks the population in the camps and they have determined that the number of residents has declined by more than half a million people since the earthquake. the fifth area include several different initiatives that we are working in the area of health. the american red cross helped fund a u.n. vaccination program. we vaccinate a close to 1 million men, women, and children against diphtheria, protests, sepsis, measles, and rubella. merely to a 17,000 people have been treated since the earthquake -- nearly 270 people have been treated since the earthquake. we have kept the doors open of the largest possible in port-au- prince as well as the only critical care trauma center in all of haiti. the earthquake left thousands

of haitians survivors with crushed limbs. the american red cross is helping to fund the reconstruction of prosthetics and rehabilitation facility that is run by the healing hands for haiti. you can just imagine the joy that a child would experience with an artificial limb. it brings them back to normalcy whether it is being able to walk or be able to kick a soccer ball again. our final set of projects in the emergency response phase is in disaster preparedness. haiti is obviously a disaster- prone country and in order to be ready for the rainy season and the hurricane season, we are working to build a culture of prepared ness. the red cross pre-positioning of emergency supplies for 125,000 people and they are scattered around haiti. haitian volunteers trained by the red cross have gone into the

butt cans to provide residents with basic disaster preparedness and response tools. they have work with community residents to put sandbags on the hillsides and create evacuation routes. this included setting up emergency communications using bullhorns ourself on calling chains. -- or cell phone calling chains. when a t a komas was approaching -- when hurt tomas was approaching in the -- when hurricane tomas was approaching, we told the steps that people should take. these preparations kept a loss of life to a minimum one tomas struck in november. hopefully, that gives you a sense of our relief activities parked and more details are available on our website.

at the american red cross, we know it is very important to have a plan during disaster response. it is also very important to be flexible the cholera outbreak is example of a new and unexpected crisis that we had to respond to. as soon as the cholera outbreak started, the red cross sprang into action. within days of the outbreak, cargo planes filled with relief supplies that were paid for by the american red cross were landing in port-au-prince the red cross network opened three color treatment centers and we are providing funds to other centers as well. we are providing safe, chlorinated water every day to more than 300,000 people in port-au-prince. the red cross donated 10 millionauqtabs which are tablets that purify water.

text messaging as part of our color response. the red cross response team has sent 3.7 million text messages with prevention techniques and information across the country. we have also purchased and transported hundreds of thousands of prevention and treatment items like so, oral hydration tablets, i andv solutions. we have shipped thousands cots from our own warehouses in the u.s. for use in cholera treatment facilities and hundreds of red cross promoters are going tent to tent in the camps in port-au-prince to explain how to stop the spread of cholera. this is really not an easy task. this is a country where the literacy rate is so high, you cannot just a drop of a brochure

and ask people to read it. i had the privilege of following a group of volunteers around the tents. they used ingenious techniques from having a storyboard with illustrations to literally demonstrating how you wash your hands with a soap. they would teach the kids in camp the cholera song which has a catchy tune and the lyrics are all about how to prevent the spread of cholera. a second example where we had to be flexible had to do with an extensive initiative we were planning as part of our report. this project on fortunately will have to go into the column of challenges that we faced and it shows the need to adapt to new developments and new directions. i am speaking about our cash transfer program which you may recall from our previous report -- we had successfully piloted a program where we were going to

distribute $40 million to help people living in the camps. our feeling was that this would empower them to provide for their own needs rather than waiting in line for age distribution. however, the government of haiti asked us to stand down on this program in late october. the rationale was that the provision of cash would have more people moving into the tented communities. we were disappointed, frankly. i understand the point of view but we have to abide by their decision. since that time, the american red cross has been working to reallocate that money into financial assistance initiatives that would be more targeted. these would include cash for work, relocation grants, school vouchers to offset tuition payments, almost every student

has to pay a fee to go to school in haiti because 90% of the school system is private. our goal remains to get cash into the hands of families which will improve their lives but also stimulate the haitian economy. another challenge that you have read about is finding land to get people out of the camps and into transitional homes. this effort has not moved as quickly as any of us would have hoped for a number of reasons. it has been very difficult for the haitian government to determine and exactly who owns the land and obviously, groups like the american red cross cannot just charge in and steal land and start building. it is not our land or our country. much of the available land is covered with tons of rubble. that has to be removed and there is not enough heavy equipment in haiti to do so and even if there were, the roads are so narrow that heavy

equipment would not have access. despite these challenges, the american red cross is moving ahead in our effort to provide more permanent shelters for haitians better currently living under tarps and tents. we are spending $48 million as part of the red cross network's overall goal to build transitional homes for 150,000 people. our partners have already completed a number of these homes in 16 different communities. these homes will be able to house 15,000 people. these are brightly colored homes. they are a vivid sign of progress and a sign of hope. i like the fact that in many instances they are being built by the haitians that live in that community as part of a cache for work program. the red cross is planning to spend the remainder of our funds

and longer-term recovery and we plan to be in haiti until the very last dollar is spent. our hope is to leave a lasting impact so that the bulk of the remaining funds will be sent -- spent on permanent housing. our plans to provide permanent homes using two deborah approaches which include existing rehabilitating existing communities inside port-au- prince. homes in the city have been marked with green if they are able to be habitable. , yellow if they need repair, and read it they need to be demolished. our program would include repairing homes that are damaged and replacing those that are unsound. this is a street by street approach and it allows people to return to their neighborhoods and stay close to family, friends, and jobs. the second approach is the green field ever where we develop brand new communities outside port-au-prince.

we are very excited to tell you about two brand new initiatives. the american red cross is working closely with the united states government, the state department through its implementing arm ,usaid on a planned partnership to build permanent housing for people who were left homeless during the earthquake. under this partnership, u.s. aid would identify and prepare at least two locations inside haiti for permanent homes that would include roads, drainage, and other infrastructure. the american red cross would build these homes including water and sanitation. we anticipate spending as much as $30 million in this planned partnership with u.s. aid. the american red cross is also working on a separate housing programs -- project with the inter-american development bank. we anticipate that we will spend as much as $15 million to construct homes on land

identified by the haitian government. that would include roads, sanitary systems, electrical services, and other infrastructure. these projects are part of the $100 million that we plan to invest to provide tens of thousands of people with permanent homes. they will unfold over the next few years. before i take your questions, i want to offer a personal perspective. by experience in haiti is like nothing i have ever experienced. i have made several trips since the earthquake and each time i experienced every single possible emotion. deep sadness and despair, but also pride, joy, and hope. on like all americans, i really wish the pace of project could be faster in haiti. i would like to see all haitians living in permanent homes with robust livelihood's and have a

vibrant communities. instead, about 800,000 people are still living under tarps and tents while the haitian government works to sort out land ownership issues. this is not easy in a country where title documents often did not ever exist and where the government work force has been decimated during the earthquake. much has been done in haiti, the conditions are still very tough on the people there. i keep reminding myself that haiti was a very poor country before this devastating earthquake. more than 70% of asians were living on $2 per day or less. only one in three haitians had access to safe drinking water. less than half of the people in haiti have electricity and the letters 3 rate is 45%. in many cases, eight groupsqai -- aid groups are rebuilding

for the very first time. the recent events are the last few months like the cholera outbreak and a hurricane and the civil unrest -- these have only compound the mystery of the earthquake survivors. amid the destruction and hardship, there is also hope and progress. the resiliency, the determination, the spirituality, and a positive attitude of the people that i have met in haiti are absolutely inspirational. i am also inspired by our red cross workers on the ground to endorse many of the same hardships in order to be there every single day helping others under incredibly challenging circumstances. they have really accomplished so much. i am deeply moved by all of you who entrusted us to spend your dollars wisely in ways that best help the people of haiti.

