[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> 45 minute speech by president obama at the state department covering a broad range of u.s. policy in the middle east, human rights reform, economic development, and of course the israeli-palestinian negotiations and negotiations with other countries in the middle east. we want to focus our phone conversations on the economic

development, specifically asking whether it u.s. economic aid will help foster democracy in the middle east. here are the numbers for your calls. there at the bottom of your screen. again, the specific question here is, will u.s. economic aid -- the president laid out a number of different initiatives -- will u.s. economic aid help millie's democracy? we will get your calls and -- help middle east democracy. we will get to your calls in just a moment. the president talked about better economic management for those countries in the middle east. he talked about economic stability, modernization and reform, particularly on trade. he said, "trade, not just a," and he also talked about the initiatives he will -- "trade, id," and he talked

about the initiatives he will bring to the g-eight next week. let's take the first call. caller: we are not helping them. we give them money. for instance, afghanistan. they take our money, and they also take money from iran, and then the status in the back. they play both sides. we give money to pakistan, and they had osama bin ladin living there for the last five-six years. they stabbed us in the back. now we are in libya. now he wants to go into egypt, or at least give them support. he wants to let them get off on a billion dollars of debt. we need that money right here in this country. every time i hear him speak, i hear him talk about how the

american people should cut back on their consumption. but he will spend 9,000 gallons to go from washington to iowa to give a high school speech. he could do it on satellite, specifically from the white house. host: let's hear a view from washington. this is on the independent line. caller: he has a lot of great ideas. i do not know that we need to necessarily base our financial help on our current system. i think he -- i hope he will come back with some solid solutions for our own times at some point in time, and some of the gridlock in washington as well. host: florida, the democrats' line. caller: economic aid will help the democracy in the middle east, but the real challenge will be with israel.

israel has a habit of provoking situations than playing the victim and demanding american support. bush gave them a free ride with that phonied road map. address with what you just heard from the president, that any agreement should be based on the 1967 agreement? caller: i think there will only be peace when there is a two- state solution. host: the president echoed that. he said israel must act boldly and that as far as the palestinians are concerned, efforts to delegitimize israel will fail. texas is up next, independent line. caller: i like to address the fact that we're talking about libya and syria. what about iraq? we have aided iraq, and they are

still not a democratic situation over there. people are starving. they are unable to farm. widows have no home. how is our economic aid going to help in libya and syria, when we have been in iraq for years and not seen any change? yet, we are as americans in the financial deficit. we are having difficulties of our own. host: let's here from michigan, democratic caller. caller: i think what the president is doing is actually 4-thinking. as you can tell, we have marty -- forward-thinking. as you can tell, we of rtc in him do in two years what the bush a minute -- we have already seen him do in two years what the bush administration could not do in two terms. i think president obama has been the answer that every equation has been seeking. i think we ought to listen to someone who has information that a lot of average americans do not have in regards to making

decisions about helping other regions in the world in order to solidify our position as a world leader. host: we certainly should hear more from the president this weekend. ahead of his trip to europe, he will be speaking at the annual a conference in washington. we can tell you that prime minister benjamin netanyahu, who comes to washington tomorrow, will meet with the president tomat the white house. on tuesday, he will address a joint meeting of congress. i believe that will be at 11:00 on tuesday. next up is a republican caller. caller: i am a democrat. i might have called the wrong line. i agree with the last caller. the president pose a point of view is very forward-thinking. point of view is

very forward-thinking. no one region can solve all of the problems of the world. it takes economic security. it takes more than use of force. the president said the united states would use all of its economic and strategic resources to bring about democratic change. host: so, it is good for the country to stay in the middle east. in the end, is it good for the u.s. to have an economic development package that the president is calling for? caller: absolutely. again, with the international is asian process in motion, countries are getting -- internationalization process in motion, countries are getting more and more intertwined. this helps to better guarantee united states security. host: a couple more minutes of

phone calls. a couple of things as far as figures as far as foreign aid. israel gets $2.5 billion in u.s. aid. the palestinian territory gets $0.5 billion. egypt currently gets $1.5 billion. we heard the president talk about forgiving about $1 billion worth of debt from egypt. let's go to missouri, the independent line. caller: in response to your direct question, i do not think we should forgive their loans. if we do for give them, we should postpone them, not forget about them, maybe give them five years to regroup. i do not think we should continue giving aid to any country that oppresses the freedoms of speech or police its own people for its political its ownive -- policbullies

people for its political perspective. i feel that way about our own states. players may have changed in the region, but the game has not. even though you depots one dictator, a new one will come in its place. one dictator, a new one will come in its place. host: let's go to the republican line in new york city. caller: i think what should be behind the president instead of these flags are some unicorns. i am in shock that he is actually believing what he is saying. a speech is one thing, but actually doing something is completely different. i do not think we should forgo the $1 billion in debt the bls. -- debt that they owe us.

imagine china doing that. china would never do that, which is why they're going to overrun us financially, which they already have been doing. giving money to countries that are supposedly in the spring awakening -- this money is not going to the people of those countries. it is going to the people that run the countries. nothing is going to change. we are dealing with people that are blowing up churches. you cannot have a civil conversation or get inside someone's mind to change something that is the only thing that they know. i feel we should back off financially, see what happens when we do not give any country any money, and see if there is actually going to be a difference because i really do not believe there will be. host: you mentioned blowing up churches. the president mentioned the situation in egypt. he also talked about bahrain. he also talked about syria and

the leader there, bashar al- assad. he said the syrian leader should lead the transition or get out of the way. a few more calls. virginia is next, independent line. caller: back to your question, i believe that aid to the middle east countries is going to be helpful only if it is accounted for. when they give financial aid, the united states should recommend that if these -- which area to be used, and as these countries to show a record of how the money was used exact play -- ask these countries to show a record of how the money was used exactly. if it goes to people who buy palaces and mansions while people in their country are

starting -- starving, the aid is going to be helpful only if it is accounted for. host: this is the democrats' line in new york. go ahead. caller: i think president obama is being very proactive year, but as the past caller said, -- pro-active here, but as the past caller said, i think the money needs to go to the people who really need it and not come as usual, to the five people who represent the top. also, i would suggest to the people who are calling about this region -- i come from that region. host: what country are you from originally? caller: morocco. when people start -- you know, they talk as experts of that region, blowing of churches or things like that.

we should not be generalizing actions of one bad person and making the whole region look bad. the people of that region, obviously, it has always been giving them a bad rap. host: one more call from louisiana, the republican line. go ahead with your comments if you're there. i think we have lost louisiana. thank you for all of your calls and comments. we're taking the conversation on line to our facebook page. you can weigh in there. in about 15 minutes here on c- span, we will take you back to capitol hill and a hearing with president obama as a former director of national intelligence -- president obama former director of national

intelligence. later today, john mccain will be over at the institute of peace and you can hear his comments live on c-span. then, we will replay the president's comments tonight in prime time. taking yoon now in a different direction to consumer product safety. bj taking you -- taking in now in a different direction to consumer product safety. "washington journal," the chairman of the consumer product safety commission, inez tenenbaum. let's start with something that tends to pop up with the cpsc -- baby cribs. what is it about them that generates a recall action? guest: we have not had a new crib standard in 30 years.

