western military intervention in libya may drive a wedge between >> now back to my role as jihadists and al qaeda. moderator. we will take 10 minutes for questions. >> i think we can get started. if anybody has one, yes please, you sir. there is a microphone coming. >> there was the possibility that gadaffi could survive by good morning. today on our panel, we are quick regrouping in the south. to concentrate on north america. we have a number of excellent i am wondering how he would then speakers who have wide knowledge of this area and the events pay. i am looking at your own paper going on there at the moment. which tells me all of the energy we have first of a speaker on goes out through the north coast. the future of egypt. however the you raise the money? >> he has been planning for this he is a scholar at the middle east institute. a long time. we call him a mad man, but he is he has formerly worked with the department of state and the

not as crazy as that. what he has been doing -- when senate foreign relations committee. he has a doctorate in modern oil was so, it brings in revenue. middle eastern history from the he has been buying gold for years. university of wisconsin and has libya has enormous gold taught at several well-renowned reserves. institutions. unlike a lot of nations that we look forward to what he has choose to store their gold to say about egypt. after that, many of you might be reserves in secure places like switzerland and fort knox, he familiar with camille for the has kept it all in tripoli. many articles he has written for "jamestown." he has as well secured there. you will certainly no of him -- -- it will secure there. this is a mobile source of know of him from his work with a funds. major pan-arab paper. you cannot spend a gold as easily as cash. he is an expert on libya. it might be necessary to sell a he has worked on this for many bit. years. he has enough to keep a were he is fully prepared to analyze going for years. the events that are going on he is not short of funds. now. we are looking forward to that. he could endure the loss of oil after that, we have derrick production.

henry flood, who is also with the jamestown foundation and is >> any other questions? the editor of "the militant leadership monitor." if you have not looked at that >> thank you very much. publication, i suggest you do so. he speculated on a little bit we are very privileged to have him here today, as he has just about algeria. a couple months back as it was returned from a six week stay in always about what country was next. north africa, most of its plant in libya, right on the front i was wondering if he could elaborate a little bit on what lines. he is going to have a very is next for algeria. interesting perspective on what went on there from a firsthand is there a potential for an -- from firsthand knowledge of uprising? events there. >> algeria would not wish a lastly and probably least, i will be speaking myself on security implications for north africa in the wake of the arab revolution. quick and to the war in libya. my biography is in the material that was handed out, if you care it the regime of pol quickly, i to have a look at it. with no further ado, maybe we think there'd be a bigger demand can get started with gramm

for change. banner men -- bannerman. the president has started a process of changing inside his take the podium if you like. government. whatever you feel comfortable the whole regime needs changing. with. >> let me say that i do not have any shoreview of for the people in the middle east are egyptian revolution is going. we are in the middle of something. not content with superficial it is evolving every day. changes. any of us who look at the they want deep-rooted reform. egyptian revolution had better be able to read just what we say on a daily and monthly basis. it comes from a dictatorship for me, this is the most into a democracy. important event in the middle east. egypt has the role of being the i think there would be a bigger fulcrum of the events. it has in the last 60 years -- demand for change inside is the only country that has algeria. been able to tip the balance of power in one direction or it continues. another. what i mean by that is the 1952 it belongs to libya. revolution in egypt tipped the balance of power for the next i think the government may manage to say that change could two decades in favor of the soviet union, because that is have been -- happen, resulting the direction the egyptian

revolution chose to go. then presidents about -- in violence. president sadat kicked it back >> i just want to make a comment in favor of the west. about algeria. in speaking with the rebel we have been fortunate that we have been dominant in the region leadership, it they say that for the last period of time. gadaffi is having two core al we are in another time when arab allies. egypt may tip one direction or another. they are in the middle of a lot of the people that i evolution. those of us on the outside will have a minimum of influence. spoke to view it as cause i for those of us who are historians who have watched for belligerent. they believe that the government a long time, this is an exciting moment. did not want to see gadaffi fall it is extraordinary. i first went to cairo in 1963. because it to threaten their own i went and watched the russians regime. now we have seen that syria build the dam. it is a very different country today. it is changing rapidly, which for egypt is amazing. appears to be tottering. because this is an extraordinary i am not sure that is isolated to algeria. situation, we are sometimes cursed that we have ordinary analysis. all of us are going to have to look at everything we thought

about egypt and will have to rethink it on a daily basis. >> thank you. things are changing rapidly. the source of our information is limited. we are fortunate that there are lots of people there. thank you. i believe that having al jazeera i wonder about the chemical weapons that libya has. has brought us much more information than we ever had in unaided picture three weeks ago. the past. that does not mean, however, that we do not need to have our own analysis and realize that even the best report and has a in 1994, that they signed an bias and a slant to it that is agreement that it will reduce unrealistic. we have to figure out what the the weapons. biases are and what the slant is they have asked for extensions and do our own analysis. and do our own analysis. until may 2011. i think 23,000 tons is in libya. where are they? it is really hard for them to lose it. what are the prospects?

>> thank you. he mentioned the bombs. they are not the same as chemical weapons. the only chemical weapons research that we still have is a certain amount of mustard gas that was in the process of being destroyed. there is only a small quantity of this leg. the forces to not have the means of doing this. that is why you are not seeing a lot of attention being paid to chemical weapons. the lot were eliminated in 2003 and the following years in order for it libya to restore this. >> would you like to take this t?

>> they know that it needs to change. they are feeling the heat. the need to change. otherwise they will have revolutions. however, if he manages to extend the current uprising, i think it'll give encouragement to the rest of the dictatorship. they can also do the same and prevent change. morocco is the other dictatorship. they started the process of reform. they are able to plead.

they are trying to reduce this. i think the monarchy needs major reform. many sectors with in the moroccan society have the process of change. i believe the king of morocco has understood the message. we will see it in the next few months what kind of change he is willing to offer. >> he is sharing his knowledge. kumbaya own experience, something i observed was the deep penetration of the patronage system write their egyptian society. the importance of keeping this

in keeping people loyal. it seemed to be disrupted at the moment. i wonder how the reformers might be able to replace it with more equitable means of distribution of the funds of egypt in a way that would not be designed to simply further the existence of a single regime. >> actually, that is to questions. the purse is over the equitable distribution of wealth. you had reformists in egypt who and supported by the world bank. there were getting high marks by changing away from the socialist state to being free and more

open. this was done three series of prospects. it took all of these industries that have been nationalized and they made them economical and then sold them all. the problem with the system was that they then fired them. thousands of people were without work. the problem was they were sold to cronies of the regime. those people to benefit of the program. at the same time in order to meet the needs of having an over subsidize society, they've reduced extensively the subsidy system to the port. he created a dual problem in society where you are making a certain group of people very

wealthy and the mass of society have a declining standard of living. this was the reason why you never saw much support with the economic reform. you saw the social deprivation of the lower classes as fundamentally destabilizing. the notice to got removed from the regime, it was all the economic reformers. there is seen as having a destabilizing society. patriot system goes their egyptian society. they take care of problems they solve. he provided funds to the people. this system is still very much in place in the countryside. this is why you see the democratic reformist and the muslim brotherhood filling the

gap. if you break down the system, you will have lost a major source of stability. he will have more people who no longer have their identities. that is the problem with where we are now. it suggested that anybody who was in parliament the ban for five years. you end of disenfranchising all this local leaders to have local support. >> thank you very much. we will take one more question. no takers?

there is a mentioning of african union. i wonder if you can comment on the potential role. there has been more important in games. what was the last part? >> i wonder whether the and the game -- the end game is for gadaffi? >> we are talking. we feel the african union should be encouraged to play a greater role in the amending recurring conflicts that we see in africa. this is not the solution to every problem in africa. there is a tenancy about states

to be more interested in the opinion of their neighbor. sometimes this is better taken. is not to say there is no rule. there certainly better training for peacekeeping forces and intervention forces. it can go a long way to improving the ability of africans to take care of their own concerns. regarding the state of gadaffi, i think there are a number of possibilities if he was going to exile. he already offered it a week ago. i did an article about this. he is already offered refuge.

he even said it as bit of a model. this is something that is not well understood. how many have leaders that have admiration orris -- or respect? that is the perspective we do not have here. they look at him very differently. even south africa is another place he might take refuge. who is the person that broke the

sanctions and embargoes against libya? mandela was the first person to express his gratitude to muammar gadaffi for his struggle against apartheid. these of perspectives that we do not have. >> i actually visited the african union headquarters in ethiopia last week. i did not know too much about the inner workings until i sort of showed up at the office. it is a fairly thinly stretched organization that is in a transition. i'm working on an article. i stumbled on to another that is the chinese government.

they are solely constructing the new headquarters. be a you is definitely not. the chinese are hoping to change into a much stronger body. i visited the offices in somalia. we are doing some research. the communications with discordant. it is not a completely together organization that is very powerful or strong. ok. we will take a one hour break for lunch. 30 minutes? ok. we will see you back here. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few minutes, the agency

agenda. in an hour, a discussion on the role of whistle-blowers. after that, we will be aired the forum on arab unrest. >> tomorrow morning, we will be joined by the president and ceo of the financial services forum to talk about the debt ceiling, financial regulation, a trade and jobs. we will take your calls about the budget and deficit reduction and political unrest in the arab world. our series of recommendations of the national fiscal responsibility forum continues. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. review kend, gethey

world war ii. we will have a fresh look at america's first president. also this week and come that they examine the americanization of hawaii. sign up for alerts. at the economic club he was asked about the need for more mobile devices. as well as the s e c's ruling. this is a little less than one hour. >> we are going to start. thank you. we are very pleased today to

have as our special guest the chairman of the sec. he has had a distinguished career in government and business. he has served as a law clerk in the judiciary branch for a number of justices. he also worked on capitol hill and on the investigations as well as part of the joint investigation committee. in the business sector he has been involved as a director for nine years starting as general counsel and became the head of business operation. his also had his own incubator fund. he is also somebody he his had a distinguished education background.