that is exactly what we are doing. i am personally committed to spend it in a way that will make our donors proud. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for taking some time to speak with us on your birthday. how is the current political atmosphere in haiti affecting relief efforts? >> i mentioned several of unrest and that, unfortunately, was the reality. as a result, many of the aid operations had to stand down temporarily. the prime minister and president bill clinton are working on the interim haitian commission. they are still approving

projects. the ones that i described in here were put in front of the commission and it is still moving but slowly. >> how much has the haitian government help or hinder your work there? >> as i said, their job is not easy. people were living in homes that had no titles. if you've visited haiti and you see the rubble, it is incredible what they have to do. the good news is they completed the work to label the yellow, green, and red houses. the projects i described are starting to move forward. i am seeing transitional shelters spring up all over the place for it we are building about 20-30 every day of the week. there is progress but the haitian government has a lot of hard work to do with the decimated work force. >> from the haitian government

to the u.s. car and, understanding that the red cross is a donor agency, what is your reaction to discussions that you hear in the new congress of cuts the foreign aid budget and accountability? >> as the ceo of the american red cross, one of our seven tenets is neutrality. i want to be neutral on all things political. having said that, we're working closely with the state department, u.s. aid and they are helping us forge ahead in haiti. >> you mentioned that you have seen examples of hope and inspiration that have kept you going. what is a specific example of success you have seen the gives you hope. >> there were signs of hope all over haiti. you can walk around haiti and here hammering as transitional

shelters go up and you can see kids with artificial limbs that are walking for the first time since the earthquake. people look healthier in haiti. when i was there the first time, there were so many injured people. now, you can see that people -- the health care system was nonexistent before in haiti. only one in 10,000 people had access to health care. there is progress you do not see like the fact that 1 million people are now vaccinated against diseases that were widespread or that water-borne illnesses or minimize in close quarters in port-au-prince because of prevention, clean water distribution, etc. every time i go, i am so delighted to see how much commerce is happening industries. it seems like there is not one empty spot on the curb where someone has not set of some sort

of shock and is selling something. i have seen people using our red cross tarps and tense. i cite restaurant that had a table for two and it was fully booked. [laughter] i cite a manicurist. eyesight barbershop. -- i saw a barbershop. this is a test of the resiliency and the termination of the haitian people. >> how do you take what is a relief effort and translate that into the foundation of a sustainable health care system once you are gone? >> that is an excellent question. we are literally helping to keep the doors open of the two hospitals i described. the haitian government has started paying the salaries in the university hospital which we think is a great sign. in order for the health care to be sustainable, it has to be a

government-run institution. the aid will eventually run out. we have $479 million which sounds like it as a lot but it is enough -- it is not enough to keep hospitals going forever. the haitian government has begun to engage. we are working with them to transition the salaries over to the government. >> when a disaster occurs, there is the first aid and then you have your ai your aid. you cited the example of food where there is an immediate rush of food and a desire because of the damage to push it away. when you make those judgments in a certain area that you have left the crisis phase and are in the longer term phase? to what extent are we still in one phase and not into the next?

es inat decision of vario each disaster. i never want to stop distributing relief. you want to keep continuing. if we were to do that, the money would run out and we would leave and there would be nothing to show for it. there was an incredible outpouring of generosity from the american public. as people leave the tented communities which is a sign that people are getting back on their feet, we have started to divert funds to recovery with the permanent housing and a transitional homes, as well. it is important to do this because it is a sign of progress. it is a permanent, indelible, lasting impression on the country. at the same time, we are constantly prepared for

unexpected disasters like the cholera outbreak or hurricane tomas. we work closely with the government of haiti, the people on the ground, our sister society, the haitian red cross to get a sense of when it is right to start doing recovery efforts. in the case of haiti, we feel it is time to start breaking ground and start building permanent homes. >> one issue is how much of the population has been concentrated in port-au-prince. you talked about new greenfield initiations to reallocate people. how you create an economy for these people? >> your observation is exactly correct. port-au-prince before the earthquake and a population of 2.5 million people. they say that it was a city

built to accommodate 900,000. even before the earthquake struck, it was over populated. when you look at the blue prints that the interim commission has worked on to figure out long-term recovery, it includes flattening port-au- prince a bed and disbursing the residence outside the community. there has to be an effort to provide a livelihood, jobs, etc. part of our recovery is to continue to support livelihood's, but this is something that the haitian government is working on as well. yesterday, there was an announcement we're two korean textile manufacturers are going to be setting up operations in haiti and that will create 20,000 jobs. infrastructure, utilities, livelihoods', schools, community

centers, all of these things are required to make haiti a vibrant community. we are coordinating with partners to make sure that those types of things are available before we are digging. we are also making sure that our initial projects are close to port-au-prince where there are jobs centers and possibilities for employment. >> you will often hear that when an effort is put forth, the money is being spent too quickly and the economy can't absorb it. people don't say that will tend to say that you're not spending the money fast enough. spent is being inefficiently. how you manage the pressure and know that you have been spending

money at the proper pace? >> that is an excellent question. it is a true observation. if we don't spend it at a really rapid pace, people ask why we are not spending it faster. if we had blown through the $479 million in the first year, i am confident that people would ask what we did with the money. the way i wake up in the morning and can look myself in the mirror is by saying that i want to spend the money through a lens of making our donors proud and will it help the people of haiti. we have resisted the urge to just dump money. you want to make sure that it is spent wisely. in a number of the initiatives i talked about, we are working with partners. we make sure that we put out requests for applications and

they will spend the money wisely and we have the ability to audit where the funds are going. we want to make sure at the end of the day that we can account for every single dime and that we do not succumb to pressure, we just want to do the right thing. >> according to one report, donations were spent more quickly in the best year in haiti. what is different about their condition there that has spending on infrastructure slower? >> in the u.s. during hurricane katrina, and i should preface this by saying hurricane katrina was four years before my time and started at the american red cross. included in our work in katrina was an enormous financial aid package where we were supplementing the work that fema had done very we took the outpouring of donations and gave money to the victims that were

impacted. we did it with a debit cards and we were able to transfer donations directly to the people there. that was one ever. -- that was one effort. katrina happened in the u.s. and people could get in buses. i read that only 60% of the people returned to orleans. in many ways, it was easier to get relief done quickly because there was not this same long recovery effort. you walk around haiti and you see that recovery has to be a huge part of our donations or else there will be nothing to show for it. recoveryre planning operations -- as i said, this is not to rebuild haiti. this is to build parts of haiti

up for the very first time. >> i was speaking with a person in reception remarking how the attention span for disasters -- disasters can be very short. even one year later, people are still talking about haiti, it can be unusual. you have a large haitian ex patrick community. you have access to u.s. media. as haiti taken oxygen out of the room when it comes to relieved? what areas other than 80 need more assistance that may be suffering from lack of attention? >> first of all, as haiti taken the opposite out of the room? -- taken the oxygen out of the room?

this disaster has captured the american imagination like no other. the images were her epic and more vivid and for whatever reason, the media went deeper into shelling some really graphic images -- went deeper into show when -- showing some really graphic images. just the sheer number of donors, not the amount necessarily, but the number of donors -- i walk through the pin on with a red crossin and a table, to me and asked me what he did with his money. this is not diverted our attention. we responded to thousands of disasters last year and delivered half of the american blood supply. we train people live supply and supported military families to the tune of five under thousand

connections every year. we could use donations for that, absolutely. there is a bed of donor fatigue because of haiti. there are many things going on in our country that the red cross is providing and we exist because of the generosity of the american public. any donations in any area are greatly appreciated. >> when a donor cents money by a cell phone, does the phone company get a cut? >> they did not during 80. there were just very generous. they did not take their fees. that was pretty amazing. ifther question i'd get is someone's kid tested millions of dollars. onlydidn't because you can taxed twice. the $32 million was either $10

or $20 donations. we love this medium. we are constantly sending tax back to the people donated with little status reports, showing them how their money is working and what we are doing. it is a great way to send messages and keep people feeling connected. >> are you able to harvest that for your mailing lists? >> that's an interesting question. we sent a text that invited people to opt in by texting us. their e-mail addresses and i think we got between 5% and 10%. we communicate with people via e-mail. i love texting but it is kind of hard to send a storage chip report by the one i just gave you in a text message. we are delighted for anyone to get on our website and give us your e-mail address.

we want to keep them informed. the more we can tell our donors about what we are doing, not only in haiti, but throughout the american red cross, the more connected they feel a level of transparency is something that we welcome the the red cross. >> could you talk more about the role of the haitian expat community in the u.s.? >> we work with the dias pora very closely. we asked them to volunteer when the earthquake first struck the arek. we asked creole people to help staff a ship that was used for critical care. we rely on them to help guide us as to what is the right thing. we have dedicated staff of the red cross to interact with the

haitian diaspora. because we feel they are important. we do now -- in cities where there is a big population. they are vital to keeping us informed. they all have relatives back in haiti. they can also help keep a finger on the pulse of what is going on. there are vocal. they demand transparency. that is something that we welcome. we keep them informed and have quite an outreach to make sure that we have give and take a dialogue. >> do you see other organizations working hard on transparency as the red cross? while the greatest transparency challenges overall in this effort? >> i think donors are demanding transparency.

if there are organizations that are not providing it, i can assure you that eventually they will. we have made a commitment that we want to lead the effort in transparency and, for the most part, we share everything we have. the biggest this season is when is too much, too much. transparency can be so overwhelming that people cannot grasp is. we are happy to share the way we are spending our dollars. this keeps us on our toes.