in 2010, we cannot with the first new cr -- we came out with standard.t new crib it has to undergo a test that will challenge whether or not is strong enough to be moved in a nursery without coming apart. what has happened in years past, we have learned of a number of deaths where the dropside became detached forom the crib. we recalled millions of them, the various manufacturers, to get them either of the market or either have a retrofit kit to it would keep the dropside form moving and keep the cribs safer. we now have a new standard in all the cribs sold after june

2011. the new cribs will be on the market in june. host: when there is a recall issued, is it always voluntary? guest: almost all of the hours are voluntary because we work with industry to issue these recalls. if manufacturers or retailers know of the defect, they have 24 hours to notify us. most of the time, we will have industry work with us so that we can get the product off of the market quickly. therefore, most of them are voluntary recalls where we work together. host: water some products right now recently -- what are some products right now recently that have been under scrutiny? guest: you can go to our new web sites, saferproducts.gov, and you can see all of our recalls.

we recall products daily. if you go on saferproducts.gov or our app, which is cpsc.gov, you can see the number of products that we recall. we are always looking at children's products -- lead, cadmium, those toxic metals -- we make sure they are removed from the market if they are hazardous to children. host: we are going to put up the numbers on the screen if you would like to talk to inez tenenbaum, chairman of the consumer product safety commission. please allow 30 days between your calls. you can send a tweet to -- or an e-mail to --

how is it that lead has popped back up as an issue? i thought lead paint and products had all gone away at some point. guest: what made lead such a prominent issue was the number of recalls in the children's products and in toys in the 2007. these were high level, high profile recalls that received a tremendous amount of attention from the media. congress voted on a new law. that was in 2008 in the past almost unanimously in the house and in the senate. everyone was behind this law because it set limits on the amount of lead in children's products.

300 parts per million for lead content. this august, it will go down to 100 parts per million of lead .ontent in children's products manufacturers must submit their products to a third party laboratory and have them tested before they can be sold in the united states, and that was a major step forward to making sure that lead did not exceed those limits set by congress. it also required the consumer product safety commission to come up with new mandatory regulations on infant durable nursery equipment like cribs, bath seats, baby walkers. it was a very positive thing in terms of the safety of children. host: jim tweets in to you --

guest: well, for children's products, they must be tested before they make it to market by an independent third-party laboratory, or you can have your own firewall laboratory if you are a major manufacturer, and several do. they have to be accredited. host: a couple of tweets along this same line have come in -- this is from linda. guest: well, that is a good question. manufacturers in china must have the products tested as well. host: by american laboratories or testers? guest: they have to be tested by laboratories approved by the cpsc. there are over 300 of these

laboratories in the world. children's products must be tested before they are imported into the united states. manufacturers and importers have this requirement before we will allow them to be sold in the united states. host: inez tenenbaum is our guest, chairman of the consumer product safety commission. guest: our budget is now $114 million. host: the first call for her comes from the white lake, michigan. caller: i wanted to call in about the non-drought side baby crib. i am a five-foot tall woman. there is no way i can hold a sleeping baby who is a year and a half old and put them into a crib without a dropside. we are too short. the option i have is to climb on a chair and then put a baby in

there. i understand. i read the report that came out. the real issue here is they were platic, not metal. they did in to save money, but the plastic wears. we cannot put babies at that level. how'd you get your baby in there? he will not be able to do it. guest: thank you. i can emphasize -- i can empathize with you because i am just over 5 feet myself. it is a challenge for people who are not taller. here is the answer to your question. a first of all, we have not outlawed all dropside cribs. by traditional, we amend the ones with the plastic hardware. you are absolutely right.

it was the plastic card where that was not durable enough to withstand the motion from the dropside. they must be made of higher quality. we are seeing more designs when it comes to cribs so it is not the dropside. it folds down the gate. so you can fold it down and put the baby in. you know what? most people my age had dropside wass, thebut the hardware metal. they have to meet these new standards and also go through a rigorous testing to make sure they are going to not come apart when the dropside is moved up and down. thank you for that excellent question. host: patty is a republican.

good morning. caller: i have two questions. what about those mercury light bulbs? they are highly, highly toxic. if you break one, you have to practically call in hazmat. are our children vulnerable? secondly, peter, i wish you could quit clicking your pen. it is a recent phenomenon. i wish you would not. host: i got your point. caller: during the last guest, you did it over 60 times. host: patty, i apologize to you. you are absolutely correct. let's hear from inez tenenbaum on the mercury light bulbs. guest: of light bulbs that pose

a hazard that contain mercury, we would like for you to report it to us. . is saferproducts.gov. -- our website is saferproducts.gov. you can give us information about it. also, i will go back to the consumer product safety commission and ask our scientists about the prevalence of mercury light bulbs in the marketplace to make sure we are doing everything we can to make sure children are not exposed to mercury. host: have they been addressed or is this something that is on your radar? guest: we certainly address mercury light bulbs than any other light bulbs. our mission is to protect consumers from a product. we are constantly looking at the marketplace, and any reports of harm, or if we look at the

product and realized it could cause harm, we can work with the manufacturer and recall the product. lightbulbs, batteries, we do look at products like that. host: are you a passive agency? do you wait for people to come to you with complaints? do you go out and research? guest: we go out to research. we have coordinators' the go into retail market. we are also moving more into prevention. i do not think it is enough for the cpsc to wait until we recall the product. i want to be proactive. that is why we just opened a new office in beijing. it is our first out of the country office. our mission is to work with manufacturers in china to make sure they know what our standards and our rules are so

they do not manufacturer products and then we have to recall them or destroy them after they get into the market. a way of preventing harm to consumers -- we work with industries and the standards to come up with voluntary standards. our law requires us to work with the industry voluntary standards a first. but we should not wait until somebody is hurt and then first learned about it. we have to be proactive and move more into prevention that we have in the past. host: inez tenenbaum got her law degree at the university of south carolina where she also served as the state superintendent for education until 2007. this tweet coming in --

a guest: well, recalls are when we learn about a product. we can be prevention-oriented to work more aggressively with the standards making organization so that we can build 60 into the product so that manufacturers in china and elsewhere understand our regulations, and that is where we are really focused. we also have increased our surveillance at the core. let me talk to you about the history of funding at the cpsc. when we clear -- when we were created in 1973, by 1980, we had almost 1000 employees and their budget was $150 million. by 2007, we had 373 employees

and their budget was $63 million. we went through years of budget cuts. you cannot be affected when you get cut year after year after year. over 75% of our budget goes to employees. our people make the difference because they are working with the standard-making organizations, surveying, holding seminars for manufacturers, both in the united states and outside of the united states, to make sure safety is built into the product. host: the next call for inez barbara.m is from are brough caller: i saw a show last night that had erick kanter on and he was making sure that the people he was talking to knew that he was in the battle against all of these past the regulators,

>> we are going to take you live now to dennis blair, the former director of national intelligence. he did resign in 2010 after the attempted christmas day bomb plots. he is in a hearing today, recommending some structural changes, including separating the cia into two agencies. the chairman is joe lieberman. this is live. >> we were here last week reporting -- exploring a variety of issues related to intelligence reform. this is focused on a variety of questions. does the director of national intelligence have the authority needed to lead our sprawling intelligence community as we wanted to be led?