he graduated magna cum laude. at harvard law school, he was a senior editor of the law review. he met president obama there. he became the chairman in june of 2009 and was nominated by president obama in march of 2009. since that time he has done a very outstanding job as the chairman. i would like to ask a couple of personal questions. you have worked for a lot of very smart people. he worked for barack obama. he was the smartest of those people? [laughter] >> i have three children.

but they were all smart. i do share some attributes. there is relentless curiosity, a real energy for the exchanges that you are dealing with. there is a willingness to take great ideas wherever they come from. some of the attributes that i tried. >> 21st met barack obama you are a harvard law student. i gather you played basketball. was he getting easier layoffs? was he really that good of a basketball player? the do think that he said that he would like this?

when did she get this? >> i think it is known that he has a terrific jump shot. he can go to his left as well as his right. >> ok. people ask me whether i knew that he is going to become president. i think the right answer is of course i did. actually, i knew how incredibly talented and he was. he had a real commitment to making a positive difference for the country. i do not know whether he would do that in government service. i knew he would make a real

contribution. when he was elected, i gathered he considered due to the chairman of the sec. you accepted. you are there under previous chairman spirit why did you want to be chairman? >> and really enjoyed a that is doing in the private sector. i had a terrific sense in government a while ago. i let my life a lot. it does run the thing that i love that you are not allowed to say no to a question. public service is very important. people come into government. the sec is a very exciting place because it is about our future.

the communication technologies are such a vital platform to our economic growth. . i think it is as an exciting place to be in government as anyplace else. >> typically, you have three democrats, a few republicans, and two on the other side. i gather that you're not allowed to -- you cannot have more than two members talking privately. it is hard to get decisions worked out in events. you do everything in public. >> talking one-on-one with the commissioners is valuable. there have been proposals for reform to changing that. that is fine. it is interesting. people think that everything we do at the fcc is on a party-line basis and nothing could be

further from the truth. 95% of our decisions have four or five commissioners supporting them. i do not think there should be surprising. it is something that i worked hard for every day. this is an area where harnessing communications technology to compete economy incompletand globally is important. >> the comcast, nbc, universal deal, that took about a year to resolve. did you have any idea that that would be approved? was that not inevitable? when you get a large acquisition like that, it is it hard to say no to the two business parties involved? >> i made it a policy not to talk in detail about merger review. i think it is important -- the agency has a very important

responsibility when it comes to merger review, together with the justice department or the federal trade commission. it is very important that we not prejudge transactions and follow an honest and fair process and meet our such a jury duty. >> so you do not want to give us a hint on at&t. [laughter] let me ask you about mergers. i know you can comment specifically. something that you have tried to do is speed up the information process, get it to flow to people more rapidly, but we're still getting decisions like this rather slowly. is there any way to speed up the process so that anyone who wants to merge will know in less than a year-and-a-half whether they can do the merger or not? >> we have been doing that. i will give you one example.

historically, in many, many cases, there was a gap that could be very long between the time between doj or ftc ruled on a transaction or the state governments would have to do it and the fcc. and we brought that gap way down. it is the kind of thing that can legitimately dradrive a company crazy and end up with inconsistent decisions. so we worked very hard to make the process more efficient and we have. >> there are three democrats are now on the commission, two republicans. the fact that you're a democrat, does that mean that the president of the united states or white house staff can call you and say "this is what we think on things"? >> no.

>> let me ask you about not neutrality. that is a buzzword for a while. can you explain in simple language what net neutrality is? >> a term that we use is open internet, which i think is a more descriptive term. net neutrality, fundamentally, is the right and ability for people to send and receive lawful content online. whether you're a person with a point of view and you want to put it on the internet for the audience to receive, whether you are an entrepreneur, a small company or a large company, knowing that you can innovate, put something on the internet, have the market decide whether it wins or loses -- that is fundamentally what open internet is about. someone said to me last night at

a satyr that everything else is commentary. -- at a sader that everything else is commentary. >> i think that conservatives and the liberals have said that they do not like to propose rules. is that a surprise? >> we have adopted rules that -- you know, when i became chairman, we inherited a real mess around this topic. there was uncertainty and confusion. there was a war going on among companies in the economy. preserving the fundamental free- market, opened her-- open character to the internet, i thought was reported. we put in a firmer that makes sense and tackle the whole lot of issues that are in -- we put

in a framework that makes sense and tackled the whole lot of issues that are important. >> it has smaller font. [laughter] >> i cannot read it anymore. it was supported by stakeholders from throughout the system. investors, larger technology companies, as well as former and current ifc. i am very proud of the work that the staff of the fcc did. we have moved forward to issues around mobile future and spector made universal service for

broadband, obstacles to deploying broadband infrastructure. >> let's talk about spectrum for a minute. not long ago, i was walking up much repeat to and i got a cell phone call. -- walking up machupichu and i got a cell phone call. it was perfect. but i was driving down the street -- [laughter] >> the first issue involves whether we have enough spectrum to meet the growing demand in mobile. some people live their lives around spectrum band airwaves and some people are new to it. spectrum is the oxygen of the global communication. if you are using a smartphone or tablet or those machine devices

that are coming out, they all use spectrum. in the innovation and growth in this area, it has been just incredible. just in the last couple of years, it is on a trajectory that is just amazing. three years ago, the app store did not exist. since then, multiple applications have been down loaded. the app economy, tens of thousands of companies that are creating applications, they did not exist. it is now a $38 billion industry with tens of thousands of companies and hundreds of thousands -- >> all using more spectrum. >> yes. giving us to the growing gap between demand and supply. let me give you some underlying numbers.

the smartphone is that people use as compared to the old feature phones place a demand on spectrum capacity that is almost 25 times feature phone. a tablet places a demand on spectrum capacity that is almost 145 times. the amount of spectrum we have coming on line to meet this demand is essentially flat. it is potentially a real problem for our mobile broadband economy. and we have to find a way on how to free up more spectrum for mobile broadband. >> driving south of the white house and other parts of washington, the cell phone breaks up. the connection. is this a spectrum problem or a lack of power problem? >> it is two things coming

together. in some cases, it will be congestion. we all experienced how feels to be in a very congested area. you cannot get a connection. you have dropped calls. >> you do not. i assume you have a special fcc phone. >> something we have a special warehouse of spectrum. we do not. the other piece that contributes to it is the there is infrastructure required for transmitting the wireless signal from one place to another. there are parts of the country where it takes much too long. it is much too expensive. and it is also contributed slowing it down. how do we free up more spectrum for mobile broadband? had we reduce barriers to broadband infrastructure rollout? these are complicated challenges. >> one of your proposals relates to some of the television

broadcasters giving up their spectrum, in effect auctioning it back. >> yes. we have had a major innovation in spectrum policy. maybe the most significant was moving in allocation of spectrum comparative lotteries to option. it led to incredible innovation the incredible amounts of private investment. it has worked. we auctioned off all of the easy pickings on the spectrum chart. now we are left with figuring out how do we reallocate spectrum that was assigned before auctions came into effect? we proposed expanding the

options will so that it applies -- the auction tool so that it applies coming into an auction. we run a two-sided auction or the supply of spectrum would come in from those who voluntarily contribute their spectrum to the auction in exchange for a share of the range. i have no doubt that we would free up a significant amount of over-the-air broadband. it has changed a lot in the past 20 years to 30 years. 100% of my broadcast tv watching was tender house. there were a lot of stations.

if we could run this kind of auction, we could have a vibrant and healthier and stronger broadcasting industry and free of significant amount of spectrum for broadband, raising billions of dollars for deficit reduction. even more important than that, generating an economic value for the country that economists predict is 10 times the magnitude. two weeks ago, 112 economists, leading economists, nobel prize winners, economist who worked both on the democratic and republican administrations, economists from the fcc sayinsig a letter saying that we need to do this for the country. we have industries representing the people in the room who were involved in this two thousand

companies are offering $1 trillion in revenue. this is something where we ought to be able to move forward together to make sure this basic invisible infrastructure is not an obstacle to the kind of growth and job creation -- >> you think this will happen. >> i hope it will. >> back to my cellphone again -- [laughter] when can i expect to drive around manhattan and not have cellphone calls dropped? >> if we do not do something like this, the situation will get worse and not better over time. you had people like you are using your data-hungry high- speed devices more and more. that is great. it is generating investment and creating jobs and making sure that the innovation around this area happens right here in the u.s.. i hope everyone continues to use these devices and continue to

have this wonderful virtuous circle of innovation. >> what do you use? do you have a cell phone? a blackberry? and i pad? >> i have tried over time to use all of the above. something that i have been thinking about in connection with the fcc, it is important for the staff of the fcc to have hands-on exposure to cutting edge technology. it is not that easy. not everyone can have multiple devices. if you are a government employee, you can afford all the vices. we are going to set up a technology experience center. it will be a library for candie's devices so that we can make sure that the staff of the fcc has firsthand experience with the kinds of devices that they are working on. >> when you use a cellphone, do