it forces us to continually do the right thing. it is good for philanthropy. there are more people that will want to donate when they truly understand where their dollars are going and the difference they are making. >> realistically, when do you expect haiti to be functional society with permanent homes, no tents, and a functional civil society? >> that is a tough question. i would have to have a degree in urban planning to give a realistic answer. i can tell you that in japan after the earthquake in kobe that it took seven years to get them back to where they were before the earthquake. that was one city in a country with the extraordinary infrastructure and resources. haiti was such a poor country to begin with that there are people

living in the tented committees that have told us that they are better now than they were before the earthquake. i guess i give the answer that it will take a long time. some of these projects will take a long time. construction takes a long time. it will require coordinated effort. it will require utilities, infrastructure, water, sanitation. i will not give up hope that we can get there. the reason i have a hope is that when you ask the people in the tent communities what they need, they don't say water or food or shelter or clothing. they say they need a job. with a society that is so eager to work, it seems to me that there is tremendous hope for haiti in the future and as people discover how industrious the society is, i like to think that we will see job

opportunities, offshore manufacturing and of the like, that will help bring haiti back at a faster pace. >> what has been your most moving or powerful memory over the past year? >> oh, my goodness. there are so many images flew in my face when you asked that question. when i went to haiti the very first time, nobody smiled. nobody smiled. i came home and i could not smile. it was almost like my smile muscles got frozen. when i got home, i stood in my shower and i thought about the stuff we take for granted. the fact that i can stand here potable drinking water pouring

down the drain was so amazing to me. on my next trip to haiti, i came back and people were smiling. i have emblazoned in my memory what those smiles look-alike. i saw kids that had taken pieces of sheets and cloth that they were using for the makeshift tents, they were now under tarps and tents and they had taken the cloth and using them as kites and there were flying against the backdrop of a blue sky and they were squealing and giggling and there was joy on their faces which is a memory that i will keep with me for a very, very long time.

>> for our final question, you have spoken year before. you are speaking on the one-year

anniversary. what will you be able to tears -- to tell the national press club on the two-year anniversary? >> you have no idea how much i covet this cup. it is hard to get one of these. now i. have two. i hope that one year from now, i will report that our financial are stable and the american public is still supporting the american red cross, we continue to be there for people in need. i am almost 100% sure that i will report that i have the best job in the entire world. thank you. [applause] >> and thank you, gail mcgovern. this meeting of the national press club is adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the u.s. house is not in session today or tomorrow so that members can attend the annual republican retreat. they will be back on tuesday when they are expected to start general debate on discussion that repeals the health-care law. a debate was scheduled for this week, but was postponed due to the shootings in tucson. if it passes in the house, it will head over to the senate.

majority leader harry reid said it will not be brought to the floor for consideration. watch as they built -- debate health care right here on c- span. tavis smiley lead a discussion on america's future. it begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow, the republican national committee he likes their new chair. five candidates are vying for the position, including current chairman, michael steele. watch on c-span, c-span radio, and on c-span.org. this week, the russian parliament is debating the strategic arms reduction treaty known as start treaty. -- known as the start treaty.

we will now hear a discussion hosted by the council on foreign relations on this that this -- the status of the treaty. this last one hour. >> that gets started, please. i am clifford kupchan. i would like to welcome everyone to today's council on the foreign relations committee. completely turned off your cell phone, blackberries, and in the wireless devices to avoid interference with our sound system. as a reminder, this meeting is on the record. let me proceed to introduce our guests, our speakers. first, rose gottemoeller. she is the assistant secretary

of state for the bureau of arms control, verification, and compliance. she recently served as the chief negotiator of the new strategic arms reduction treaty, or start. prior to her position, she was with the endowment for international peace where she worked on nuclear security and stability. steve pifer is a senior fellow at the brookings institute on the united states and europe. he focuses on russia and ukraine and arms control. he is a retired foreign service officer. he has more than 25 years with the state department. he focuses on russia and eurasia. and finally, micah zenko.

he works for the center for preventive action. previously, he worked at the harvard university kennedy school of government. he has worked in washington in the congressional research service and policy planning office at the state department. let me begin our discussion. let me begin with you, rose. what are the lessons of the new start for the future of u.s.- russia arms control negotiations? what insights could you offer from what you have experienced on russia's views on key issues. . how should any u.s. administration handled the congress on an arms control treaty?

>> may i say how impressed i am that there are so many people interested in nuclear arms control at this hour of the morning. it's absolutely terrific. that was the first point. i would like to turn to your congressional point. the degette lesson -- the significant lesson of the ratification process for the congressional relationship is that it brought the issue front and center again in our relationship with the u.s. congress and with the senate. i was impressed as the negotiator. the senate was interested. the course of the negotiations. it started in the spring of 2009 as negotiations were getting started and proceeded through the summer and the rest of 2009- 2010.

there were briefings of the national security working group, which was chaired by senator jon byrd and theor chairman of the far relations committee and senator lou guard. we were involved with them and the armed services -- and senator luka are -- senator lugar. then the ratification process came. there was a lively discussion. the core solution i take away from it is that nuclear arms control is back as an issue of interest on the hill. a number of senators are willing and willing -- willing and ready to engage. as the future is concerned, i would say, continue what we are doing, which is to stay in close

contact as we proceed in a new direction. also to be aware that the interest level is going to be high. indeed, you saw that. if you look at the resolution for ratification, they call for briefings, consultations, let's get in there and talk to them after and in the middle of any interaction. i think that is healthy. i welcome the fact that there is a big interest on capitol hill. it is a lesson for the future that we need to continue that and make sure that due diligence is done. as for the lessons we learned working with the russians, i would say that there are two lessons for me. the first lesson is that the cold war is over. there were many cold war issues that we continued to grapple with. the way negotiations were conducted, it was different from what i was last at the negotiating table in 1990 and

1991 working on the start treaty. at that point, we still had a set piece way of interacting with the russians. in the intervening period, fitting years of implementation made a huge difference on how we -- fifteen years of implementation made a huge difference on how we interact with the russians. we had people who came and participated in our delegation in geneva. the russians did the same. we had experienced team on both sides of the negotiating table who were used to interacting with each other on basis of strategic operating. we knew what we needed to do in the course of these negotiations to get through them and get to a

treaty that suited the present stage. that was the first lesson. the cold war really is over. we have had a lot of experience that has made a big difference in how we interact with the russians on these issues. the second point is, i would say, a realistic point. it is one that is a little more negative than. -- a little more negative. there are some cold war issues that continue to return to the agenda. there is a longstanding issue. it is an issue we are now going to try to work hard with cooperation with the russians in our bilateral context and in the nato context. that was such an enormous expense in the lisbon summit. in those two contexts, we agreed

on a program of missile defense cooperation. this is nothing new. ronald reagan spoke of cooperation with the soviets on missile defense. now we want to get off of the dime on this. it is going to be important in the future. thank you. >> let's take the next steps in order. steve pifer, what are the prospects for nuclear weapons. what might an agreement look like? >> first of all, with the new start treaty taking it down to 15 strategic warheads, it is hard to imagine further reductions without doing something about the tactical nuclear weapons. if we get into another round of

negotiations with the russians on tactical weapons, there are going to be some difficult issues. first of all, there is a large numerical despair tell -- numerical disparity in the u.s. arsenal compared to the russian arsenal. the russians have almost three times as many as we do. over the last 10-15 years, the russians have come to place more weight on tactical nuclear forces. they regard them as -- they look at in the -- they look at conventional force disadvantages. nato chose not to match the soviet union tap -- soviet union tank for tank. another complicated issue is

verification. when you are talking about limit on tactical weapons, you probably will not be talking about the certain systems. you are talking about limiting actual warheads and perhaps even designing teams where inspectors might go into storage bunkers and count weapons. that is not an insurmountable cause. that will pose a limit. the questions are not insurmountable. the question will be, given the large russian advantage, how do you persuade them to negotiate away all but part of that? the way to do this will be that the united states will end up with a numerical advantage in

non-deployed nuclear warheads. the russians will reach their reductions by taking out of service missiles. their remaining weapons will have pulled warhead sets. they would have the ability to put a lot of those warheads back. the russians will not have any matching capability. perhaps we will design an approach that will allow us to trade limits on non-deploy strategic warheads. for the russians to address tactical weapons, it might give them some negotiating leverage. there is time to move to an approach that talks about and -- talks about a limit on all nuclear weapons. it he put them into a single limit, that might allow some of