with very honored to have us as our sole witness today the immediate past director of national intelligence admiral dennis blair. admiral blair is an extraordinarily talented and dedicated public servant who has had an exemplary career as a senior military commander, and of course, as a continuing consumer of intelligence, before he overtook its production in one of washington's, i would say, most challenging jobs, the director of national intelligence. therefore, he is uniquely qualified to help us answer the questions we have about how the the and i has performed. -- how the dni has performed. peres is for being here today. this committee create -- thank you for being here today.

this committee created the terrorism prevention act of 2004 at the recommendation of the 9/11 commission, which concluded that basically no one was in charge of the intelligence community. and that lack of leadership resulted in the dysfunction and disunity that left as vulnerable to the attacks that occurred on 9/11. the nature of the threat has changed, certainly from the post-world war ii. -- post-world war ii period. there has been the development of a very serious cyber threat to our security. in the midst of all of that, our intention was that dni would

bring the necessary unity of command to our 16 intelligence agencies. so, we come together today to ask on a day-to-day basis, does the dni have the authority is needed to lead the intelligence community effectively, to force a unity of effort across the community, and achieve a level of integration necessary to meet the range of security challenges that our nation faces and the range of needs for intelligence that various people in our government have. these are the overarching question is that i hope we will have the opportunity to pose to admiral blair today. with that i am going to put the rest of my opening statement in the record and call on senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the operation that tracked and killed osama bin ladin

demonstrates the kind of successful collaboration between our intelligence and operational capacity that we envisioned when we reform our intelligence community in the wake of the attacks on our country on 9/11/01. this was undoubtedly a great victory for our intelligence efforts and a great blow to al qaeda, but the fact remains that al qaeda and other terrorist threats are not going away. that is why it is time for congress to examine and build upon the successes since the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act was passed. that bill created the director of national intelligence. it is an opportune time to identify any shortcomings in that structure, and to work to

correct them. i look forward to hearing from admiral blair about what worked during his tenure as dni, what did not work, and what might be changed about the structure we design seven years ago. i would note with great pride that admiral blair is a fellow mainer, hailing from the home of the portsmouth naval shipyard. either coming from a great navy town or following five generations of naval officers perhaps preordained his career. we all hope he has what we call a great navy day here, as we hear from him about his experiences as the dni, as well as his recommendations now with the benefit of actual

experience and 20/20 hindsight. almost 10 years since september 11th, and nine -- seven years since our landmark legislation, we're safer as a nation but not yet safe. our intelligence community is safer -- is stronger and more effective than ever before. but challenges remain. during his tenure, admiral blair was at the center of some public disputes with the cia. to help address lingering deficiencies in the intelligence community, the director of national intelligence must be the quarterback at the 9/11 commission envisioned and that we intended. hearing, general hagan preferred the term coach. i will be interested to hear whether or not admiral blair believes the director national intelligence has been in power to fill this critical role regardless of what you call it.

the leaders of the 9/11 commission, governor kanin congressman hamilton agreed that presidential adviser john brennan is in many respects performing the role that we envision for the director of national intelligence when we authored the law. that troubles me, not to any doubts about mr. brennan's capabilities, but because that choice, that structure, undermines the statutory role of the director of national intelligence. we must ask, therefore, the fundamental question. are changes in the law required in order to realize the potential of the director of national intelligence, or is this simply a matter of more fidelity to the 2004 lot? admiral, thank you for being here today, and i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> thank you very much, senator

collins. admiral blair, it is all yours. thank you for being here. push the button so the microphone is on. >> thank you for inviting me here today. it is common to improve the effectiveness of government after some disaster or crisis. in fact, the terrorist reform and prevention act of 2004 was born of 9/11, as you mentioned. i think reform in the wake of success also has a history. those who led the great victory of world war ii knew that there were improvements to be made in the national security organizations, and when the parades' were over, the passed boal legislation to make the country safer. as we celebrate the brave, dogged and brilliant work of those to be found and attacked osama bin ladin, i think it is a similar time to make our intelligence even more effective than it is. as i look to our future national security challenges and opportunities, i am absolutely

convinced that we need an intelligence community that operates under authorities that are relevant to the future, not the past. an intelligence community that is organized on a rational basis, and an intelligence community that is integrated under a strong and competent director of national intelligence. i left the administration a year ago frustrated with the lack of support for a strong director of national intelligence, but i was reluctant to appear publicly before this committee where my comments could potentially be interpreted as sour grapes. i believe that an integrated, effective intelligence community should transcend politics and personalities. the country needs and deserves legislation that will establish the best intelligence capabilities possible, independent of officials and ministrations as they come and go. let me use the rest of my introductory time to highlight improvements unbelievers still needed. the objective is to make the stretch -- improvements that i believe are still needed.

the objective is to make the structure effective. the service intelligence organizations and the seven intelligence elements of our government -- these heroes, these people in those organizations are every bit as patriotic, dedicated and skilled as the members of the armed forces and first responders whose heroism inspires us and makes them -- makes us proud. we owe them integrated leadership. first, organization. right now, the department of defense and intelligence community conduct operations together under separate authorities, title from 10 and title 50. -- title 10 entitle 40. a new title is needed authorizing joint agency task forces that can bring together all the capabilities of both organizations under unified

directions. we need a title 60. right now, the structure of the central intelligence agency is a college of intelligence gathering and intelligence analysis, of which the greatest proportion is provided by the nsa, a different agencies. the skills, procedures, competencies' and cultures of these two organizations are quite different, have little synergy, and have major disadvantages. i recommend that the cia be broken into an analytical agency and a national clandestine service, each led by a career professional, each reporting separately to the director of national intelligence. i recommend that analysis be added to those two agencies.

constitutional presidents have little application to the information age, and the efforts i have made to adapt them have been completely unsuccessful. the national security agency has the world's best ability to provide protection for the country's internet domains, yet it is not securing the important .gov domains which you use here in congress, and the vital infrastructure .com domains. nsa capability should be brought to bear to protect these vital systems. right now, there is no legislation clearly authorizes offensive cyber operations by the united states against enemies that use the internet to threaten american lives and properties. remus websites that incite violence and provide practical -- extremist websites that

incite violence and provide practical it buys to build bombs, -- practical advice to build bombs, because there is a possibility of collateral damage or because the website are carried on american servers, or because at the attack is not yet occurred, the united states has no law to prevent attacks born of these things. we need a law related to avoiding collateral damage with oversight mechanisms that must provide a basis for action commensurate with the threat. third, the authority of the director of national intelligence within the intelligence community. the intelligence community needs a leader, and integrator, not a coordinator.