you put it up to your ear? are you worried about cancer? >> when i am driving? [laughter] distracted driving is an incredibly serious issue. my hat's off to re la hoya, the transportation secretary, for being -- my hat's off to ray lahood, the transportation secretary, for being in the forefront of this. i do have a 19-year-old. this is very serious. >> but you're not worried about the help the effects of using a cell phone. >> no. for years, the fcc has set based on research and health studies that the health agencies do. i am not worried. >> right now, you have a

proposal that, when someone wants to call 911, they call them. but you have a proposal or you can tax them. >> yes. >> why would that be better? >> first of all, i do not think that people realize that you cannot text 911. we saw this at virginia tech and that terrible tragedy a few years ago and some students tried to text 91. there's no one on the other side of that text. , you cannot matter o send a photograph from your smartphone 2911. you cannot send a video. if you are outside of a burning building and you can send an affirmation to a firefighter or you see a robbery, most things like that, you cannot do. this world has moved so quickly. this has gone from something where three years ago they say you cannot text 9112 world

where it troubled more and more people, and it should, so, like a lot of problems, it is not a simple problem to serve. making sure that our first responders, having mobile broadband safety network, which they do not, these were identified in the 9/11 commission report. even in this economic climate and a deficit climate, they all cost money. but this is an area where we have to make the commitment, find the most efficient way possible to make sure that our first responders have the tools they need. >> you're doing something about this now in your proposal? >> we are doing a few things on 911. we're working with other agencies here. one of the obstacles to having what people call e-911 is having a set of standards were it will

be a significant efficiency driver, cost-producer. we are working to accelerate those standards. we're working on another thing that people do not realize that the location accuracy of a wired 911 call is close to 100%. the location accuracy of a wireless 911 is much lower. in some cases, it is really problematic. if you are in a skyscraper, we often we will not know what floor you're in. if you are in a rural area, they could not know where you are within a mile. it is important to incentivize innovative ideas for these things. there is a lot of work that we need to continue to work to get our public safety infrastructure

into the 21st century. >> what about other countries? other countries seem to have mobile devices that are more advanced than ours. they have a spectrum that is less of a problem than here. what are you try to do to make us more competitive to larger and emerging markets, china, brazil, and india. why are there technology's more advanced than ours? or maybe they're not. >> our spectrum agenda is a high priority for us for this reason. other steps that we can take to liberalize the rules in spectrum used to get more from mobile broadband, working on getting secondary markets in spectrum going -- there is a whole series of ideas. the reason it is so important is that, around the world, it is not our little secret of that mobil is the future. countries around the world understand that there is

economic growth. there is job creation. there is innovation in the future of mobile. many see it as possibilities to technology.'ve talke my counterpart in other countries, i see real focus on the mobile future. it is one of the reasons we spend so much time on the incentive optiauctions. the cost of delay is very high, not only in consumer frustration and a break in investment in the united states, but because we're playing with fire. we're playing with the fire that we could see the great american- based innovation companies that right now are doing so much in the space decided that the opportunities for developing and rolling out new products is somewhere else. a company called applied materials, a very important

american technology company in silicon valley, decided a little less than a year ago to move its chief technology officer and its cto operations from silicon valley to beijing. my question is how many times does that have to happen before we declare a real crisis? to me, the single biggest risk on something like that is not taking advantage of the incredible momentum we have on wireless. we have this wonderful market- based solution called incentive optioauction. >> people are buying things on their mobile device now. do you think there should be a tax on internet purchases? >> we do not deal with internet tax issues at the fcc. >> your personal view. [laughter]

>> anything that discourages innovation and private investment in this space, we have to really look at it before we make any decisions. >> if there are payment methods when you buy, is that something that the sec will regulate -- that the fcc will regulate? >> we do not have any open proceedings on that. the premise of your question is one that i agree with. this area payments is a tremendous economic innovation opportunity. it fits into a bucket where there are a number of agencies that are like people filling the elephant. in government, we have an obligation to coordinate and make sure that, to the extent that rules and policies are required, that they are smart and be efficient and

coordinated and helping global payment takeoff. this is another example where, if we do not get it right, we will see the leading innovators in mobile payments developed in other countries. >> right now, you have a lot of proceedings in front of the fcc. you want to be as technologically efficient as possible. why do you not say no more paper filings and that everything has to be electronic? >> it is a question we wrestled with last year. we put together a strategic plan for the country on broadband, put it on line, made it interactive, and ran the process online for input. we did print books -- a couple of hundred pages. how many was it? 267 pages. people ask, it is a broad band

plan. why are you printing it? the answer is that the percentage of americans that are on line is much lower than in needs to be. colic the broadband adoption rate -- 67%. one-third of americans are not online. 67% compares to 90% in singapore and south korea. we need to pursue a set of strategies to increase broadband adoption in the u.s., but the thing that we realized, as your question pointed out, once we move to full e-government, it will save a tremendous amount of money for taxpayers and ron government more efficiently. the problem is, until we do that, the government has to run two infrastructures. until the government serves all of its citizens, and until we get all citizens online, we have

to do paper and electronic. it is crazy. it is why taking real measures has a double payoff. >> 20% to not have access to broadband at all. >> a little less. >> what percentage? >> it is under 10%. 25 million people live in areas there have no broadband infrastructure at all. >> what are you doing about that? >> all of these topics that under the heading universal service. we did a good job in the 20th- century doing universal service for telephone service. the problem is, our universal service programs are still telephone programs. they have also become inefficient, wasteful, and they're not allocating funds very wisely. this is a core recommendation of the broadband plan, as long -- along with incentive options and other spectrum issues.

we need to transform this $9 billion a year fund for universal service into one that is efficiently focused on the next generation of infrastructure that is using market-based mechanisms to disburse funds. it is efficient, fiscally responsible, accountable, and i think we will get there. predecessors have tried, and i understand why it is so hard. it is complicating and challenging. schematically, why these issues are so challenging and what i think we are wrestling with a high level -- many of the people here probably read a book called "innovators dilemma." it analyzes why market-leading companies -- reading companies can sometimes succeed and

sometimes fail when faced with destructive technologies and competitors. it is a good framework for thinking about where we are when it comes to technology. we are the market leaders. we do the great job. like some of the market leading companies of the trouble adjusting, the reason they have trouble adjusting is they are not operating on a blank slate. they have to make transfers -- transitions from legacy his infrastructure, older policies and processes, and this is what we have to do in number of areas. spectrum, universal service -- we have to recognize that we have real issues. it is actually coming out of a series of positives for the u.s., whether it is but broadcasting -- so many successes have made this harder. that is a good thing, but also a challenge. the same thing with universal service. if we do not tackle these in the

way that the great companies tackle their disruptive competitors and technologies, the risk we face as a country is we will end up what the companies that do not make the turn and compete in a new era. >> why should the government not do the same? the fcc was set up in 1934, five members. why not have one administrator, and met him or her decide the policies without going through votes. >> i will tell you one thing that is interesting historically. it is an accident, but it gives us a competitive advantage if we get our job right. in most competitive countries there are multiple agencies that do with the fcc does. there is an agency that does wired communications. if there's one that does wireless, another for international and satellite. thanks to the accident of history and herbert hoover, we

have had from the beginning what are around the world they call a converged agency. for many years you would wonder why these things were put together, but now it makes a lot of sense. all of these different means of communication are basically different mechanisms for transmitting digital bits. it should give the u.s. advantage am looking holistic lead at policies that relate to each other. there are global competitors that want to move to a converged agency. one of the things we focus on is taking advantage of this competitive advantage, making sure we are adopting rules and policies that make sense across multiple platforms. >> you think this is more efficient than other countries? >> i think a converged agency makes sense absolutely. >> traditionally, i would guess fcc commissioners would say it is competitive, not competitive, the pro-technology, or not, but do you weigh in

what the impact is another country's from the globe? >> absolutely. we cannot disentangle what happens with our economy from what happens in the global economy. 25 years ago, when congress authorized the fcc to conduct auctions, at that point there was a delay. there should not have been, but there was pure the cost of the delay was much lower than now. back then, countries for not waking up every day and saying we want to take the lead in innovation and have identified spectrum mobile as an opportunity. today, the fact is that all of the major economies around the world, as i said before, they understand the. which can now look at our own economy, what we need to do to make sure the u.s. takes advantage without paying

attention to global competitors. >> since we started selling spectrum, the u.s. government has brought in $50 billion. how much more money is there to be broad index is in another 50 billion, or is that too high? >> -- broadband -- brought in yet another $50 billion, or is that too high? >> it is something we should move forward on and do as a bipartisan, strategic issue. >> do you think you have to be a lawyer to be the chairman of the fcc? >> no. it gets at another thing that i try to focus on in running the agency. there are very few issues that we work on where you would want only lawyers to work on them. i am a lawyer. i was trained as a lawyer. i've nothing against lawyers.

the best work that is done by the agency his work that is multi-disciplinary -- where we get in a room and talk about an issue. it will sound like a joke, but i do not mean it this way. a lawyer, an economist, an engineer, people with real world investing experience, or people with experience in education or health care -- this is the most fun i have. we get people from multiple backgrounds together and have been tense, vibrant discussions about what the right thing is for the country. this is where i learned from the people you mentioned at the beginning -- encouraging those kinds of conversations and the intense back-and-forth, but also respect for multiple disciplines. it is important that the fcc has all of them represented. >> are you influence by grass- roots letters? are you in france by members of congress when they sent letters? -- influence by members of

congress when they send letters? how you treat the letters? the members of congress lobby you? >> we spend a lot time talking to members of congress. it is very important on issues like broadband, which is sold important to our economy. public safety, spectrum -- the fcc has a real obligation to be a resource to congress, the administration, and it is incredibly important. we run open processes. we are required. we pay all lot of attention to the input we get from all stakeholders. when i tell the scene is, again, this is where i started. great ideas can come from anywhere. bad ideas can come from anywhere. let's make sure we know what we are trying to accomplish, what the shortest distance is to get there, in the sensitive about the different perspectives that we have coming in. >> the white house does not call

up and say what their position is on net neutrality and other things? >> we are an independent agency. we do what we believe is the right thing for the country, and almost everybody you could mention, we have agreed and this with them. >> there was a story where a former chairman of the fcc was doing something under the reagan administration that president reagan did not like, or some of his advisers did not, so they brought in all of the movie studio heads who did not like the proposed regulation, and all were in the oval office. the president says if i could've gotten a meeting with you if -- when i was an actor, i would not have to go into the political world against the fcc chairman was not in that meeting. -- world. i guess the fcc chairman was not in that meeting.