these trade-offs -- it you put them into a single limits, it might allow some of these trade- offs. >> would anyone else like to comment on the capital issue? ok. micah zenko, turning to ballistic issue -- ballistic missiles, there are several issues. given that the u.s. is unlikely to accept formal limits on ballistic missile defense, what types of understandings might moscow accept? how likely is missile defense to disrupt u.s.-russian nuclear cooperation? >> let me take the last one first. there are further steps in the

conventional force reductions agreement that could be reached. if there is not a formal agreement or understanding on the way forward, none of these will likely happen. the dividend -- medvedev said that we must come to agreement. this is of primary concern to many russians. it comes up over and over again. the primary russian concern is not the system that currently protect the united states from limited numbers of ballistic missile launches. the united states has six missile receptors in california. this is designed to cover the entirety of the united states. in the fall of 2009, the obama administration produced european faced adaptive approach

policy, which is a -- phased adoptive approach policy. there are some russians who perceive that that system will put at risk its icbm force and they cannot have a reliable second strike against the united states. we have attempted to explain that these systems will not threaten russia's second strike capabilities. there are still more things the united states can do to provide transparency about the 2018 stages will look like. we do not know what this will look like yet. the missile that will be in place in 2018 is still in the

design stages. it will be based on ships in the mediterranean. the procession that this could threaten the future scares russia. secretary gates said the russians hate missile defense. they have hated it since the 1960's. the secretary said there could be no meeting of the mind on missile defense. i do not think that is the case. in light of the meeting in november, the russian president came out with an early proposal or what joint missile defense would look like, which i call sincere, but not serious. they would have three principles, one would be that russia would be a full-fledged partner in missile defense. second, they would want to have shared early-warning data, shared re not, with a two-button

principle. the third is what they call sector-based defense, assigning some of responsibility. we talk to military planners in the united states. it was not going to fly. there is the slight issue that russia does not have a missile defense system. there is a new air defense system that has never been presented or tested. they claim it will be operational by 2020. i think there can be agreement paper this is being worked in working groups regarding three joint assessments. it can also be shared early warning of all ballistic missile launches. there were peace and -- there were people in -- there were

systems in history that were going to allow missiles to be watched from various parts of the world. i think there can be cooperation on shared early warning, a threat assessment, and cheered radar, which includes integrating some of the russian -- shared radar, which includes integrating some of the russian systems. >> i would like to add on this missile defense cooperation point. you may have seen that the minister of foreign affairs gave a press conference in moscow. he commented that the pace at which we are getting off of the ground on our discussions within the working group -- the presidential commission working group, which deals with missile defense matters, and some

military to military discussions. there is a fast pace of activity. i do think that moscow and washington are intent, as are our nato allies, on getting all of the ground quickly to complete the threat assessments and look at how to put all these pieces together. >> i think that is good news. if you look at the negotiation, the russians are assisting on something for missile defense. there is something of a trapped there. missile defense cooperation may be a way to get out of the box, which could be a major obstacle in strategic arms reductions. >> let me turn to a different type of issue. we now have the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement.

what is in it for both sides? how can the u.s. government and the u.s. private sector best pursue avenues opened by this major agreement? >> if you have not heard about it, a lot of people have been focused on the new start treaty anti-missile defense cooperation. there was a major step forward in moscow this week when the ambassador and the deputy foreign minister exchange paper work to bring the 1-2-3 agreement. this happened on tuesday the 11th. when i was an assistant secretary of energy in the late 1990's, we were working on a 1- 2-3 agreement. it has been a longstanding initiative. it has finally happened. there are three areas of

enormous benefits for both countries. the area i am most familiar with is the non proliferation cooperation. there is an agreement for nuclear cooperation of this kind. it helps us advance our nuclear non-proliferation cooperation. it helps us what our scientists get together and work on detailed technical projects, for example new systems. it has been a history of successful u.s.-russia cooperation. this agreement will facilitate and ease that cooperation in the future. it will help with some counter- nuclear terrorism issues. when we have material that is acquired and we are concerned about it been part of a possible terrorist plot, the nuclear forensics process will be facilitated and eased by having in place a 1-2-3 agreement.

the second area is civil nuclear cooperation. two countries are working together and cooperating. the deputy secretary of energy is the chairman of the bilateral commission. there is a bilateral commission looking at ways to advance civil nuclear cooperation. that means advanced reactors and fuel cycles and arenas of that kind. the third area is on the commercial front. it will facilitate cooperation between u.s. companies and russian companies that are engaged in nuclear energy projects. again, the development of new reactors, new fuel cycles, new fuels. it addresses the issue of when the united states has a deal with another country for nuclear

fuel, the united states has consent rights over the final disposition of that fuel. having a 1-2-3 agreement in place facilitates commercial cooperation. three important areas where this agreement will make a big difference. it will allow us to and bans nuclear energy cooperation on the russian front overall. i welcome it -- to advance nuclear energy cooperation on the russian front overall. i will say to the audience, i did not know what i was looking at when i look at the material from moscow this year. the united states and russia have worked -- have worked to reach -- worked to repatriate 760 kilograms of nuclear

material. that has not required the 1-2-3 agreement. that is pursuant to the international partnership that president obama launched to get highly enriched uranium and plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons into a program to dispose of them or better protect them. russia has been a great partner in this regard. it is worth while underscoring the way this partnership can be enhanced and further developed because of the 1-2-3 agreement been in place. >> one final question for micah zenko. as we all know, russia faces presidential elections in 2012. there is a tightening fiscal landscape involving large

deficits. how do these economic factors affect the nuclear front? >> if you what an interesting perspective, look at the present's speech to the nation. the russian president gave it and went through a litany of problems the russian people face. the final issue he discusses its foreign affairs, defense, national security. he lays out his agenda to spend $700 billion on improving defense, including improving conventional weapons. it's not all going to happen. they do not have the money. oil is about $100 per barrel.

based upon the need to restructure its conventional weapon forces, to bring rationalization -- for example, eighth recently created the version of dark but -- created a verson of darpa. based upon the need to come down to levels that steve mentioned, russia wants an additional agreement that provides transparency and predictability on u.s. and russian nuclear weapons at lower levels. >> thanks to all of you.

we now and by audience members to join the discussion. a few procedural comment. please wait for the microphone. speak directly into it. please stand and state your name and affiliation. please keep questions and comments on point and concise, allowing as many members as possible to speak. >> i worked 13 years on a nato nuclear weapons. i carefully read all of the russian statement of doctrine as they come out. i never see the word tactical. this notion of relying on tactical -- they are relying on strategic, which is what nato relied on. a lot of you may know that the sign off involved in nato

responses was involved early on. that is a concept of deterrence, not in real fighting pit it includes strategic weapons. we should not for get that. i just wondered. does anybody up there just know of states where they use the word tactical? >> that is a good point. i would note to ban things. -- two things./ the ratification that came out of the senate refers to non- strategic nuclear weapons. it is a good point to be considering. the use of the word tactical has a number of emphasize aspects to it. that is an important-- i but- mprecise -- imprecise aspects

to it. i would agree with your comment in that regard. >> i might suggest that one thing that could be done between now and the next negotiations would be that someone in these working groups talked to the russians. what would be a common scheme to categorize how we talk about nuclear weapons. when we talk about not-strategic tactical, we may have a different-- non-strategic tactical weapons, we may have a different way of categorizing them. >> they do have these joint definitions. the u.s. presented its definition of what tactical means. the russians presented their definition of what capital -- of what tactical means. >> sally horn, independent

consultant. i have a question or all thei panelists. i was struck by what he said about the lessons that could be learned from the debate on the hill and the negotiations. i was wondering if you could take that a bit further. what are the lessons that could be learned in terms of the perceptions of some recent russian public right things. they suggest what might happen in the future, which is suggested up a policy concern about which direction we should go and how that might impact their concept of deterrence. if you look at some of the writings of the senators on the hill, we take away from that some concern about policy concerns.