the intelligence community does not self-synchronize. few organizations do. we learned that on 9/11. the white house neither has the stamp or the time to lead it, and it often approves -- neither the staff nor the time to lead it, and it often approves misguided schemes as we have learned unfortunately after the fact. the result is a confusion of responsibilities, bureaucratic fiction, but more important, potential gaps in intelligence that our adversaries can exploit. there are several legislative changes i believe can strengthen the authority and accountability of the director of national intelligence. first, personnel. in addition to naming or concurring with the appointments of the heads of intelligence, the director of national intelligence should approve the second and third level officials. this will ensure the community-

minded officers occupy important posts were much of the real work of intelligence is done. second, the budget. the budget authority and practice are strong in future years but relatively weak in the current fiscal year. he or she should have the authority to initiate re- appropriating funding for unexpected objectives or for higher priority objectives, or two programs that are not making the progress they should. in conclusion, mr. chairman, ranking member collins, the success against osama bin ladin should not cause us to rest on our laurels. we are a long way from smooth integration, with integration being driven by strong director of national intelligence and a competent staff. i believe congressional action is imperative to this goal. the find it reassuring that you

see fit to keep the challenge alive and take seriously the progress we need to make. i am happy to answer your questions. >> thank you very much. i appreciate what you said at the beginning. no one listening your statement or reading it could think you were here out of some sort of personal pique. the fact is, we ask you. the second is, your statement is totally substantive and truly why we ask you. you are part of a very small group of people who have ni.ually been the d and nin you have that perspective. we are going to do seven-minute rounds of questions. let me ask you this question to begin with. in the testimony last week, i was fascinated that a different points, our witnesses suggested

that it may be as critical -- excepting the goal of the strength and legitimacy of the dni -- that it may be critical to achieving that goal for there to be adequate support from the president, and to a somewhat lesser extent, congress in a different way, as it is to add on to the statue authorities of the dni. i wonder what you think about that. it may not be an either or question. give me an idea of how important the non-statutory recognition and authority giving to the office is. >> senator lieberman, i would agree with that observation that active support from the white house and the congress makes it

a lot easier for a director to fill in the gaps of authority and legislation, and that would be a good thing. however, i do not think that is the reason for the congress not to continue to strengthen the intelligence community integration in a way that i think it was designed to do, because it seems to me that administrations come and go, but it is important to establish that structure in accordance with what we have learned over time. i think what we have learned over time -- and this is not the only time the congress has attempted to integrate related but it not really cooperating well agencies, the national security legislation of 1947 which brought the services together based on the results

of au revoir ii, the goldwater- nichols act -- results of world war ii, the goldwater-nichols act of 1967. bringing children who thought they were happy into an orphanage does not always go easily. it takes persistence, dedication, and i believe this is the right thing. right now, we've seen in the last five years that the director of national intelligence is expected to be able to integrate the community and to be responsible for that. that authority is sort of spread around among people, and the white house picks and chooses what it will use. i think right now, we see the model going toward the second model, which is the group that is in the executive branch now believes, i think the first

model is more correct, and i think that is what the congress intended, and we need to continue to push that. five years in, six years now, we're making good progress and we need to continue to bring that out. >> good bank. let me talk about -- good. let me talk about some of the authority the dni has. the 2004 legislation gave budget authority to the dni, which includes having a final say over the intelligence community budget that is presented to the president, also budget avocation and authorities related to how the intelligence community spends the budget during the fiscal year. in your prepared testimony you

to havethe d and ninni increased authority so that agencies could not seek to circumvent the 9dni on budget -- the dni on budget issues. how strong have the authorities over the budget been in practice during your time, and do you think the director of national intelligence has fully utilize those authorities over both budget development for future fiscal years and resource transfers during the fiscal years? >> i think there are two important background points. number one, the last 10 years have been a time of rising budgets for the intelligence community just as they have been for the department of defense. the tough budget trade-offs have generally been taken care of by

putting more money on them rather than by prioritization. i think there's times are coming to an end and we will see budgets that are flat, perhaps even decreasing, and that will make the central ability to make tradeoffs even more important. the second item was that just youtube -- just due to the number of tasks faced early on, there was not a strong support for budget trade-offs. my experience was in the department of defense, the program of analysis and evaluation established the comptroller, the secretary of defense had not been established. for those are not coming into maturity while i was in office, and i spent a great deal of time trying to strengthen them. i finally, toward the end of my time, had the tools to use the budget authority. let me give you two examples of

the kind of thing i'm talking about, because they came up during my final months in the job. i came back from a trip to afghanistan horrified by the lack of language ability that we had among our deployed officers in that country. i will not give you the numbers, but the numbers were smaller than what i thought was safe. as you know, language ability was in our charter from the beginning. the agency was chugging along, doing some of it. it was time to say now. we're going to move the money. we're going to make it happen. that is the sort of thing i'm talking about in which well- meaning agencies making their own priorities had allowed a national priority to drift down. you need to be able to punch it. >> were you able to do that at that point? with the evidence you had? >> at that point, we had become

to mother conversation and i was going to give them one more chance to do it before i did it, and then i left. >> did you felt you had the authority to carry that out if you needed it? >> i was going to find out. that would of been the first one. >> you were right, of course. >> the more usual thing i saw was what happened after the detroit bombing in december, 2009. we had obvious problems in the search engines that were available to counterintelligence analysts' the required banks, computers, different skills on different systems. as you saw from the final reports, we missed some of this. some of it was due to an analyst not being able to adjust it run click and make aquarian have the answer come back -- to just hit

one click and make a query and have the answer come back. we received more money to fix the problem, and my answer was just to spread it out. there were fairly decent battles on how to spread it out and each agency said, i should get the lion's share. i do the work and so on. but those are the sorts of problems i was talking about in terms of real controller ship in which i was used to the secretary of defense being able to do routinely in the year of execution. that is really what i'm talking about in this sense. >> understood. well said. my time is up. senator collins. >> thank you. admirable -- admiral, you're just talking about some problems exposed by the detroit intelligence failure. i am curious, were you consulted by the attorney general on the

decision to charge him as if he were a criminal suspect? >> i was not consulted on that particular decision, nor do i think i would have had much to add. i think the key role for the director of national intelligence is during the questioning phase of a suspect once apprehended or arrested. how much do we lean on intelligence gathering, and how much to be lean on gathering material for prosecution which involves a different set of protocols. the most famous one is the reading of miranda rights, a provision of a lawyer and so on. on him, i was not consulted on that. you will note from the hearing we had here, decisions were made

by agents at the scene, and we did not have a high value intelligence group that stood up well enough to take that. i believe strongly that is the point in which the director of national intelligence should be able to make an input. the director is to be able to do is dig the objective is to be able to do both. if you have to make a trade-off, that is when you need to say, ok, we're drilling ahead for intelligence information, so we will back off on perhaps gathering evidence. that is what i think i should be involved in. >> i realize we have gone through that before, but the reason i brought it up again is i wanted to lay the predicate for my next question, which is, what is the role of the dni when a terror suspect is apprehended? it seems to me that one of the

first calls, if if it is is a prize apprehension, should be to the dni, so that a search can be done immediately of all databases so that intelligence analysts could be flown out to wherever they need to go. but i want to hear from you on more of what you see as the role. you were starting to get into that. i was not trying to relive who told what, but rather, for those who were not around when we explore that before i wanted to lay the predicate. >> you will see throughout all of my testimony and my thinking that i have become passionately to believe that we need to be able to quickly bring together the skills of anybody in government and many from outside of government who can apply their skills to it.