you cannot have that kind of situation now? now the you know that it is -- what it is like to be the chairman of the fcc, knowing very thing you know, would to a taken the job again? [laughter] >> yes. the issues that we have talked about, they're very, very important for the country. they're both interesting, exciting, and if we get the right, they will really matter to the economy and ordinary americans. they're things like digital text books that we did not talk about triplex digital text books -- the idea is that -- talk about. >> digital text books, is that going to happen or not? >> i think it will happen. anything we can do to accelerate it will be a good thing. it is not just about heading off shoulder problems for young people. it is that technology here can be a real opportunity equalizer

for students all over the country, and a force multiplier for teachers. when you think about the power of these devices to help on an individualized basis students wherever they are, learn geometry fester, science, math, all of these subjects -- i think the opportunities are immense. we should be the first country in the world to move from paper textbooks to digital text books, and i think we should lead the world in innovation. i think we of the chance to do it, but there are obstacles to overcome. >> there have been some rumors you would take another position in this administration. are you planning to stay as chairman of the fcc for the foreseeable future? >> i am very focused on what i'm doing every day. the agenda, the things i have described to you, i will keep waking up every day working on

that, and i enjoyed. >> we have some time for some questions from the audience. raise your hand. i think there should be a microphone. you can identify yourself if you are not afraid to do so. no lobbying bill. questions? there is one right here. >> thank you i am with -- thank you. i'm with bank of america, mr. chairman. as we all know, our computer and communications instructor nationally is under constant threat of cyber attacks. just about one year ago, the fcc issued a notice of inquiry about the possibility of developing a cyber security standards and certification for communications service providers. what'd you learn through the process, and what is the status? >> i am glad you mentioned that. the security of our broadband

and structure is vital for our economy, from large possesses to small. people need to be able to trust their information is secure and protected. debris will points in response -- 1 -- two point in response -- one is there are agencies that have some expertise and resolute -- relevance to the solution. it is important in this area, as was the other one, the government as a whole act in a smart, coordinated, efficient way. that is why a cyber security advisor was appointed in the white house. it was the right thing to do. the inter-agency task efforts to tackle this our on going, very important, and they're not easy. there are some steps that we could take. i'll give you one example. there is an incredible opportunity in small businesses

going on line, taking advantage of the opportunities the internet, wired-to-wireless allows to expand market, and lower-cost its. -- costs. broadband adoption around small businesses is not as high as it should be to fully take advantage of these opportunities, and we looked to why that is. there are number of different reasons, but part of it is concerned about the infrastructure. next month, we will launch an initiative together with other agencies and companies in the private sector to increase the level of education, knowledge, and awareness among small businesses of the basic steps that could be taken to protect themselves. there are a lot of things i suspect many people in this room take for granted. did not click on a link in an e-

mail from people that you do not know. is not common knowledge, but it should be. we will launch an initiative to focus on small business and security. as we continue to work on the note that you mentioned, and is a part of the process to make sure the country gets this record >> other questions? -- gets this right. >> other questions? identify yourself. >> mr. chairman, i am which j.p. morgan. with the low usage of internet technology in the united states relative to appear countries, how much is driven by the cost of the individual consumer? >> we figure in our work that there were several different contributing reasons. in some cases, they are independent, and in some cases they relate to each other. affordability is a reason.

for some people, it is the dominant reason. we also found that relevance was an issue. there are some people that do not appreciate the value of been online. if there are steps we could take to accelerate that. digital literacy is an issue. there are some people that do not have the skills to be online. there are steps we could take to address digital illiteracy. trust is the fourth step. we need to work on all of these. here is something that people -- well people, should know this. the cost of digital exclusion is much higher than it used to be, and it is getting higher. i will give you one example. think about jobs. it used to be if you were looking for a job, you would get the newspaper, a look at the help wanted ads, and if you saw something, you would call up,

and maybe schedule an appointment or an interview, where you would fax over an application or a rise in may. we know that is not our works anymore. overwhelmingly, the job postings are moving online. in fact, more than three- quarters of fortune 500 companies do all of their job postings on line. if you are not online today, you cannot even find the job. i also talked to a lot of people on the other side that say that we need to create a lot more jobs in this country, obviously, but there are also jobs that do exist that require basic digital scales, and some employers are having trouble finding people with basic digital skills to fill jobs that are available. in both respects, the cost of digital exclusion is much higher than it used to be. it is why it is such an imperative to bring up these numbers. >> speaking of new technology, president obama recently said

that he found that the telephone system in the white house was kind of antiquated and he was surprised compared to what he expected. have you been asked for any advice of how to improve the telephone system there? >> unfortunately, the fcc is not in that business spread across the board, i would say this -- >> are you happy with your phone service at the fcc? >> we've taken a number of steps over the last year to take -- to make better and more efficient use of communications technology. it is really important, not only to lower the cost of government, because we could lower the cost by using cloud computing smartly, and other new technologies. we could generate more efficiency. to come back to the adoption point, there is the double bottom line that by accelerating the move to e-government and generating the use of new technologies across government,

it will help increase our adoption rate because it is often the people that most interact with government that are the ones that are, the least. thinking creatively about bringing these things together, we can get the government to operate more efficiently and do it in a way that brings more people online. it is like incentive options, if i could -- auctions, if i could plug them again. we need to do some of these things, and we are doing a lot. there are terrific examples in the space where we could do things that have wins on multiple levels -- for our economy, education, raising revenue, and a boring costs. >> we have time for one more question -- lowering costs. >> we a time for one more question. anyone else?

i will ask the last question then my question is today, when somebody wants to influence the fcc, an average citizen, what is the best way? write a letter, send an e-mail, come to washington? how can an average citizen actually effect with the fcc does? >> for people that live outside of washington, online is the best way. we have made it very easy for people outside of washington, whether you are an ordinary citizen, a teacher, a small- business person, an engineer, an economist and a large company, someone at the university, and you did not have to hire a lawyer to present your facts, data, and ideas, but to do it directly online. we changed our rules so that online submissions count as a part of the record, which imposes an obligation on us to take into account as we make a decision. i would encourage everyone to go

to the fcc.gov. where are in the process of relaunch in our site to make it more helpful to stakeholders in terms of providing information and also getting input. so, that is the way to do it, but for people that do not have on-line access, we will look at other information that comes in as well. >> all right. thank you, chairman, and on behalf of the economic club of washington, i want to thank you for an inch in conversation. i will give you a gift. it is a little map of the district of columbia. i hope you are allowed to take a gift. >> i am not sure. josh? [laughter] >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you all. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, i discussion on the role of whistleblowers with wikileaks julian assange. and then they'll look at the un rest in north africa. >> a couple of live events tomorrow morning -- michele martelli holding news conference at 9:00 a.m. eastern. that is when c-span -- that is on c-span 2. on c-span, the center for american progress hosts a four month occupational safety administration with the head of

the agency and a panel of workers. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> two-thirds of the american people depended on the network news of those three networks as their primary source for information about the president of the united states. all were hostile to richard nixon. >> coincide pivotal moments of american history online with the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share from every c-span program. it is washington your way. >> next, a discussion of the question two whistleblowers make the world a safer place? panelists include wikileaks founder julian assange, journalists and former intelligence officers. this is one hour and a half. [applause]

>> good afternoon. can everyone here me in the back? good toee so many of you here. i am the editor of "the new statesman." when we announced we were having this debate, we put it up on our website and tickets were sold out in a matter of hours. we talked about switching venues. we had a long commute for people who wanted to come here this evening. in the and we stayed here and i think it is a finding you. the motion before the house this evening is, this house i am pleased to say she is here

with us. congratulations. [applause] i know you do not want to hear me speak. i have a few brief words about the format. the speaker will he more -- more tn seven words -- minutes to make their case. without further ado i introduced the one proposing t motion. [applause] julien us on -- assange. [applause] i gather some of you must

recognize that. opposing the motion, we have sir david richards. we have douglas. a few words about each of our speakers. e is the head of al-jazeera's transparency unit.