not the numbers. not even the questions about the technical aspects of their vacation. underpinning it all is the broader policy concerns about direction. i was wondering if you might speak to the question of what lessons might be learned about what you perceived as this underpinning of perceptions and use and how do we deal with that moving forward in the area of further cooperation with the russians? related to that, at what time and win and how do we bring in the other nuclear powers -- and when and how do we bring in the other nuclear powers that have nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities? thank you. >> why don't you take the first bite. >> if the russians are looking at the discussion that took place during the ratification in the senate, they are going to

see a strong policy attachment. it is reflected throughout the gratification of missile defense. we have something of the opposite but unintended impact of making the russians press even harder in the next round of negotiations for limits on missile defense. my guess is that the russians finally accepted that there would not be a need for missile defense. they look out at the new start treaty and said, this is going to be a treaty. when you look at things like phased adaptive approach, they have a good idea of where the american nuclear system will be in 2020. if you are talking about a final agreement, which can go to a 2020 by our 2035, they are quick to have much less clarity about where missile defense is going

to be. there is a question that missile defense could have an impact on russian strategic forces. they might counter that by expanding their forces. the next question will be the russians pressing even harder for some concessions on missile defense. i hope that this possible path of natal-russian cooperation can be developed. -- nato-russian cooperation can be developed. >> parts of the question gets to how robust at you as russian relations overwrought? over the last several decades, there have been many peaks and valleys in the relationship. that is no secret to anybody. we go through difficult times in any bilateral relationship. it seems that we have been on quite a roller-coaster ride in regard to our relationship with

russia. when the core reasons that the obama administration has been intent on this recent policy has been to try to ensure that we have a robust relationship across a number of areas of policy that can support us through the inevitable peaks and valleys in the relationship. clearly, we are here to talk about the new start treaty and where we go from here on the other areas of nuclear arms control. i would like to underscore that, it is little noticed. our relationship with russia has undergone great standing in the last couple of years. the 1-2-3 agreement, i have already mentioned. there was the afghanistan agreement. that was reached at the same time we were doing our joint understanding with the russians in support of the new start negotiations in july of 2009

when president obama went to moscow. little known at the time and it will recognize. we are transporting an enormous amount of material for our combat operations in afghanistan through russia. that is a great change in how we did business in the past. it is saving our armed forces a great amount of money. it is shortening the transport length. those kinds of robust cooperative projects will help get us through the tough times. i do really want to bring that to your attention. i believe we have come a long way in strengthening and adding some robust elements to our bilateral relationship. >> i want to point out the issue of when you get to the other countries. there is another agreement between the united states and russia on the strategic impact. it can be reached before you

address other countries. the country we need to talk about is china. they do not have much transparency. secretary gates was invited and visited the second artillery corps two days ago. it was an unprecedented visit or someone in the pentagon. there is so much military and transparency -- what they -- rency.spa >> will slide from "the washington post." -- i am from "the washington post."

is there a timetable for when the russian treaty will begin? or will it depend on other factors like progress on missile defense? >> we have already gotten underway. i wanted to get an advertisement for the papers these two gentlemen have done. they have some interesting papers on the future of where we go from here. i am not endorsing anything specifically. there is a lot of good discussion going on here and in moscow. i found it enormously interesting -- the kinds of writing been done in moscow right now. and also, there has been an official discussion of this. the chairman of the defense

committee came to warsaw in november for an interim- parliamentary meeting. -- inter-parliamentarian meeting. i would say in and out of government in moscow and in and out of government in washington, a lot of work is going on. it is the home work space at the -- the homework phase at the present time. we are talking to the russians. there will be lots of confrontations and lot of back- and-forth about where we go from here. >> rose, congratulations on the treaty. i have two questions. what significance will the amendments have in reality and

on the u.s. political debate? the second question is looking toward the future. do you really believe anytime soon another arms control agreement could make it through the senate? >> first of all, you may have noticed that back in december, we had a lively debate in the u.s. senate about the new start treaty and the resolution of ratification. during that time, our russian colleagues gave us the courtesy of not commenting on the debate. now, i am fitting them the same --urtesy of not commenting- =-- i am giving them the same courtesy of not commenting on the debate. the second thing i would say is that, i take a different lesson

away from our ratification debate. i remarked on it at the outset. i really do think that nuclear arms control is back as a topic of interest and discussion in the senate. the new start the day in the senate approved it to me. it is not just the debate around the ratification per se. it is the long series of discussions we had during the negotiation process. i think we sparked a new interest there. i am looking forward to continuing that debate and discussion. i think it has laid the foundation for the next whatever it phase may be paid i think we have a store of substantive knowledge that has been laid down. also, a store of interest, which i welcome. i feel beat about the head and

shoulders sometimes. that is natural. it is part of the process and part of a healthy debate. i think we have put in place good conditions for future work on these, -- on these topics with the u.s. senate. >> let me comment briefly on the ratification. i think there are going to be a number of russians understanding. if you go to the u.s. senate's ratification resolution, there is an indication that the russians are cheaters. it he published some of that language, the most important thing would be, do the russians -- the most important should not be hyperventilating over the language. at the end of the day, is the treaty ratified? then we can move on.

>> do what -- to what degree does the complexity of dismantling and destroying warheads slow down the process of reducing numbers? >> that is a good question. for those of you who have tackled these issues over the years, we realize that up to this point, arms control treaties have dealt with delivery vehicles and launchers, missiles, bombers that we can see with our national technical means, our satellites, and count more easily. future negotiations and president-- the trade negotiators and president obama has laid out a path which he signed the treaty in april 2010.

he said we will be tackling non- strategic nuclear warheads. this is part and parcel of what came out of the nuclear posture review. it's part of a consistent policy development that has gone on in this administration. you are quite right. the next phase is going to be a complicated one. we will be grappling with the smaller outfits that are more difficult to address in terms of monitoring and verification and elimination and the entire range of activities. in my view, the new start treaty puts in place some important innovations which regard to on- site inspections. we are pursuing on-site inspections that will push open the door to more intrusive measures that involved warheads.

i think we are beginning to take some steps in that direction, certainly in terms of the research and the study work that has to be done. that is part of this activity inside and outside of the government that i refer to one moment the bell. >> in the first row. >> i am from the national defense university. i want to go back to the non- strategic tactical question and put it in the european context a little bit more. first, it is an issue in europe as to what we do with the remaining small number of u.s. nuclear bombs deploy it inside european countries. the question is, -- deployed inside european countries. it is important to keep those

inside europe for the future? the second question is, given the fact that steve said you were looking forward to a negotiation where we would lump together non-strategic and deployed systems, that could take a long time. it might create a zone in which you would remove the non- strategic systems as a step toward that broader negotiations. . >> i would refer you and everybody who has not had a chance to look added to the remarks that secretary clinton made in holland last april when she spoke about these issues with the foreign minister.

that set of remarks is that the core of our policy with regard to this issue. she makes note of the fact that further reductions must take into account overall negotiating necessity. in other words, these are the kinds of things we would involve in and negotiation rather than learned -- rather than unilateral action. it lays a up the policy very succinctly in my view. there was an interesting proposal. i am not at the state of my own deliberations or with my colleagues where i am willing to endorse any suggestion. my colleagues might have other things to say on that.

>> when you look at the political trends in europe now, there is a lot of pressure building up in european country to say we do not need american nuclear weapons in europe anymore. deterrence can be provided by u.s.-based strategic forces. i see three ways american nuclear weapons can come out of europe. one would be at the result of individual country decisions. there is a trend in that direction. the german air force has a designated aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons. that aircraft is not programmed to have a nuclear capability. if the german air force goes out of the nuclear business, that puts pressure on holland and belgium. that is one way. a second way to do it would be

nato making a gesture. saying they will remove all nuclear weapons. the third way is to put them into a negotiating a mix. i am not sure how large a bargaining chip there would be. we could use them to get russian readiness to reduce their weapons. the third way is probably the most preferable. [unintelligible] >> that is also a good point. the first way may be the developer -- the default mode. there might be some value in terms of a negotiation, for example withdrawing nuclear weapons away from borders and storing them in centralized locations in the interior. i get nervous about going down

the route of getting all non- strategic nuclear weapons out of your. i think a -generate- -- nuclear weapons out of europe. >> there is the idea that these weapons can come out of europe. the can only come out with consultation with the u.s. allies. last april, we retired the tomahawk missile. that was only retired on the basis of many consultations with u.s. allies to make sure they were comfortable with returning to commit to a systems and offshore strategic weapon systems.

if you look at the u.s. weapons that are there, in 1990, there were 4000 nuclear weapons in europe. they are probably in five sites. it has been a steady stream down. what you are left with is a small number, which could be bargained away if the russians make the cut in their tactical nuclear weapon forces, which are based in operational status on bases near allies. there is a split in europe between history and geography from russia. the country's closest to russia are comfortable with the weapons leaking -- weapons leaving europe. they have to make a decision for the entire alliance. based on article by commitments

that the united states makes. it is a bad starting point for nato. >> we can go back to be back. anyone? >> bruce macdonald, u.s. institute of peace. i want to thank you, rose, or mentioning additional areas of technical cooperation between the u.s. and russia. i hope you will elaborate on that next week when you are speaking at a conference. the national academy of science is holding a conference. a small plug for all interested. there have been several comments about bringing in additional nuclear powers as you go to the lower levels. i wanted to ask -- from a

quantitative point of view, that makes sense. another dimension of arms control is qualitative limits. there are qualitative limits having to do with a verification and that sort. given how sticky multilateral nuclear arms negotiations might be, might there be some merit in establishing a separate negotiating forum where these non-quantitative issues could be discussed for two reasons. wet in whatfeet would eventually be a multi- lateral negotiations? i threw that out to all three of you. >> perhaps i will start because there is already some activity

under way in that regard. emerged in the aftermath of the treaty review conference that took place in may 2010 in new york, out of that came an action plan agreed to by consensus. one of the items in that action plan was to get together and show some progress on disarmament. again, it is not well known. in london in 2009, there was an interesting conference will all -- where all members got together to talk about transparency technologies and all the things you are talking about. the p-5 has agreed to continue that process pursuant to the action plan and the tasking of the government.