so let's say that we, on a surprise, apprehend a member of al qaeda on the arabian peninsula. we should be able to get the best intelligence -- yemen analysts, the best counter terrorist analysts. at the same time, the best fbi interrogators, the best people in the fbi have been working on terrorism. there should be structured process. they have a quick information to the different approaches are laid out on the table. we have a decision making process so that a call can be made in terms of the balance. under tremendous time pressure, minutes, hours of the most, the people want the seeing go ahead and proceed in accordance to that guidance. you have to practice it some furs. these people cannot meet each other the first time when it is a real one. it is really setting up those procedures that can do it. my experience is that we have such good people across the board in law-enforcement and

intelligence that with the general guidance from the top, they can do the job perfectly. there are certain key questions, and you talked about the real one, the balance between the gathering of evidence and gathering of intelligence need to be made at the top and there's a conflict it are in the case of abdulmutallab, i think we had all the evidence. he tried to blow it up. we do not need a lot of self- recrimination in that category. we probably should have leaned harder on intelligence throughout than we did, because we pretty much had official conviction, i thought. that is the kind of decision you need to make. unique -- you need quick practice procedures to do it. >> the dni are in a position, there are really three levels of power. one is access to the president. the second is an authority over

personnel, and the third is control over the budget. and i would like to talk about those issues with you, starting with the personnel issue. part of our concept was to try to have a goldwater nichols, like, a joint approach to service in the intelligence community. an i am shirt -- i am sure the military has embraced that for an awful long time. but now, at least from my outside perspective, the military really has largely embraced and jointness. where are we in the intelligence community as far as having that kind of joint approach where personnel is shared among agencies, and where your ability to advance in your career in the

intelligence community depends on joint service? >> center, -- cine turkoman i think you're provisions were exactly right. -- senator, i think the provisions were exactly right. if i try to compare it to the five years into the goldwater nichols act, i would say it is sort of comparable in terms of the affected is having. it will take more time. but two trends encourage me. number one is, as i have talked to people, the younger they are, the more they get it. half of the year rose in the intelligence community joined after 9/11 for the right reason -- half of the heros in the intelligence committee joined after 9/11 for the right reasons. they do not have the bureaucratic prerogatives that we all grew up with and the past bureaucratic wars that we thought were so important but actually did not help the

country much. so as they age and get the jobs, i think the trends are good. the second one is that in the field, and you will have taken many visits out there, you walk into an intelligence center in afghanistan, in iraq, in just about anyplace in the world, you find people, nga, nsa, cia, the armed forces in there working. if someone has a piece of information, he is expected to contribute. they're growing up in this atmosphere. all we have to do is provide a modicum of structure so that you're not rewarded for bad behavior. you can get that step and bring it back and use it, and it will take over. i think we are headed in the right direction. but like you, i am inpatient at the scale. i thought we decided this. let's get on with it. and i think the next generation,

the generation that is right on leadership and the agency will be quite mort joint- minded. if we get the structures right, there will fall into it. you can be proud of your own agency. you can say i am is cia person, but you also need to have pride in the team. you need to strive for everybody doing well and you doing well, too. i think when you have not experienced it here, you think the pride is a fixed about. you know, if somebody else gets some, it subtracts some of what you have. i think we found in on forces that both pride and effectiveness go up exponentially when you can sort of get over the hump of that jointness and working together. i think we're headed that way. and i talked about putting special attention on second and

third level people, and it just helps it along. >> thank you. i think your point about the generational change is absolutely right. i think we are seeing that with the use of technology and networking and sharing of data bases, too, because that is what the next generation does naturally. thank you. >> thank you. the other thing i would add is i would hope -- really, since 9/11, people within the intelligence community understand that they can come under great public, including congressional, criticism. in a look back, it appears that one or another part of the community, including the military, was out playing on the team. we talk about playing on the team. as a result, the team's effort. therefore, they will suffer a kind of review that perhaps there would not have at an earlier time. >> i have a couple quick questions. the general testified last --

last week that there needs to be a critical balance between freedom of action for the parts and of the unity and the effort for the whole. is that balance achievable? given the current structure, in what ways can the heads of the intelligence agencies be improved or strengthened? >> freedom of action and what was the other part of that dilemma? >> the freedom of action for the part and unity as an effort as a whole. is that balance achievable? >> i think it is very much achievable. what you find this in the best organizations that achieve that balance, people come in as an expert in their own field, but they are more than just sitting there waiting to say, well, if you want a piece of human intelligence, i will gather that for you. they come in with an attitude of being able to contribute what

they can do. based on their much better understanding of what other people's problems are and what the total mission is, how they can contribute in ways that are perhaps not traditional. i have seen that time and time again. when you for these teams, you bring people into them with the attitude that everybody needs to contribute all they can and maybe more, and that magic happens in an interaction. i have seen it in terms of our teams and the intelligence committee. they can gather intelligence by using our wondrous collection capabilities in new ways. in seen it in action teams where, i think the one -- one of the most poignant things in saw was when i was visiting a dangerous part of the world, and a young cia case officer told me a story. she was meeting in the restaurant an asset to recruit. another agency monitoring the

situation picked up a warning of danger. they had been able to get a phone call. turned around, did not go to the restroom, life saved. lesson learned. it is that kind of teamwork in the field that i think becomes a norm when you create an atmosphere, and it is expected and value. >> thank you. i want to see thank you for your service, too, and your position. i wanted to mention that first. i know the general testified last week that the creation of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence undermine congress fits into strengthen the dmi because of rumsfeld authority and control. can you describe your relationship with gates and the usti? does the role of the usti with the d hinder the future

directions of the entire ic? >> that was not my experience, senator brown. i thought that the general worked very well together with them. if he were sitting here, i am confident he would say the same thing i know senator lieberman was involved in some of the banks from the department of irtpa was written. i found that largely to have disappointed -- dissipated. i think there two important reasons for this. number one as the really important security challenges we face these days have some much of the military aspect mixed up with a non military aspect, economic, social, others, that the idea that you can sort of highball for military aspects of a problem and said that is for

the pentagon and this other stuff is for cia, the civilian bureaus, is long gone. if you look of the big problems, afghanistan, terrorism, iraq. the military aspects and not military aspects are altogether. you have got to use your intelligence capabilities, whether it be signals intelligence, which happens to be co located in department of defense sergio special elements of, which is sort of a hybrid. the officers were civilians, have grown up in this joint area we were discussing earlier, and they'll understand the advantages of team work of the synergy that comes from that. i do not have any stronger teammates in community integration than the adderall and a general alexander at nsa

and others. that leadership was strong. the usdo was part of the team also. i do not see that. i know it was the historical fault line, but it seems to have been helped. secretary gates, having had a piece of my job previously, had a good understanding. >> great, well, thank you, sir. >> thank you. incidentally, for the record, the general has said the same thing to me about how good working relationship the head with you. these are interesting comparisons, because this is a case where i think the personalities that exist in his positions under secretary rumsfeld, and perhaps the secretary himself, or product of the problem, if i can call it that. as you said correctly, secretary

gates comes to his position after having spent most of his public service in the intelligence community. you must have known general clapper before, so you had knowledge of each other and a willingness to work together. and you did, to the nation's benefit. so it is interesting. as i told you before, i think that during the legislative battles on the intelligence reform act of 2004, the toughest ones or with the defense department about the changes we were trying to bring about strengthening dni. yet, in practice, the tensions between the dni and the dod have been much less than were reflected at the legislative negotiating table. that being specific, i would say it was the opposite for other components of the ic. i apologize for having to brake

the flow. the vote is going on on an important judicial nomination. i am going to ask that we stand in recess, and i will be back as soon as we can to continue with questions. thank you.