[applause] our second speaker proposing the motion needs no introduction. julien was born in queensland, australia. he is editor in chief of wikileaks. he has facilitated more acts of whistleblowing than any other individual. there have been calls to -- for his assassination. he is continuing ongoing espionage investigations. he described in a phrase, he called wicked leaks -- wikilea ks the intelligence agency of the people. he writes about politics, economics, world affairs. when he is not writing, and he

is speaking. there are other political programs. before joining the statesman, he worked for channel four. posing the motion, we have sir david richards. 30 years of service in baghdad. in 2003, david returned to baghdad. he is the un special representative to iraq. he is the head of defense and intelligence. he has had a long and distinguished career and side of the u.s. government.

that says here that he was responsible for the security of the protesting systems across the world. a journalist has recently been moved to become assistant director of the society. i think you were due to be in new york this evening. i am grateful that you could arrange your flight to be with us this evening. >> thanks very much. i think it might be quite exciting to do this before you speak. two of you have a view about the motion. whistle blowers make the world a safer place. by a show of hands, those of you

who would support that motion. this house believes that whistle-blowers makes the world is safer place. who would oppose that? only a few of you oppose that. you have a lot of work to do to find that. how many abstained? that is interesting. as many as those opposing. >> it is a pleasure to be here in london. i have been asked to participate because i believe in the value of whistle-blowers. i am speaking on behalf of al his era -- al jazeera's transparency unit. anything i say wrong is myself. we live in a time of

unprecedented wrongdoing. we have a phenomenon of the collusion between t mainstream media organations and government that hasurrendered a lot of journalistic principles of keeping government in check and holding them to account because of political leanings or because they wanted to get invited to the next christmas party, i do not know why. many of you see this on television and in recordings and in newspapers. at the issue of whether or not to support whistle-blowers is devalue and principalf anonymous speech. i am representing al jazeera, and i am also american. in my country, we have a strong tradition of anonymous speech that we take from our forefathers. that was the discussion of the

federalist papers over what form of government the constitution should be. people posted anonymously. they did not want retaliation because they did not want people to hurt them because of the public discourse. the united states supreme court has uphd the volume of anonymous speech. it helps break taboos. what is amusing about the whole criticism of using anonymous speech, governments have nearly perfected anonymous speech. let me give you a clear example. oftentimes, the united states government uses the media to help make policies go over well with the public. messages through anonymous sourcing. they go to journalists. how often did you see in the run

up to the iraq war, the senior intelligence officer speaking on the intelligence. theyave no problem picking up the phone and calling us journalists. that happens all the time. they are passing along their information. why? the powerful can. they make the rules. the same thing, when it is turned on its head, they attack the leaks and disclosures and anonymous sourcing. it is wrong. we have the unprecedented wrongdoing and the collusion of so many journalistic organizations with the governments. people are finding ways to take massive amounts of information and put it out on the internet. we recognize that trend. we set up the transparency. we want to have a way to receive these tips and that for people

to be able to come to us and pass information along we are not able to obtain that through traditional journalism. we take in information. we authenticate it. we give it context and nuance. our challenge is to turn documents into television. that helps the government make better choices for our viewers. we did that with the palestine papers back in january. this was our first disclosure. it was secret negotiations between palestinians and americans. the chair the and workings of a process gone awry between 2000 and 2010. we took a lot of heat for doing it. our first challenge was what to withhold? what do you not put out there?

we were under tremendous pressure from the british government. we received a call from mi not to plish the name of a mi officer. and to in turn them with bank eu funding. this is illegal under international law. this wasisted as a consulate in jerusalem at the tim at t end of the day, we said that this was a libyan intelligence officer, would withhold his name? if he was a venezuelan, would we withhold his name? if we get rid of the my country tis of thee objection that journalists have, that it is liberating. nobody was ht.

we gave context and in permission. if you just put documents out there and they do not have any background, people did not believe the there is no reason to put out the day that if you do not tell people why it matters to them. they probably would not look at it. the critics of wikileaks, many of them are journalists. i have thought about what they said about him in particular and the impact on our profession. i come away with two thoughts i would share with you. one is a more basic, human critiqued. they are hating on him the key -- because he got a scoop that he did not. if he was from a different organization, they would be talking about what thewards

they would give him. the second point was that a lot of the organizations, they do not have the editorial cahones to publish. let me take you back to 2004. "the new york times" found new information that the bush administration that was eavesdropping on u.s. citizens. the bush administration got them to delay publication until 2005 when bush was safely reelected. they withheld the apache helicopter footage that wiki leaks put out there. the people know what not to put out there. we see this in egypt when they go up to the ministry of the interior. the peoe did not put it out there and -- because it violated privacy.

the masses know what is appropriate to put out there. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> speaking against the motion. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i realize that both of us have been asked to do this and have our work cut out. we will do our best. at the risk of making things worse at the outset, i concede that in certain circumstance -- circumstances there is a valiant case for whistleowing. when there is deceit or abuse of power, blowing the whistle can be justified.

not everybody that leaks a confidenal document or 250,000 documents is a whistle blower. whether it is for political advantage or because they disagree with the policy or they take the view that government should not be in the business of keeping information secret. it is a problem for which he leaks. -- wikileaks. i also agreed that holding the government to account, the government needs to be properly informed. most democracies have accepted the need for greater transparency. they give the public access to more affirmation. in the u.k., we have the freedom of information act. there is the growth of judicial review that has also played a huge part in opening up the

workings of british government, including the most secret. there are good reasons why government believes that it is duty bound to keep up confidentiality. this does not necessarily mean the right to know of the time. these include national security , international relations, and the foreign relations of government -- the relation of government policy. there is no doubt that it is too much information, if classified. our defense will never depend on secrecy. when we get on an airplane, we e generally assured, if knocke

mildly irritated, by all of the searching and backtracking. since 9/11, there has been only one terrorist attack in btain leading to major loss of life. we have prevented a number of other attac that in one case it would have led to many others. the work of these agencies has to be secret. they cannot operate if their sources and methods are exposed to public view. one of the goals of diplomacy is to make the world a seat -- safer place. to be effective, diplomacy's sometimes requires confidentiality. >> you said that diplomacy requires secrecy. do you think that the people in this room had the right to know that ambassadors were being

bugged by diplomats? [applause] >> there is a lot i could say about that. there is one very short point. i thought that was a bit absurd. if i want information from a un employee, i ask for it. heormally gives it to me. you have picked up the only exception. the leak of the state deparent cables has not shown us up to our neck in a state department cover-ups. the show's the normal traffic of diplomacy. they are keeping this confidential for the sake of working relationships. finding the compromises, which are the lifeblood of

international relations. it is the bargaining process that becomes public. resolutions are voted in public. explanations of votes are public. the negotiation takes place behind closed doors. that was not the case. getting diplomatic context to free -- speak frankly, it depends on trust. this is based on the strategic arms reduction treaty and they wanted to find a way to the difficulties that they faced. they want for their famous walk in the wds. they may have needed fresh air, but they needed the chance to talk frankly and build trust. that is impossible if confidentiality cannot be respected. without frank speaking, the

quality of information on which governments must base their decisions deteriorates. that is not, in my view, the recipe for a safer world. the public needs to be properly informed. the government's need to keep some aspects confidential to otect its citizens and function eectively. if the right balance is not being struck, the democratic way to address this is not by whistleblowing. in some exceptional circumstances, it must be justified. we shod improve the democratic and constitutional processes. parliament, the media, the courts, and rights of individual citizens operating within the framework established by law.

thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for that. this talk is about not whether sometimes information should be kept secret byhose tasked to do so. of course it should. the question is whether whistle- blowers and their actions make the world a safer place or not, or to rephrase the question, with the absence of whistle- blowers make e world a more harmful place? we just heard this last speaker saying that when considering a balance between the desire of

certain groups and individuals for secrecy and those that coerce individuals at the point of a gun, then the rights of us to know what our government is doing, this is a matter for the courts. this is a matter for the democratic process. this is something to be ironed out between us and cast into law. how would we know whether the secrecy process is working for us or not? the only way we can no weather information is legitimately kept secret is when it is revealed.

all systems of censorship have that problem and coded within them. because of that original sin of censorship, they all must be held to outside account. the way that has been traditionally done is by courageous individuals who are privy to information that they believe the public is interested in. they are putting it out at substantial personal risk. the public bend, if b. media -- the media is an honest conduit, the public decides whether to report those actions or not. perhaps we should talk about

some of those actions. if we are not talking about wt actually happens in the world, at are we talking about? we are talking about myths that exist in our own heads and hypothetical. i want to look at some situations in history that have led to war and perhaps have stopped war. a war between people certainly does not make the world a safer place. the absence of a war or prevention of a war must be the old met in making people safer. a war was triggered by the gulf of tonkin incident. a lie about a u.s. boat off the

coast of vietnam, which the united states government claim had been attacked by the vietnamese. that claim was a lie. there were people privy to tha claim that knew it was a lie that came forth in the past 10 years to talk about how it was a lie. if it had come fort and broken the interpretation of what national security secrets are, as bradley manning is alleged to have done, that war may never have happened. similarly, the disaster that has been the iraq war, we all found out about dr. evidence, -- doctored evidence.

when did we find out? the war had already started. why did we find out after? was there no one concerned in the planning who felt that it was wrong? of course there were. the fears that these individuals had, the fears of being imprisoned and jailed for revealing that information to you, kept them secret until later on in the process. much later on. this year in great britain, we are seeing an inquiry into that process. the chilcutt inquiry. wikileaks released a cable on this inquiry. this was telling the u.s. ambassador at the time of the inquiry, do not worry, we are

going to protect all of your interests here. similarly, there was a time in 2007 when there were serious moves afoot to get up to war with iran. most of you remember that feeling. -cons were pushing through their mouthpieces in america and the united states, pushing for that war. people can afford and said, do not do what i did. he was the leaker of the pentagon papers. do not do what i did and wait four or five years until after the vietnam war had started. do not wait to come forward until this war starts.

sources did come forth. sources who saw the planning for that war. as a result, there were moves against it. the sources have not been exposed. they did their best. they may havehanged history and they went back to their jobs and continued on. that is that model that we want to promote as much as possible. whistle-blower's based difficulties. it is rare that they end up in prison. they often lose their jobs and their empyment prospects. when they can speak anonymously, they can change history. they can be proud of themselves and their acts and continue on.