the french announced in september that they will halt its second of these p-5 conferences to talk about transparency and cooperation. that is a welcome step. we are planning a conference in the first half of this year. we will get together and continue along the same trajectory that was launched by the london conference. i welcome this very much. it is setting in place a process that will be beneficial in the conference context. of course, we have the next review conference already on the horizon. we are thinking about showing results in that conference. we are beginning to shape a dialogue among all members of the p-5 four issues of this kind. it has not been advertised a

lot. if you are interested, it is a worthy project that we will be continuing. [unintelligible] >> i think it will be later in the spring. it will be in the first half of 2011. >> these kinds of confrontations can be imported. there is room for one more step in u.s.-russia negotiations. having consultations that will allow you to get a measure of transparency with regard to what is written and what china plans to do -- you mentioned the united states and russia coming down and the chinese making a huge investment. i am not sure i buy into that. we want the chinese to talk about their nuclear forces.

the reluctance of them to do so only makes people more suspicious. if we get information about chinese forces, it might make the united states and russia more comfortable in terms of the source of reductions they might negotiate. >> ladies and gentlemen, we are out of time. this meeting has been on the record. i would like to thank our panelists for participating and then all of you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the u.s. house is not in session today or tomorrow. if they will be back in session next week, when they are expected to begin a repeal of the health care law. that debate was scheduled to begin this week, but the house went into recess after the events in arizona. you can follow the house live as they once again debate health care right here on c-span. live, later today, tapis smiley -- tavis smiley lead to discussion on america's future,

beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern, here on thc-span. the republican national committee is having their annual winter meeting. watch the process live on c- span. remarks now from the head of the transportation security administration on his agency's efforts to respect privacy rights while securing the nation's airports and railways. hosted by the bar association law and national security committee, this is 45 minutes. >> john comes to tsa as a 26

year veteran of the fbi where he specialized in counter-terrorism issues. he has served in minneapolis and new york, as the supervisor of organized crime sections, in boston, and in his career he has won a number of prestigious awards for those who are familiar with these recognitions. he received an award for outstanding professionalism and integrity, and the presidential rank award for distinguished executive. he graduated from the indiana university school of law and he has become quite well known to the american public. i was saying to him that there are not a lot of people in washington diving towards this speech, and i think his testimony is a testament to his commitment to public service.

it is not easy, and i think -- i know this room has a great deal of appreciation and thanks for all of his public service and what sacrifice it means. with that, john will speak and then has been gracious to say he will take a few questions. with that, john, it is my pleasure to have you come up. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to talk about four brief areas in national transportation security and then go over whatever questions you might have. the first is to set the stage in terms of what the current threat environment is, what we are dealing with, all of the things that we do and transportation security.

the next is how we deal with this as part of a continuum of security. what are the layers of security that we use? how does that fit into the overall construct? the third point is looking at how do we balance the privacy and security issues that became so apparent to people right before thanksgiving. for the fourth point, we will deal with, what is the way forward? that is where i'm going to ask for some participation. either now or later on, we are really looking at water the issues of national security in the years ahead. what is transportation security look like nine years from now? what should look like as we try to balance transportation and security, all the while recognize that the key aspect is to protect people who are traveling. the first point is the current threat environment. we know that there have been a

number of attempts, and obviously overseas, some successful, such as.com recently. there have been attempts -- such as stockholm recently. there of penitence and such as the ones coming out of yemen, -- there have been attempts, such as the one out of yemen, the one on the flight to detroit. the two words that come to mind when i think about the current threat environment are persistent and evolving. they are persistent, determined, innovative, creative, bold, all of which is inspiring a magazine. i am not one to encourage people to look at jihad this literature, but if you look at

the way they take credit for it things, the description of how they have created destructive devices, the fact that they would be in the cargo, to honor cartage printers -- toner cartridge printers, the fact that they could not be detected even if somebody opened up, that they cleansed the outside container so that a bomb sniffing dog could not detect them, that that would not alert. the fact that they actually took photographs and put of but in a container -- a book in a container just to show they did this, and it only cost them $4,200 and a few months of preparation. what that does is address the

vulnerability we currently face in the aviation area. i think there has been a huge focus on passenger transport over the years, but now with this cargo applied it really raises the stakes. there have been a number of discussions and meetings. hosted a meeting of the international community on steps that we can take as part of that international community with our foreign partners in the public and private sector to shore up security. again, it is a persistent and evolving threats. there are a number of other issues. some people refer to people as lone wolves, individuals doing things that are aspirational in a churn -- in nature.

the individuale in portland that wanted to blow up the tree lighting ceremony, a number of individuals we have seen the have wanted to do something, and fortunately for us, they encountered online undercover fbi and counter- terrorism agents. some say they're not true terrorists. they're not completely operational. they do not have the means of carrying out their attacks. the concern we it share is the butt for that alert -- but for that alert, what somebody could construct a device that would be used to blow up a bank building in dallas or a building in

illinois? so again, we see this occurring outside of the al-qaeda peninsula and leadership. whether it is al-qaeda in iraq or other places or the taliban, the pakistan it taliban. those are just some of the threads streams that we are currently working with unseeing. that is the context -- those are just some of the threat streams that we are currently working with and seeing. that is some of the context. i'd like to describe tsa as part of the continuum that is part of the national-security apparatus. on the one hand, we have foreign intelligence collection from a

foreign intelligence services and law enforcement agencies. they were able to obtain not only strategic intelligence that there was a plot, but tactical intelligence that there were two packages that contained bombs. go track them down. we had credible, timely and accurate intelligence. that was the best case scenario. we rarely see it. that is the best situation. what we usually have is that there is intelligence that something is happening and it may be applied to do something on an airplane. we have right before christmas, on december 23rd we had the intelligence that al qaeda on the arabian peninsula might be wanting to use the same type of material that was used on christmas day and on the cargo

plot in an assassination attempt against the deputy minister of interior in saudi arabia. there were bombers set to carry out a suicide bomb. this plot was that they would use it around the cylinder of a thermos, put it on a passenger or cargo plane. that is general intelligence. what do we do about that? we put out alerts making sure that all of our security officers are alerted to that and do additional screening in addition to the x-ray. we wanted to see whether there may be a viable plot. if you happen to be traveling in the next -- you know, in the near future, and you want to take your thermos with you, does realize it will be subject to

screening for trace detection. what the men and women in the military are doing ever sees, trying to limit the training camps overseas, whether it is in pakistan, afghanistan, yemen, somalia, wherever you describe, make sure there are not opportunities for training camps as we saw prior to 9/11. as we look at what we have going on here on the shores of the u.s., the fbi has belsen seven destinations of individuals here in the u.s. -- has thousands of investigations of individuals here in the u.s. to try to address those issues that may pose a threat year. that is ongoing. then we have the state and local police are around the country who hopefully will -- and i believe will likely be the next

set of people who will detect a plot. they are the eyes and ears on the street. they are the ones that have contact with the community and all of those things. we have all of those opportunities to identify a potential terrorist plot. it may be any number of things. we have all those opportunities. we also have concerned citizens. somebody may talk about their neighbors, as we saw in the u.k. with one of the plots. the neighbor said, there is something going on. unfortunately, it developed more quickly than they were able to disrupt, but the fact is that concerned citizens just being alert can be great for some multipliers for us as we try to protect our citizens. those are all the opportunities we have to identify and disrupt potential terrorist plots.

it of the levels of security that we have have not identified that person and we have somebody here in the u.s. who is perhaps a lone wolf or perhaps just under the radar, perhaps the very effective in acquiring in the knowledge and ability, the materials to construct a device like we saw on 12/25, he goes through a website and sees where advanced engine technology machines and places where he has to walk through metal detectors, knows that that would not alert on a metal detector and, so because through that airport in gets on a plane. -- so he goes through that airport and get on a plane.