>> the committee is in recess so that senators could head to the floor. a procedural vote, testified, on the nomination of good when lou to be a judge on the ninth circuit court of appeals is underway now. you can follow that on c-span2. we expect a homeland security committee to resume their hearing once the vote is wrapped up. we will have live carriage for you here on c-span. up next, we're going to take you to a news conference with doctors at memorial hermann hospital in houston, where they provide an update on congresswoman gabrielle giffords. the surgeon says the arizona democrat is doing well. she is a wake about communicating after wednesday's

surgery to replace a piece of her skull, removed to relieve the swelling after she was shot in the head in january. this news briefing is about 25 minutes. >> good morning. we welcome you all to memorial herman. today's program here is to bring you up-to-date on a surgical events of yesterday for congresswoman giffords. with us on the front table here, let me introduce them. in the mentor -- in the middle is dr. kim, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at ut health. he is also the director of the neuroscience institute at memorial hermann. on his right is dr. francisco,

the chief medical officer of memorial hermann. use the chairman of the government of physical medicine and rebuke -- rehabilitation. and on dr. kim's left is the chief of staff of the office of congressman gabrielle giffords. we're going to start it off with dr. kim, updating you on yesterday's even speed up at the end of the group discussion, we will open it up for questions. >> good morning. yesterday was an important part of gabby's recovery. she had two procedures yesterday. i will describe both to you. the first was the cranial plastique. then she had a shunt placed at the same time. the cranialplasty was for a

school defect, and in plant we used. gabby also had developed a condition called mild hydrocephalus. hydrocephalus it just means water in the head in latin, and it is a condition that develops in many patients who have a brain injury. we produced taylor -- a daily clear fluid in our brain called cerebral spinal fluid. that fluid is also reabsorbed on a daily basis. and when there is injury, that reabsorption can be partially clogged. just like having a partially clogged drain. when that happens, that fluid can build up, and that is something that can be treated with a shunt. because gabby do not have the bone, that fluid was not causing her any problem because it was

coming out under the scalp, and she was recovering and proceeding with her rehabilitation. we waited until now to do these procedures for several reasons. first, we wanted to make sure there was no infection or other problems from the initial injury that can complicate putting in an implant. second, we wanted to see it the hydrocephalus, or the water in the head, would resolve on its own. because many times it is temporary. when it became clear that it would not resolve, we felt this was the optimal time. and so she had the implants put in, and then the shunt is a permanent, completely internalized system, the goes into the fluid collection to go it is entirely under the skin. it goes into the album where it is reabsorbed. -- and goes into the abdomen where it is reabsorbed.

many patients in the u.s. have shunts. it is something you can have for the rest of your life, and it does not impede anything. both were done yesterday. the procedure went well. she has woken up and has hit her baseline from before the surgery. we did get a ct scan to check on how everything looked. i am happy to say the shunt is in good position, the impact is in good position, and everything looks great. at this point, we're starting a bedside rehabilitation. because she is so soon after surgery, we're not going to start the full rehabilitation probably for about two days. dr. francisco will talk about that. we are expecting that she will be here until sometime next week, at which point she will go back to the inpatient facility at memorial hermann. >> thank you. since she's doing very well

after the surgery, we have agreed to start since there be today and tomorrow, and we're going to progress this as she improves further from the surgery. once she goes back to the in patient rehab, we will do another reassessment and decide whether not we will merely continue with the program that was interrupted by the surgery, or maybe even go past that. with those procedures, patients who received the shunt can do even better. i am so looking forward to that, and hopefully we can upgrade her rehab program which goes back to here. tmc and tomorrow hermann arlington. even though she is here, i am still overseeing her patient care. when she goes back, the doctors will be assisting me in the congress woman's care. >> with that, let's open it up to questions.

are there questions from the audience? >> you mentioned that after a shunt, there can be an improvement. can you elaborate what kinds of improvement and why that would be? >> the fluid is pressing in certain parts of the brain. once the shunt release that flu, there will be more of a chance for certain parts of the brain to heal. i cannot tell you exactly what i expect to get better, but i am optimistic that when she comes back next week, we're going to see a lot of positive changes that will allow us to upgrade the rehabilitation program even more. >> can you say how long the surgery was yesterday? >> from skin-to-skin, it was about three and a half hours. >> what made you decide to do

the surgery now while her husband is away? >> her husband and i have talked about this exact issue. he always said that he wanted her care to be at the optimal time and not to be around his shuttle schedule or any of his work issues. so i just felt that this was the right time to do the procedure, and that is why we did it. >> you're talking about increasing her rehabilitation and stuff. mark kelly this morning, speaking from space, said she would be remaining at the outpatient setting. how long can this happen? weeks, months, days? >> i cannot give use at a particular time frames. i would like the opportunity to reassess her. and over the course of the next several days or few weeks, we will decide what is going to be

best for her and what structure of hospital. >> can you detail the cranial class d -- cranial plastic, what part of the skull was replaced and what you replace it with? >> as you know from our prior conferences, this much bone is removed to help relieve the swelling. we have two options. one is to put the patient's own bone back or to use an artificial implants. in her case, her bone was in several pieces because of the kind of injury she suffered. parts of the bone were contaminated where the bullet came in, so there may be germs. so i did not want to take a chance of increasing the infection risk of this procedure. because this is an implant either way, infection is a problem that we worry about. so when we're not going to use

the patient's own bone, which obviously is model perfectly in the school, nowadays the technology is there to regenerate her skull based on the ct scans. then the computer to make an impact and that fits perfectly the defect. then we can place it on the and makeher schkull sure it fits. and when we go into surgery, it has never happened in my experience for the implant is odd and does not fit perfectly. it is a synthetic material, a type of ceramic. interestingly, it is porous. it is designed that way. over the next several months, her own bone cells will migrate into this porous material. they will get calcium. if i two years somebody gets a ct scan, you can see the newborn bone had been formed.

>> how big is it about? >> [inaudible] about this big, about this tall. >> [inaudible] >> nobody is excited to go to surgery. but on tuesday, you know, i can say is was very pleased that this step had come. we had been talking about that. this morning, you know, she looks great. i started calling her gorgeous gabby today. she has not looked in the mirror yet. but as soon as she does, she will be very pleased. >> will soon be wearing a helmet to protect her skull in the hospital? [inaudible] >> you know, if you have the bone flap, did not have to wear

a helmet all the time. but if you are in a situation where you might fall or some kind of trauma can occur, you need to wear it. she does not need to wear the helmet any more. since she came out of surgery, she has not worn it. we consider the rehab again it without her having to wear it. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> can you give a sense of her progress and tell us when you think she might be able to come to work? >> i will start with that. i would say, first, if you think back to our first press conference here, we were talking about, you know, whether she was aware of her surroundings or whether she was out of a coma. it is only been about four months. really for a patient to come this far, as she has in that time span after the kind of injury she had, it is almost

miraculous. she has made tremendous progress. the rate of recovery, though it is a variable over time and we cannot predict exactly how much more progress she is going to make going forward, so it would very hard to say if and when she can return to work, but she has done very well so far. and we hope that that progress continues. >> i am sure you all saw the video of her taking the steps last month. that was three or four weeks ago. all i can tell you is that she is recovering very nicely. that was three or four weeks ago, just imagine what she can do now. she's doing very well. recognition has improved significantly. we're having more meaningful and fun conversation. she has cracked me up several times. she has made some jokes. we have very good social conversations as well.