in 2008, the u.s. military classified rules of engagement for iraq. the rules for the u.s. army and its air support have to use when conducting battles in iraq. we went to the "the new rk times" to get that out. one section of it spoke about how the u.s. military could crossover the border of iraq without senior authorization at the commander lovell when chasing someone in a vessel or suspected terrorist or a number of otherituations. most wars have started as a

result of border disputes. a soldier crossing over into another country's territory. you could see the alleged fabricated gulf of tonkin incident as one of those. the iranian foreign ministry held a press conference and said that this was unacceptable. later on, we got a hold of another copy of the rules of engagement in 2008 months after the publication. the rules had changed. the u.s. soldiers were not permitted to cross over into iran. i could speak for hours about all of the tremendous revelations. just yesterday, the editor of

the most respected paper in india ran over 21 front pages in the last six weeks that were based on the material. there is no a tremendous anti- corruption movent that has been building up in that country, something that has not happened since the time of gondi. >> the final minute. >> i thank you. it is obvious that whistle- blowers make the world a safer place. we look at the arguments. this does not mean that everything in government should be exposed. it does mean that the system of breaking alleged alas -- laws is working at it must be kept going

that way. otherwise, we cannot replace the reality that we are in. [applause] >> thank you very much. bob ayers. [applause] >> when i saw the show of hands at t beginning, i realized what the questions felt like in the coliseum. just a point of clarification, the vietnam war was well under way before the gulf of tonkin incident. that was under the administration of a lyndon johnson. the war started under the john f. kennedy administration.

your timing was a little off. >> the french were involved in that war for many, many years. >> sit down. sit down. >> thank you very much. >> please continue. >> we were very polite when he spoke. we expect the same courtesy from him. obviously, i am wrong. what i would like to talk about is not the specifics of how many documents were compromised or said what to do. what i would like to look at i how we as iividuals and organizations and groups of people deal with issues of secrecy. secrecy is something that we have all experienced throughout our history. there are various forms of this. we have religious secrets, as

shown by the gnost sects and the knights templar. we have social secrets such as the freemasons. we have commercial secrets, trade secrets, property and commercial confidence materials. we have criminal secrets. the mafia has a secret code. lastly, we have state secrets. all of these organizations have a commonality on how they deal with those secrets. one is that the organization professes to hold knowledge tha is known only to members within the organization. members of that organization are expected to take an oath or make a promise to retain the secrecy of that information. stly, the members accept and acknowledge that they will be punished by the revelation of

that information. this is common across all of those groups. it is not unique to the state. as people, we have developed a very rich language and nomenclature that describes people who reveal secrets. we call them a snitch, a rat, pace wheeler, a trader -- squealer, a traitor, or a whistle-blower. this is not what i have invented. >> as someone who worked in government as a federal cminal investigator, we also called snitches people who came to us to rat on their friends or provide information to the government. we also use that to describe

people who supplied us with information. [applause] >> the rationale for people who break this oath or promise is as varied as some other things you have heard here today. people break the oath for greed, for money, for a bandage. they break the oath based on revenge, ideologies, fear, or ego. there is a wide range of punishments we put in place for people who break their oath. depending on the group you are in, it depends. if it is a religious group, you can be excommunicated. socially, you can be expelled from the group. commercially, you can be fired

or even worse. you can be subjected to a civil suit. criminals can be put to death, especially if you rat on the mafia. the state can put you in prison or put you to death for violating the oath. people that bright that oath, we remember them and remember them in a bad light. if you are british, i say to you purchase mclean, blunt, u know they are spies that gave british secrets to the russians. if you are an american, y say aldrich ames and robert hansen. those are men who violated their oath and gave secrets to the russians. if you are a russian, and used the name ollie, you know he is

demand that betrayed the motherland and gave secrets to the erics. if i say joe and you are in the mafia, you know he testified against her organization and was later sentenced to death. today, we are discussing the legalities and technicalities of whistle blowing. that is what the motion is before us. what is interesting is that the motion before us avoid some of the basic human characteristics that should be shipping this discussion. humans appear to share this belief that people that betray their oath are something that extends across cultures, societies, and continents. people that break their oath or someone that we revile and distrust. the question before us, at least

the unspoken question before us is due individuals or organizations that encouraged us to break that oath or facilitate our breaking of the oath, or promote us breaking that oath, are they just as guilty as the person who preaches the oath themselves? thank you. [applause] >> i think this evening we have some whistle-blowers in the audience. i would like them to come forward. annie, please come forward. [applause] annie, is a former british security service. a spy that left the service at

the same time as david. many of you remember she helped blow the whistle about criminal service intelligence agencies. could you tell us a little bit about your experiences and your story? >> thank you very much for inviting me. if you are an intelligence officer with than the u.k. intelligence agencies, you do not swear an oath. it is slightly different than the american system. anything that i say now has already been said. there is no need. i joined mi5 in the early 1990's along with my friend. during our recruitment, we were told that mi5 had to obey the

law. during our six years there, there were such a cascade of incompetence and criminality, we felt compelled to leave in order to effect change. that included piles of government ministries and a range of other prominent individuals in the u.k.. this included a phone tap. should have and could have been prevented. and then mi5 colluding in the cover-up. palestinians were convicted wrongly of an explosion outside of the israeli embassy in london in 1994 that were sentenced to 20 years each that were riding in prison. in 1996, he was officially

briefed about colonel gaddafi in libya. they were funding a bunch of islamist rebels. the only difference between then and now, now they're finding the rebels, but they are doing it more openly. we all know about it. what do we do? we joined up to serve our country and try to be different. in the u.k., there is a clear line of discsure. you cannot go to anybody apart from the head of the agency which has committed the crime in order to report the crime. what to do? we decided after many sleepless nights to go public to the press and hope the ensuing -- it would have an inquiry into this.

we would go on a run around europe. we ended up hiding for a year in france. we lived in exile for another two years. student supporters and even journalists were arrested and convicted because they dared to expose these crimes. of course, david went to prison, not once, but twice. in 1998 when the british government failed to extradite him from france. the second time as when he voluntary returned to stand trial. he was convicted and want to present in 2002. what is worse that -- was that his reputation was ruined in the pre and through manipution. why does this happened? they are easily controlled by the government and the intelligence agencies.

not through the security advisory committee this is through the adaptation of the official secrets act. this is through the adaptation of terrorism act. there is a section in mi6 which spins and controls media news as well. if we live in an ideal world where we had transparency and respect to human rights, we would not need the press to continue to support whistle- blowers. we live in the real world. there is a nebulous war on terror. need some sort of channel to protect whistle-blowers. americans have that legal channel. i suggest that we need one in the laws of this land. we have wikileaks and the

provide protection for whistleblowers. thank you very much and we hope that they continue their work in the years to come. [applause] >> does anyone opposing the motion which to come back on some of the points? she spoke about criminality within mi5. does anyone wish to talk about that? douglas? >> can i ask if you defied the official secrets act? there is the idea that you do not have to have some sort of silence if you are going to engage in the secret service. it seems to be inherent in the name.

that if you join the secret service, you can keep secrets. leaving the security services, you has a -- you have made a career as a 9/11 truther. i saw you testify havg to speak on oath. you were the short as witnesses that in the 13 years that they have ever heard. you did not havanything to say. you came claiming that you had secrets and it became clear that you did not know anything. you are very low level and you went out into the world presenting ourselves as experts. you try to prevent -- present yourself as a free-speech expert. >> thank you. the pronunciation of your name?

>> it would be nice if you got that right. >> briefly. >> the inquiry was about a state agent. we insurthat the evidence given by mi5 was changed. that was one thing. we signed the oicial secrets act to protect the official secrets, not crime. [applaus whatever level we worked on, we know more than somebody who never worked on the inside at all. thank you. pplause] >> thank you for that robust intervention. tell us a little bit more about your experiences.

i believe you were dismissed for warning people about the extent of their overexposure. tell us in a little bit more. i would like to know your story about what happened to you. >> you may think that blowing thwhistle on a bank has nothing to do with debt, but it does. the banking crisis has driven 100 milln people into poverty and killed many millions of those people. it does have something to do with death. i say one ting to bob. dwight eisenhower once said, never confuse honest the fence with disloyal subversion. there is a fundamental difference between those who raise and speak truth to power from a position of ethical

decency and those who are doing it for sversion. [applause] hague lifts the lidn britain'a secret past. the government that believes in transparency and openness. that is what people expect and what they have a right to. transparency is the key to truth. anything done in the dark is not nearly always the truth. it is the truth that sets us free. we only grow by taking risks. the biggest risk we ever have is being honest with ourselves and others. this above all, that it must follow the night into day. of course, obviously, proper whistleblowing makes the world a

safer place. it preventdisaster. it prevents wars. on a micro basis, it removes people from organizations that are criminals or a civil wrongdoing. on a macro basis, it leads to major changes of policy process and transparency leads to a better world. in my case, after i was fired by james crosby for trying to slow down the bank of scotland, it has led to some cnges. some good changes. i have not got sufficient time to go through some of these things. there is not nearly enough changes that have come out of it. the principal reason for doing what i did was to have change in the policies so that we could be protected from the way that banks work. we have not done nearly enough about it. we are still not doing

transparency. there has never been a proper inquiry. if you did a proper inquiry, the best interests would be found out. regulators, accountants, rating agencies, etc. in fact, we are thinking about driving a mass movement to get the transparency. mark my words, if we do not solve it this time, the next time it will be and wipe out. i would like to blow the whistle on the format of this particular event. how could you have an event of this measure at have a whistle blower and not being allowed to speak? i was sent this whistle by the

sock -- an admirer. it says in latin, to speak up on behalf of the fatherland. >> you have one minute. >> whistle blowing may make the world a safer place. it does not make it a safe place for a whistle blower. you get treated like toxic waste. you get treated like a leper. you care more about the organization and then the rubish you. i have been in the depths over this. this is my son writing a card to me on my birthday what i was in the depths of suicide. i know that you think that this birthed this stuff is nonsense, but it is a day to celebrate your life and what a great person you are. know this, everybody has flaws

and i'd like to look past those flaws to the great person you are. there is a lot of good in you and what you -- then you get credit for. in everything you stand for, which is integrity and truth. do not worry. we get transformed by truth. the reality is that you get transformed by trouble. all of the pain and suffering have been worthwhile. if you want to ask anybodyow it changes from the valley of death to amazing grace. my daughter is in the audience tonight. she will tell you. thanks very much indeed. [applause] >> paul was blowing the whistle there.