whether it is a secure flight, the operation has a name and date of birth for everyone traveling. but that person may get through. then it is really up to the federal air marshal's as a last line of defense. obviously, alert flight crews and passengers may be able to do something, but that is not what we want to rely on. that is the context for what we are doing the things we do. we do the things we do in terms of security screening based on intelligence. we went to a more thorough pat downs. the reason was we do not want underwear bombers to get on

planes and blow them up. that is the bottom line. there is a lot of controversy about that. there is a lot of controversy about the new technology. we actually started deploying in the advanced imaging technology machines back in 2007. some people are saying, wire you always reacting to yesterday's threat? we need to make sure we are addressing the threat because if something was successful and we did not take steps to shore that up, that is like the cockpit being taken over in the air crafts. what do we do to ensure the we are informed by the latest intelligence, the we are taking steps to address the security concerns? we deployed the machines back in the fall of 2007.

after the attempted bombing in 2009, we accelerated the acquisition of them. they got a lot of public attention. we deploy those along with enhanced pat downs. these are steps we are taking to make sure that you and your loved ones cannot arrive alive. what do we do it -- can a arrive alive. what can we do to make sure we are sensitive to and attuned to those privacy issues? one, on the technology, tried to use the best technology to detect the most significant type of threat that we say, while at the same time preserving the privacy of individuals that go

through it. we do that in two ways. right now, your hopefully aware that the person never sees the image. the person seeing the images in a separate room and never sees the person. they cannot make the connection for those concerned about modesty and privacy. we are looking at refining technology. we're very interested in some recognition technology that is currently used in amsterdam. we are checking it out right now. we are very interested in that because it addresses the privacy and modesty issue that many people have expressed concerns about by presenting a generic image. we spent some time that reagan airport yesterday looking at how that testing is going.

it presents an image of the generic figure, and if there is an anomaly, then it would just show up as a box. yesterday, one individual demonstrated, he kept his black baryon to show what would happen. he went through. -- his blackberry on to show what would happen. he went through, and the passenger and the security officer see a yellow box on the left hip. let's try to resolve that. the person says, i forgot to take my blackberry off. i think it addresses the privacy and modesty issues in a good fashion. so, we are working through that, and we are hoping to be able to deploy that sometime this year. we are just waiting on the

technology. on the pat downs, we are working to let, are there other ways that could be less intrusive but achieve the same results? we are still working through that process. we always try to refine what we do with how we do it to address privacy and safety concerns, recognizing that we need to give the highest level of confidence to everybody traveling that not only everybody else on that plane has been thoroughly screened but that you have been thoroughly screened too. everybody wants that high level of competence. what it comes down to is, where do we find a balance between privacy and security? i think reasonable people can disagree about where that

balances for themselves. for repair other people it is, that is -- for other people, it is, that is good for me, but not for everybody else. we want to hear that but at the same time make sure we're providing the best security possible. to my last point, it is, what is the way forward? what is the future of transportation security? i am very interested in looking at the best risk based intelligence approach possible. we talked about that when i came in six months ago. how do we use the latest intelligence and technology to ensure that we are using a risk based intelligence driven approach? it means we will look at more

behavior detection opportunities. some people talk about the israeli model. for those the have traveled there, depending on what your status was, you are either afforded very thorough security or very light security. it is a tailored approach. i am very interested in that, recognizing that we have about 628 million passengers in the u.s. this year, about a 100,000 person difference for those that track this. they have about 10 or 11 million. so, how do we best go about doing that, recognizing that we cannot be all things to all people at all places at all

times. we have 51,000 employees, but with over four hundred thousand airports, not even considering service transportation issues. folks on aviation want to use more behavior detection. how do we use the affirmation we already know about passengers in an informed -- information we already know about passengers in an informed, intelligent manner? we know that the u.s. government and private entity know a tremendous amount of information about individuals. those individuals who are willing to provide more information about themselves in exchange for a different level of screening, more identity based to then physical, could

have that option. for example, we made a decision back in november about pilots. we have 110,000 pilots, and we have them going through the same security that a terrorist would have. that did not make sense from my perspective. we are working with the pilots association to refine the technology to allow for pilots to use identity based screening, so they would not go through the traditional, a typical screening. flight attendants also. we are looking at refinements with them. there are groups of people up there, frequent travelers, though are willing to provide some information.

we are also looking at what we can provide in terms of a fee- based service. you do not want to stand in line? here is what we can do. those are some of the things that we are looking at in terms of the tsa of the future. we are also looking at the checkpoint of the future. from the curbside to the gate, there are opportunities to learn about an individual by simply talking to the person. where are you going? where have you been? where do you left? through that, you learn a lot more about a person who is traveling. obviously, we have a number of canines and canine handlers. generally, people are glad to see canines in airports and other places.

generally, if it is a friendly dog. what we do is have canine handler is walk through airports. many times they may look like a passenger, but they are transportation security officer, to watch and see how people respond to a canine. i would have loved to be in amsterdam if there had ben the canine and handler walking through the airport, and had a canine protection officer walking through, to see how people have responded, and to see how he responded, knowing that he had a bomb in his underwear. those are the type of things that we are talking about, expanding our canine program,

doing things from a risk based intelligent perspective. those are just some of the areas we're looking at. if you have questions now, that is fine. you can also e-mail me. i have a pretty good spam filter. it got tested pretty regularly during thanksgiving. [laughter] but if you have ideas, there are a lot of smart people in this room, a latta -- a lot of bad ideas, a lot of frequent travelers. -- a lot of good ideas, a lot of frequent travelers. if you think, why can we do this? why can we not do that? i would love to hear your thoughts. with that, i will take

questions. [applause] >> there have been an increasing number of cases where american citizens are able to depart the country, but while they are in a foreign country, and no-fly status is assigned to them and they are not able to return to the united states. how do you think those situations should be handled by the courts? >> in other words, they cannot return biplane, which is the only real option for most. the question is, is it in the interest of the u.s. government to have that person return. some individuals may have charges pending against them. each of these instances are treated as an individual

situation. last year, we saw a number of waivers for those individuals to come back either so that the fbi could interview them in more detail or so that they could come back and face charges. each situation is reviewed and an assessment is made within the intelligence law enforcement community. >> is there an issue here of [unintelligible] >> i would defer to our lawyers on that. there has been some discussion on that. to my knowledge there have not been any successful challenges to that. >> i thought your idea of focusing on the traveler more than a material is obviously where we are going to have to go. obviously, saying that there are some travelers we can give less

scrutiny to. that is fine. but the real issue is the people we need to give more scrutiny to. have you thought of ways that you can do a better job of selecting the people that need more scrutiny? i mentioned -- >> i mentioned, obviously, the u.s. government holds a lot of information about many people, especially those with clearances and things like that. there have obviously been some distinctions there. what we are reviewing our all the data holdings coupled with industry holdings about people, and what can we use, recognizing the privacy and civil liberty issues, but we are going to bring that up again. ok, is there more intelligence

based information based screening that we can use? >> i have a comment first and then a question. i travelled extensively in november and december 3rd many countries and states. i came back from overseas the day before thanksgiving, which i swore i would never do. i was not delayed more than 20 seconds in any airport. i thought the of the glove was overblown. -- the whole hooplah was overblown. in your mind, ed does intelligence get us to a point where enhanced putdowns -- pat

downs are not necessary? if the technology now takes you from the top of your head down to your ankle, what stops us from taking it all the way to the floor? >> two point. yes, we are looking at all type of shoe scanning screening technology to see what we can do. most of the european union does not require issues to come off. so there is a policy issue there. we can always require people to take off their shoes, but one of my goals is to have the technology coupled with a policy developed in such a fashion that people will no longer need to take their shoes opera -- shoes off. the question is when, of course.