as far as returning to work, i agree, it is quite difficult at this juncture to make any guesses as to when she will go back to work. it is something that we will reassess as to when she goes back to the inpatient facility and maybe after she is discharged. >> [inaudible] >> it depends on what kind of walking activity we are doing. >> now that the shunt is in, what would you change -- [inaudible] >> we will look to see the type of changes we will see next week. we will either increase the level of difficulty, come up with new activities to train her in. >> can we get more information about the shunt, typically, what it is made of, where it is attached? we're trying to envision it. >> ok, well, i wish i had a

picture. but if you look at a picture of our brains, inside is a cavity that is called the ventricle. it is another word for cavity really. and that is where the fluid is. that fluid is generated inside and then flows around the brain and of its reabsorbs. so a shunt is a little tube made out of elastic plastic. it goes through the brain, right into the cavity. it has holes in the end. it comes through a very small hole in the skull. then it is attached to a valve so we can regulate how much it would flow. it is a pressure-sensitive mechanism, so it only follows when the patient needs it. the fact that the hydrocephalus results in four months alone, the shunt would turn itself off. then there's more plastic tubing that runs under the skin, behind

the ear, the goes into the abdomen. we can do the whole procedure two little incisions the one in the abdomen, and for her, one right here behind the ear. then we have a hollow tube that we can pass between the two incisions that goes into subcutaneous spaces. once the tube is a cross, we can pass the catheter through. when the tape the tube out, it is entirely under the skin. it is not visible. it is something that nobody could tell somebody has. that patient often forgets they have it after a while. we can change the setting now with the magnet without having to go back to surgery, and we can turn it off if we want. and because of the valve, it will regulate itself virtually. >> were you ever in contact with her husband direct or are you going through nasa?

have you talked to him direct post-op? >> yes, i have e-mailed him several times since the surgery. obviously, we talked about the possibility of all this before he went. so we have been able to communicate with him. >> yes, i have spoken with him. i spoke with him once yesterday afternoon when the surgery was almost complete. his brother spoke with him last before he went to bed yesterday. we were able to get the good news up to space. >> has she been -- how has it been with all the excitement? >> obviously, it is a big week for us. we knew this surgery would be on wednesday. she is excited. it marks a major milestone for her. she hates the helmet. she tells us about it every day. someone wrote 5-17-11 on top of

the helmet, final date. that is it. it was an exciting week for her. she has been looking forward to this for a while. >> about contamination, are there any bullet fragments left? >> yes, there are. before we did the surgery, we did scanning to make sure that there's nothing that looked like an infection. as a precaution, i also stand her to make sure all of the arteries are ok. that is something we do think about. everything looked perfect. >> [inaudible] >> well, it was not much of a decision. the main thing we worry about with this surgery is the risk of infection. on a per 100 patient basis, is not that high. it is much higher than other surgeries. we're putting in a large implant the blood does not flow

into. if it does become infected, and we have to remove it, it clear it, and put it back in. it is weeks of hospitalization. mark mentioned that to me. i said, it is hair. it will grow back. and i want as little chance that we will have a problem as possible. we ended up shaving everything off. i think it looks quite acute if you ask me. her hair will grow back very evenly and sen. >> [inaudible] >> in general, it is about 1% or less, in general. for this, it is several times higher. 5% to 10%. >> a couple more questions and we're going to wrap it up. >> you mentioned bullet fragments. where are they? >> that is kind of technical. there are just a few fragments that are scattered.

it is common after a gunshot wound for little fragments to remain. >> is it sir referral, the brain itself? -- is its 3 parole? >> removing it would cause more injury. if there is not a problem with an infection, for example, then the brain will adjust to it and there's no long-term consequence. >> is there any time line for her being discharged and doing therapy on an outpatient basis? >> of course, we always have a general idea. as has been mentioned many times before, we have been continuous assessment at least once or twice a week to see if the discharge date we initially identified was appropriate. so it is some sort of a general guide to remind people that patients are leaving at this

time. we have to make sure everything is in place. in her case and many other patients, we do a regular reassessments, and we change the discharge date based on the person's needs. the rehabilitation needs, that is not in an inpatient setting or outpatient setting or maybe even at home. that is something that will resume when she goes back. >> you do not have one for her right now, attentive? >> i cannot share with you what my team has discussed. but most likely that will change when we see her next week. >> you mentioned that she has woken up. has she spoken after the surgery? >> initially, you know, she was in some pain and has some nausea, which is common. but we talked about how the surgery went, and she is very happy about that. >> we're going to break away from the last few minutes of this news conference as the homeland security committee is returning to hear from dennis

blair. they had to recess due to a vote on the senate floor. that vote and debate on the nomination fell by a vote of 52- 43. needed 60 to advance to the vote on that the nominee. the hearing is resuming. live coverage does, too, here on c-span. >> welcome, admiral. i am a retired navy capt. i salute you in more ways than one. in the stand that today's intelligence reform hearing is focusing on to the intelligence committees operating better. if this question has already been asked, i apologize. since the passage of the lives of fiction in 2004 -- since the legislation in 2004, after the successful operation against bin laden, and as a navy veteran of

23 years, i salute our seals and everybody that was part of that operation. i said to my colleagues today in another meeting that while i think there's a sense of justice with respect to osama bin laden, and this may bring closure to a lot of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and other attacks. the greater benefit is, i hope, going to be our ability to use the intelligence that we recovered to better protect folks in this country and other countries as well that would otherwise be at risk. but after the successful operation against the bin laden and the authority of any number of terrorists directed at our home land and other places, during the last nine years, i think things are working better. i hope you do, too. i also believe we are in a safer place as a result of this reorganization we put in place a number of years ago. specifically, i was impressed with last week's remarks by the

secretary, and security janet napolitano on how intelligence information for the raid on bin laden's, how was almost immediately being shared throughout our intelligence community. i am not sure if it would have happened as quickly or smoothly before 9/11, before the work was done. while it is clear that institutional reorganization is needed every now and then, without the president's national security leadership working together as a team, here's my question -- it centers on the relationship between the president, between the deputy and national security adviser. and the assistant to the president for the homeland of security and counterterrorism, john brennan, and john clapper. whether the director of national intelligence will ever worked,

will ever work, as it was intended, the first two positions are usually confidants in close proximity to the president and the rest of the national security leadership. we think about that for a moment and maybe share some thoughts with us on that. >> on the first observations made, i agree completely. this was a very well-done operation. what i think we need is to make that the norm, and i think it is understandable that we did well on that operation. highest priority task that this nation has had for the last 10 years in that area, a deep personal involvement, the high level cabinet offices themselves. it is no surprise to me that we

did well on that. but i think we need to get the same sort of interaction and legislatively mandated that same sort of interaction and a team worked to get everything done that the intelligence community and department of defense and homeland security are involved in. and if we have made strides -- i think we have a ways to go. on the question of the relationship between the and -- the dni and the president versus his staff, this is what those relationships are all about. the president should get his advice from whoever he chooses to seek it from. he has staffers on his staff who are experts in defense. i used to be on the national

security staff, a commander in the navy, department of homeland security, served at the national security council staff. and outside experts are brought in. we all know how the advice of staff versus the responsibility of line officers should work. i think that in the white house relationships with departments and with the intelligence community, it is just the same principles that should apply. you should carry out your main actions and get the recommendations of those whom you appoint and whom the senate confirms. and then you should use your staff to evaluate the recommendations, to check on how they are doing. and there will be tension between those two at times. no good staff officer thinks he can do a better job than the guy who has the job, until the occupies that job. then wisdom occurs. these tensions are natural.