very poignant points. we have had many questions through our web site. one that seemed to recur again and again is this idea of collateral damage. this is as a result of whistleblowing or leaking valuable information. we want to hear you speak on that. i have a view on it. we have bent in the business for about 4.5 years of exposing actual collateral damage. the deaths added up in total of over 140,000 people documented case by case. in the case of the u.s. military and the assassinations from kenya. that is actual, not only collateral damage, but murder.

if you speak about wikileaks, there has been a lot of hot air said about our publication and -- by the pentagon and its rich -- supporters. anything that the press publishes that embarrasses the national security sector. we have a perfect record in true respect. that is not the record that we can keep forever. today, we have never preached a document that was mis-described. we have never gotten it wrong, as anyone alleges. nobody has ever suffered physical harm as a result of anything that we have published. that is the answer. that is what gates, the defense

secretary of the united states admits. it is what made out that mets. that is what the pentagon admits. if you google the phrase blood on hands and wikileaks and pentagon, there are 10 times as leaks eferences to wikik and blood on hands than the pentagon. that is including all the wars that the pentagon has done everywhere. the opponents say that it haso blood on its hands but there is some hypothetical risk that they should be talking about. they are saying that their

opponents have blood on their hands when there is none. [applause] >> i am very keen to keep this debate going as much as possible. i would like to hear from douglas murray. i would like you to come forward. >> do you want me to preempt my speech? very well. are you sure? >> i will come back. i am worried about how one side -- >> i am worried about it, too. i am happy to hold. thank you. >> please step forward. evybody has been waiting for you.

[applause] >> i am worried about how one- sided it is, too. there are countless debates on the panel. i am joking. i do not want to talk about wikileaks, julien, me, paul, i want to talk about a man named joe darby. he is a high-school graduate from small-town pennsylvania. he joined and it went to iraq in 2004. he was accidently given two cds containing photographs taken at abu ghraib. he sought the iraqi psoners

being stacks and forced to perform sex acts on each other, being attacked with dogs, being attacked, sodomized, raped. those pictures showed torture, abuse, rape, every indecency. joe darby, to use the lingo of the military, ratted on his friends, his fellow show -- ellis soldiers. they did not arrest those guys banged. when he went home to see his wife, they were told that they had to sell their house because it was not safe anymore. he had to be followed around by bodyguards.

he had to quit the military, all because he decided to blow the whistle. he helpedncover one of the worst crimes perpetrated by the u.s. and abroad in recent years and there are a lot to choose from. darby was asked by anderson cooper in an interview, did you ask -- did you wish that it was not you that was given the cds. he said no, they might not have been reported otherwise. they say that ignorance is bliss. to know what they're doing, you cannot stand by and let that happen. that is what whistleblowing is all about, and that is why this is so important. that whistle blowers do not make the world a safer place, but they have risk lies rather than save lives.

-- they risk lives. tell the inmates of of the great prison that whistle-blowers do not matter, they have no impact in the world. i would like to go to those people and say, "you should not have come forward. you should not he spoken out." whistle-blowers have a life- saving task. i would take your point in one second. traitors, those who went to the soviet union to sell secrets. people who speak out against dangerous, dishonest, or legal activity. that is who i am here for. who are you here for, bob?

[applause] >> i am here to be entertained by some of the speakers. the man turned over the cd's of abu ghraib. the man returned to those over weo who turn those over had no responsibility to keep silent -- the man who turn those over -- who turned those over had no responsibility to keep silent. >> i thought we were having a debate about whistle-blowers. proud of being a whistle-blower. but, listen. this is a debate about people.

paul did not take an oath. it is not about roads. it did not about swearing. this is about people and speak out, very clearly, people who speak out against dgerous, dishonest, illegal activity. let's be very clear. it is about big business. take the man that was portrayed by a rather potbellied russell crowe in theovie concern the tobacco industry. he saved lives by becoming a whistle-blower. this was about reducing the carcinogenic elements in the cigarettes. his assistance was central to

the fda investigation into the role of nicotine. i do not know if he took an oath. but he stood up. our rld is a better place. we do not liv in a perfect world. we live in a very imperfect world, where our government lied to us. they engaged in corrupt back room deals. and then they demand our trust, our trust, year after year after year, lie after lie after lie. well, stop lying to us, and we will not have whistle-blowers. surely a government, show me a government, democratic or nongovernment the democratic.

i remember the labor minister telling me, "trust me. trust me. i have seen the intelligence. the weapons are there. the weapons were not there. did it was working in the foreign office when ey were going around saying that the case for war against saddam was thin. instead of 2003, instead of going to chat with andrew billingham, those weapons of mass destruction. we would have hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis still alive today had we had whistle-blowers. [applause] and in in in a pfect world come in and in corporate world, we need whistle-blowers, and for have said they will come when governmes and neurologists will own up to the level of

deceit and corruption in our public life. and if you want any more evidence of the whistle-blowers, just look at what happens to the people who blow the whistle. threatened and blackmailed by the nixon administration who wanted him incapacitated. another held by the israelis for 11 years. and another is being held right now by the obama administration, and his underwear is taken from him before he is allowed to go to sleep at night. when whistle-blowers, long to put power in our hands, they say this is outrageous. this is wrong. this is going to destroy the world.

whistle-blowers and power fall and dare i say, these people a bradley manning and make the world a safer place. i urge you to back the motion. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. senior with thnew statesman. something for you to answer. whistle-blower organizations may

become a powerful tool to control the government, but who will control those organizations? who will control the whistle- blowers, and how do we know that the information they published is not being manipulative? >> the public holds us to account, and the public takes it weather materials submitted anonymously, if something is done to conceal an agenda -- i think all of what we ver really does not give enough credit. they can take in information that is submitted anonymously, and they throw in opinions and evaluate it and determine whether or not this is information being put out there for some other agenda or if this is to legitimately call some of the out r wrongdoing. i think there needs to be a conversation on journalists,

those who touch and taken the information, about what weut out and we do not put out. for example, in my own opinion, i do not think it would be good to put that information related to critical infrastructure of vulnerability. >> you do not support that. >> no, i do not. we do have some context, some background, some new ones. we do not just bonnett information. >> -- >> i will let julianne speak about -- julian speak aboaut wikileaks. sometimes, there is information

that is just too important f one news organization to have. so you partner, i think when you get more partnering, you get more accountability. this is a new type of journalism. there ds need to be some sort of code of ethics and standards, and i think as a new form of journalism, it is being worked out. this is why it is so popular. and that is why he was voted as one of the most popular figures in the world by "time magazine." thank you. [applause] >> could you please st forward? >> thank you. well, thank you very much.

>> i have been trying to get your on all evening. >> i know. this allows me to disagree with some of the previous speakers and also to agree with them. i am sorry to enter borne by partisanship, but i agree with many. democracies and governments can be corrupt. this is true. democry is a deeply flawed system. it is not perfect. it is, as churchill said. and i think we have to be aware, very aware, of this discussion between the difference between open societies, democracies, i which evil can come to the four and do in those systems in which

they never do and cannot. are there flaws in our government? of course. but, by and large, a democracy like america has a lot of checks and balances, different officials, different parties coming to power, elections, elections every two years, elections which just throughout the government that many were critical of in iraq, making your biography may be as terrifying as the prime minister. who knows what we should know? the decides? well, people like mr. assange,

so with him on the panel, we are likely going to be talking about wikileaks. but do they know, ladies and gentlemen, what they are doing? to criticize the government when it goes wrong. to some extent, not perfectly, they do know what they are doing. my own personal feeling is this. that when you unleash thousands and thousands of documents that were never meant for the public eye, were never meant for your opponent's eyes, were never meant for aintelligence agencies eyes, you introduce an element of chaos. it is like war. its very hard to contain once you start. you may think you know you are doing. you may think you're going to

lead to great criticism, but what about the collateral damage in your campaign? are you sure you know what you're doing when you release secret documents relating secret conversations between states of the fragile governments of yemen or jordan or a confrontation with the king of saudi arabia saying that he hopes tt the israelis do bomb iran could be sure you know what you're doing when you introduce an element of chaos likthat in a region which i can assure you does not need more conspiracy theories. another talked about with great pride the release of information that mi looking at trying to assassinate, khaddafi. are you sure it is good to let colonel gaddafi know you want to do that? you will get a chance to answer

my questions in a minute. the woman said she was pro of the gaddafi. are we sure that is a good idea to lexcano gaddafi know 10 years ago that mi 6 was doing that? is mr. assange sure? >> there will be time. >> is he sure that he knows better than foreign intelligence agencies? maybe he does. maybe he is, indeed, the god like figure that the to person would have to be. what about this new era of journalism? it see to it is very much like the old one.

people get to pursue their interests. if they hate america, they can release a whole lot of stuff that they can do to make america look bad in the world korea if, like aljazeera, if you are hostile to the state of israel, u can release the information -- no,o, you will get time. this is not exactly an open democratic government. and release as many papers as you can in a big white -- in a big light. are you sure, ladies and gentlemen, th they are really and brave a they present themselves and who -- as they

present themselves? he said, "we took a lot of heat for doing it." i am surprised you are here. it is a lovely light. you can make a lot of money. you can get a lot of money when you present yourself as a great adversary of something you do not understand entirely. but surely, you have to take one. >> no, no, they will get time. i cannot help noticing. why has the russian government secrets not come out? is it because they actually kill a journalist?