laptops of concealment, o come back coats, that type of thing, that presents a challenge -- laptops, coats, that type of thing presents a challenge. the pat downs right now are always a secondary screening technique. if you just walk up to the screening, the first screening type is not a pat down. if there is an anomaly or an alarm on the metal detector, or if you opt out of going through, i get to throw a pat down. but the goal is to use more intelligence. we need to limit this type of anomaly. i need to say that we have a

number of instances where people have had things found on them, from ceramic knives to drug paraphernalia. >> touching upon the last point, you mentioned the you -- and the european union. how do other countries -- europe and other countries that may not be as friendly to us [unintelligible] >> one of the key positive developments from the christmas day attack last year was for the international community to come together. in october, we passed a

resolution, a security resolution for all 190 countries that signed don -- signed on, recognizing the critical interdependence that we have. there is a minimum standard of security. we have several key partners, and so we will see a number of other initiatives coming from that. for example, we spent more than a day just on security. the prior meeting spent 22 minutes, so the international community is coming together in an impressive way. >> having lived through total

information awareness at the department of defense, i felt free last thanksgiving. have you visibly built into your process and some kind of public policy advisory? secondly, having gone to an airport four hours early on thanksgiving, thinking i would have to wait, you scared them all away. [laughter] i lost a $150 bottle of chanel on the first day of the liquid restrictions. it is a shot and it disturbs people. >> picking up on that last

point, you'll have been wonderfully open today in your remarks, and candid, and i thank you for that. you have shared more than we are used to do in terms of specifics, what you're looking for and how you go about it. i assume that is a conscious decision on your part, which is a little bit in contrast to the usual instinct in washington. i would like to hear you say a word or two about that. >> with 1.7 million passengers travelling every day, to be successful in our mission we need to have the buy in and of not only the traveling public but also those that follow the industry. as it relates to other ways we can do things, in encouraging a healthy, vibrant debate and discussion about, ok, what are

we willing to do in terms of exchanging information for perhaps less invasive screening? that is why i want to enter into that discussion and debate and make sure that not only the general public has a way in, but that all associations, trade groups, people on the hill, everybody with an interest in this issue has a way yen. way in. we just want to make sure we're providing the best possible security. >> thank you. great. [applause] i usually say that we hope you keep on smelling like a rose in

your job. maybe now we can say we hope you keep on smelling like chanel. >> thank you. [applause]

>> right house press secretary robert gibbs said earlier today -- white house press secretary robert gibbs said earlier today that the state of the union address would include the attack in tucson. this is 55 minutes. >> good morning. about three hours. charitably, i would say three hours, but i know some of you got less than that. one quick announcement. president obama will meet with

the leader from pakistan here tomorrow. they will discuss our mutual commitment to economic performance, support for democracy and good governance and joint efforts to combat terrorism. the meeting is closed to press. we will have some still stuff out of it. with that, take it away. how are you? [inaudible] that is just the way it we are going to do it. he is in town for a service, and we thought it was a good opportunity for a meeting. i think the president had thought about this on many

different levels since we all got the news saturday of these terrific and senseless events. -- horrific and senseless events. i think he thought of this as the president and as a friend of woman.ngress won a i think he also thought of this as a parent. i think everyone in this country has gone through thinking of this at many levels. i think what the president hoped to do last night was to speak both to the community of tucson end to the nation. -- and to the nation. i think his message of ensuring that our in during way of

government moves toward in a way that best honors those that were victims of the tragedy as well as those that we look forward to seeing recovered. >> when he called for better discourse, did he specifically have sarah palin in mind? >> i would point you to many inngs in the president's -- venues where the president has discussed this. the notion of civility in our public discourse date back to his time in the state senate in springfield. at the university of michigan, at the commencement last year. i have heard him say for as long as i have been with him, the notion of disagreeing without

being disagreeable. those are aspects that i think he has tried to live his public life by. obviously, in the speech, the president added a pretty hefty notion of empathy in the speech. again, i think he has spoken on it in many occasions. >> what is your view a of her choice of words? >> i think there are plenty of people that can render opinions on that. i am not going to do that. i am happy to talk about what the president said last night. that is the role i best play in this. >> what is the president hope to accomplish and can you talk about the format for the press conference? i know you pushed hard for that.

>> i will admit, i am a tad behind. i believe there will be more than one question, but i will double check on that. there will be an opportunity for questions. i think the issues that the president wants to discuss are many of the issues that you have heard us as an administration talk about for the length of our tenure. it is an important bilateral relationship. obviously, there will be discussion on global economic issues as well as security issues like north korea and iran, and important issues of political reform and human rights. our hope is, and again, i am still working out some of the

details, that we will likely be joined in some manner tomorrow by our national security adviser to walk through some of what you will see next week and some of the additional things that we hope to discuss and cover. >> last night and the idea of unity. the president has talked about bringing the country together. why has he not been able to bring the country together in the two years he has been president, and is there some way in which is behavior is going to change after two son? -- tucson? >> i think what was conveyed in the speech last night is, we are not going to remove this agreement from our democracy. and we should not.

that is the underpinning of the notion of our self governance. but the tone and the approach that we take in these debates, i think, is what we all hope changes because of both the events of the past few days, but i think anybody would say, and again, you can see in the president's remarks, that our civil discourse has become more and more polarized. i think the president hopes that, again, we can have disagreements without disparaging and being disagreeable towards others. again, i think you're going to see plenty of opportunities in the next few years where you have those disagreements. i think that, again, the town

and the approach on both sides, this is not just a one-way street, for us to, is to ensure that we are doing this in no way -- in a way, as the president said last night, is the setting of the memory of those lost in tucson. >> when sarah palin said we are headed in the wrong direction? >> again, i do not want to speak to -- >> your the white house. you can have an opinion. >> i speak for the president. i will let others opine on that. >> have you decided on a departure date? >> i have not. i do not have any news on that.

>> since we have the state of the union coming up, the president last year talked about reaching out more to republicans, having more meetings with them. he seemed to be honest and frank after the mid terms of saying he needed to do a better job of that. there is some speculation that the president will use the state of the union to build on last night. how do you see whether he will build on that in the state of the union? will there be a similar tone and approach? and how will he follow up with action? how will it become a reality? >> couple of things. correct.ou're obviously, elements of what you heard last night, improvements in our civil discourse and how

we debate issues will certainly play a role in this year's state of the union. again, this is something, i think if you go back, whether it was in the campaign or, you can see invisibly from the 2004 convention, but speeches throughout his career, he talks about this. the president was very candid with those republican and democratic leaders after the election that he had to do better. i think, quite frankly, we were -- the country was successful in getting things done in a lame duck session because of that very notion. i think you will see a greater effort in our part and a much more systematic way to do the types of meetings that we had

year before. -- here before. i do not think anybody wants to take -- i do not think anybody believes we are going to remove disagreement from our democracy. that is the very definition a that -- of a bit, but i think the way in which we do it, our tom, our approach, is something that we all should be much more mindful of. i have not obviously looked through any of the draft at this point, but i think there is no question that will play a role. >> how does bill daley planted that -- play into that since he is taken over officially? a lot of people immediately said it was a great pick. what sort of impact you think

bill will have in the relationship with the republicans but also as far as moving the agenda? >> bill is obviously somebody who brings a vast experience working with both sides of the aisle. that was true when he was commerce secretary and i think that has been true in his endeavors in business. it is reflected in the statements that were made upon the announcement last week that he would assume the job of chief of staff. i was into sun yesterday, sought was not here, but he began -- i was in tucson yesterday, so i was not here, but he began yesterday. i think he brings a vast amount of experience in working with others. i think that all of us have to

-- it is everybody that works here. is everybody the works in government and public service, and that includes the leaders of our country. >> have you decided not to put toilet paper on the white house because of your auburn victory? >> i think it is a wonderful tradition probably best reserved for ogburn where there are many roles currently hanging in a beautiful tree. my son is quite excited that we're going to do that for the third time. i realize i may have unwound something that might be harder in the end to wind back. it is entirely possible that we

will do that. >> there was a lot of empathy inserted into the speech. how did the president come to that? in the past it has been noted that he was perhaps not as forthcoming with empathy that he should? was a the time he had to think this over? >> i have heard him discuss, and i think many of you have heard him discuss over the course of many years, the notion that, what it is like to understand and, understand other people, people we baby do not agree with and a political sense.

i guess one way of saying it is to walk a mile in somebody else's shoes, so to speak. that has animated much of his public life. the first time you heard it on a bigger stage was the 2004 convention speech. this was -- i think last night was a speech that was very much to the president's. he spent a great deal of time going through his thoughts on this, and spent a lot of time working on what he wanted to say, including making edits even after the plane had landed in arizona last night.

>> the and the pace seems to appear more to his comments about the victims rather than -- the empathy seems to adhere more to his comments about the victims rather than the political discourse. you just spoke more about political discourse. >> these individuals whose lives were celebrated remind us of our mothers, our brothers, our grandmothers, our children. does the notion of using their example as a way to lead our lives in a better way, beginning their memory. that is something the president has spent a lot of time thinking about and talking about over the years, including our civility and our civil discourse. >> was there much study of

previous presidential speeches following a national tragedy of this nature? >> i will see if there's any information on that. i am now entirely sure what he might of look debt. again, i think -- might have looked at. again, i think a lot of the process was a personal reflection. again, when we all heard the news, it was hard to understand. it still is. we may never truly know why. it gives you an opportunity to reflect. it is hard to read some of those stories. the lives that people lead, what they were doing on that