>> please come in a shouting from the floor. -- please, no shining from the floor. j8ul -- no shouting from the floor. julian assange. >> i would ask you to do your research before making comments like that. there was a "the guardian" journalists, and they said they were informants. >> point of order. we are in the process of suing "the guardian" and --

you are welcome to sue was iffy -- to join us if you would like. >> there are some of point of view that are exactly counter to what you are saying. >> lives have no social utility. the view abuse is a terrible thing. th is why i was involved. to protect us all from the abuse of libel laws, actualize. there must be a recourse, and that records is in the courts and in the court of public opinion.

>> thank you very much. >> another point of information, i would lead that was to be able to finish his speech. >> as i said, i very muclook forward to them releasing the information about the russian secret service killing journalists. the fact that the cia does not huntown and kill its critics, they do. i would like to see that more reflected in your work. daniel said that by and large notice that the complaints of human rights abuses happenings that disproportion -- inverse proportion to the human-rights abuses happening in the country. the more likely you hear about them, theess likely they are

going on, because in a closed society, you do not hear about it. finally, democracies, as i said in the beginning, are in perfect things, but they are the best thing going. they have to answer questions. sometimes, those questions are unpleasant. they have to be answered. and when they are not answered, you and i and the public gets to throw out the politicians we no longerrust, and we do. so those people who are very critical, like julian assange, should, perhaps, and to some questions themselves, and since we have the opportunity tonight, i would like you to answer a couple of questions. you are, after all, an

organization dedicated to freedom of information. are you willing to reveal all of your sources of funding? how can you demand transparency fr government when you as the organization have no transparency yourself? who works for you? who are you involved with? who are your employees? where are you even based? none of these things get answered. .et's ask me more questions what is your relationship with the holocaust deniers who says he was an employee of yours? what about what the public should know and what they should not prove governments are elected. you are not. finally, who ards the guardians? or in this case, who guards the guardians guardian? it seems to me tht -- that

wikileaks is not the best place for this to be. you said there was a conspacy against you, which included an editor, and then you said that they were jewish. and then when he was not, you said his thoughts were jewish. i am coming back to the point, i assure you. all of the rest of your attributes aside, somebody who has gone so far with the conspiracy theory, whether you are really better place than any government to decide what these ladies and gentlemen and i and all of us do know? thank you. 2 -- [applause]

bonds >> the assistant director for the henry the jackson 5 to. we are running out of time, but, julian. after those accusations, would you like to come back and say something briefly for the debate? >> obviously, he has nothing to say about the motion he denied. since he has resorted like some many of that type tpersonal attacks on me and our organization, which are, of course, unfounded, and which i

hesitate to respond to directly, because i can see them to be a corruption of what we're all he for, but i cannot read some of them go without comment. the most interesting of your views is about who decides whether a media group or organization should be supported or not. i think that is an interesting question. and the answer in our case, we are a publishing organization, and we publish the work of whistle-blowers. republish it to the world. all of the fruits of our labour

go to the public because that is the tab of labor that we are engaged in. unlike organizations that are supported with money out of the tax base or by advertise, we are directly supported on a week by week basis by you. you vote with your wallets every week. whether you believe that us facilitating whistleblowing activity is supported or not. or you believe that we need to be protected in our work.

that dynamic feedback between us, the whistle-blowers, and the public, i say, is more responsive than the government's structure that is elected after it is soliciting money from big business once every four years. >> i will allow one further piece information, and then we will close the debate. >> i have not got money from anyone other than the general public. you have just confirmed to us that you think you're better than our government. thank you. the lady there has done the jo >> thank you, douglas emerging. i asked earlier at the beginning of the debate were positions.

this house believes that whistle-blowers make the world a safe place. i know julian has to go for obvious reasons, but who believe that whistle-blowers may the world a safer place? what is your view now? is there anyone abstaining? this house believes that whistle-blowers make the world a safer place. [applause] i would just like to say thank you to mr. gallagher for the frontline club.

thank you to our wonderful guest editor. and thank you for bng such a good audienc thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable tellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning g g >> my grandfather ran his own business for years. he owns a dealership up in a small town. he gives so much to the community. he is such a strong and generous man. to see him be in this position where he had to fear for the security of his family was a real big eye opener.

it was not until bankruptcy threatened my family's financial security that i realized what a big role the government can play in my life. >> this is our auto company. we have been here 15 years. the new vehicles we sell here argue, gmc, chevrolet, chrysler, and dodge. all of those were affected by the bailout. those companies are who we franchise for. it was a perfect storm. you have companies like chrysler and gm that we represent as dealers. their cost structure has been totally outdated. it was not conducive to this type of environment. certainly not the economic recession. >> the auto industry problems are not the fault of our workers. the labor tirelessly. it is not the fault of the families and communities that support to the manufacturing

plants throughout the generations. rather, it is a failure of leadership from washington to destroy it. -- to detroit. >> gm union wages were about 25% higher than the imports. that was another thing we would hear a lot about. we were still concentrating on suv's and trucks and gas got to be a real problem. >> people were scared to go out and buy products from the big three. >> what will it affected dealers at the retail level is traffic slows. you can understand people are concerned. i do not know if i want to spend $25,000 if this company is not going to make it. direct and indirect jobs have been in unemployment, had these two jobs -- two companies been

bankrupt. this affects main street. this is not just a wall street deal. we have about an 85,000 population. there were about 3200 chrysler, dodge, and keep dealers that would have gone out. we would have been here about 15 years in this town. this lot was empty. we have potentially 50 employees with a $2 million payroll. it was affecting the whole town adversely. >> i was afraid not just what would happen to my family. i did not realize it would affect families on an even bigger scale. >> a lot of the rural markets and even the larger markets get a lot of money locally. we are very much involved in the

state college. we doubled the size of the facilities out there. we are also involved with the chamber of commerce and our industrial foundation. we try to help make sallisaw a better place to live, and to bring jobs. >> i tried to talk to my grandparents and family about how they see the effect on people on the retail level. i went to a university professor and realized how complex and controversial the issue was. >> in fall of 2008, chrysler, ford, and general motors, under the bush administration, said they needed temporary assistance from the government in order to avoid bankruptcy. congress had a significant decision they had to make. do you build up these companies?

-- bail out these companies? do you potentially save the economy by doing something because of the potential for other losses of jobs? congress has to authorize any money that is spent. it was the united states congress that both passed measures that approved the funding. generally but not entirely, there was democrat support for it in the house and the senate. generally, there was republican opposition. the critical breakthrough i guess you could say was when the house passed a measure for timber refunding in december of 2008. the bush administration gave a temporary loan to the industry if they needed it, about $17 billion. the obama administration in legislation later on, i believe

in july 2009, raise the total amount to $80 billion. >> the federal government provided emergency loans to prevent the collapse at the end of last year, on the condition that would develop plans to restructure. in keeping with that agreement, each company has submitted a plan to restructure. >> because course convened to decide the best way to reorganize these companies to see if they could be viable in the future. >> the issue here was you actually had president obama removing ceo -- removing the ceo of general motors. >> we and the nation are very uncomfortable with the government intervening in our lives. >> the role of government and its actions relating to the

economy has always been controversial. just how much government involvement should there be in the economy? >> the government is by the people for the people. the government is the people. they take cortexes -- our taxes and try to use it in a way that will help the people. >> even though i personally believe in a limited government, and this was a decision that probably had to be made in favor of the auto industry. >> if all of us our -- are doing our part, this restructuring, as painful as it will be in the short time, will mark a new beginning for an american industry. >> the bankruptcy shifted my whole view. i went from not even caring about what the government did -- they are in washington.

it does not matter. two, "oh my gosh. i need to pay attention." this could either save my family or we could be financially ruined. luckily, the government came in and intervened and helped save a lot of jobs and a lot of families like me. >> go to studentcam.org to watch the remaining videos. and continue the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> in a few moments, a forum on arab unrest in north africa. in a little less than two hours, a look at rising tension between iran and other persian gulf countries, including saudi arabia. then the united nations briefing on humanitarian aid for libya. later, president obama's facebook town hall wednesday in palo alto, california. on "washington journal" tomorrow, we will be joined by the president and ceo of the

financial services forum to talk about the debt ceiling, trade, and jobs. a democratic representative will take your calls about the budget deficit reduction and political unrest in the arab world. and our series on the recommendations of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform continues with commission member alice rivlin. we are live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> throughout the month of april, we will feature the top winners of this year's c-span studentcam competition. nearly 1500 students submitted on the theme "washington, d.c. through my lands -- my lens." during the program, meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos any time on line.

>> according to a former state department analyst, egypt needs more economic support from the west to avoid an escalation of political unrest. this panel, part of the conference on the regional impact of arab unrest, also heard from a journalist to said