i think the formal structure should be that those responsible officials at the right level should be carrying out the job. >> thank you. do we have time for one more? >> go ahead. >> thank you. i chaired a subcommittee that focuses on federal financial management and a host of other areas. but one of the things we try to do on the subcommittee is we tried to look at every nook and cranny of the federal government to ask this question. is it possible to get better results for less money or to get better results for the same amount of money? a sort of describe it as a culture change from the culture of spend thrift more to a culture of thrift. it is like the aircraft carrier. every tribe long enough and hard enough, we can turn aircraft carriers. this is a great committee to be on. they used to be almost our sole focus, government affairs, and

how to get better results for less money. now we have this other half in homeland security, which is terribly important. we have not forgotten what our bread and butter used to be. a couple weeks ago i was returning to south asia, were have been to pakistan, afghanistan, and india, and we were reviewing our regional counterterrorism strategy and pakistan. one of the growing success stories that was brought to my attention are how our intelligence community analysts and military specialists, both men and women, and special operations are sitting side by side each other and analyzing intelligence information, and i was very impressed with the cohesion nassau on the ground. today, we're looking at whether this new approach is part of a broader counterterror of strategy in the region. second, are there lessons learned from your experiences

that you can share with us that you would like to see the military and intelligence committees to implement practically? >> yes, sir. i think what you saw it is just as good as you said it was. i think as a result of 10 years of the same set of mid-level leaders in the intelligence agencies and in the department of defense, primarily special forces working together against al qaeda and its support in eds, and these extraordinary leaders in all of these agencies and services have learned to cooperate at the local level. i would say they do that right now with the tolerance of the leadership, in some cases with the active support of the leadership. there is not a structure that they can fall into naturally or that new people will fall into

naturally when the agency and the passion that 9/11 caused passes. i recommended in my prepared testimony for this committee that we form joint interagency task forces. pick a a way that, let's place like yemen, were both military counter-terrorism give abilities and intelligence community counter-terrorism capabilities can be brought to bear. i recommend the task force. the bulk of it can be, for example, a military officer and of the debt bbb and intelligence community professional, or vice versa. the need to be qualified for the job and have experience. and then, instead of this extraordinary cooperation which now occurs, you can have a unified effort in which the task of commander, a task force

commander has the authority in can choose to use intelligence assets one way, military assets, put them together. what we found our joint task forces in the armed forces that come up with new ideas when you put people together in one space with one mission, with a set of core competencies that a pretty extraordinary, to find different ways to do it. oh, that is what you need? that is easy. that sort of synergy comes by putting them together under one boss than it does by sitting there in their individual stovepipes. with all those people in the world, and it the right people happen to be there, you can work out some of the stuff. but it is not institutionalized. the incentives are not right. there's a certain danger and cooperating. i vote for counter terrorism task force is pointed at the key areas where will it -- where we still face al qaeda and its affiliates. >> thank you so much for that analysis.

thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. let me approach the topic we have been talking about by sharing this analysis of our 2004 legislation, which is that it gave the shunt to debt -- to give the dni two major responsibilities. one was to be the leader in the intelligence community. the second was to be the senior adviser in intelligence matters to the president. i want to ask you, both from what you know from your predecessors and successors experience and your own, one, just in terms of responsibility, whether that is too much to ask of one person -- maybe i should leave it to that. the second is inconsistent with the first, which is that -- in

some ways, following a previous question, is it necessary for the dni to be the senior intelligence adviser to the president in order for the dni to have the credibility to be the leader of the intelligence community? two different questions related to the same dual responsibility. >> yes, sir. i think that the dni can and should have both those responsibilities. i do not think the dni can have the additional responsibility of directing the cia. that was the hand we dealt the dci, as you recall, run the cia, integrate the committee, and advise the president. i think it was extremely wise to cut those two off. i also think that it is essential that leading the

committee and advising the president being combined with one person, so that advice can be realistic in terms of what it is the community can do, number one, and number two, so that the director seeing these sorts of information the president needs, can turn around and say, president, we have got to work harder on this problem. i see this one coming. it is important to the president. we're not there yet. do it. sometimes people forget that the intelligence successes of today are due to a lot of work done over the last several years. hard, gritty work of collection, integration, spending money in the right place, language capabilities, personnel assignments. unless you're the person who enters all that happens well and directs some of it, it is not being done very well, you're not in a position to tell the president how good the step that you're telling him it is. otherwise you're taking some report from some analysts. taking everything to him, he-

will have the analysts tell him directly. i'd think this combination of being the one who has responsibility for making the intelligence good and then passing it to the president is important. i found it was often as important to tell the president what we did not know, and why we did not know it, then it telling him what we knew. because making high level conditions under conditions of uncertainty -- sometimes i tell the president if i were important in intelligence, your job would not be difficult. that is what is going to happen and accused of his course of action. it is the interaction of what the big intelligence machine can do. the burn it that you need to do better so when the president turns to you in a year and says, what is the situation with nuclear weapons in this country, you have a good answer. that is essential to the dni. i do nothing goes to the

responsibilities can split up. finally, dni, should have the political sense of what is important to the president over the long term. grant knew he had to win a battle but for the emancipation proclamation came out. i expect that, ultimately, the will of the people expressed through elections is set to drive what we do. you need to be close to the political sense in that sense, but not so close that you simply make all the mistakes that can happen. >> right, there was a good statement. you have got to be mindful of the political realities that the president is facing. but also, obviously, tell the president the truth as you see it. they're the little questions that always comes up.

how important to the dni's strength and credibility is at the at the dni himself be there the detailed briefing for the president? >> the approach i took, and it felt right for me and this president, was that i was responsible that the intelligence, the daily briefing of the president, was correct, but i do not have to be the one to brief it every day. so i think it is the former responsibility that is more important. and then i think that the dni needs to attend enough of those sessions are he gets the sense from the president and his inner circle as to whether the right questions are being answered. he needs to do that, i think, on a fairly frequent basis

uniquely, because i would always receive a memo from the person who gave the briefing that says here is what happened and what the president asked and so on. that is natural, but it is not quite the same as being there and seeing if we are hitting the market and if we need to work better. i think you should be there some of the time but not to wear out your welcome. >> at the hearing, everybody agreed, including those in most of their experience at the cia, that the dci wasn't unsustainable position. it was too much. and therefore, created the dni, in a sense. i want to say that the general said something interesting, which was that he thought that he was probably the only director of the cia who was nominated since we headed dni,

who was actually recommended by the dni. he thought that was not good. admiral mcconnell chose him. but the others had come up through the white house, as one naturally happens. i do not know if you want to comment on that. i was really saying in more to share with you. it is an interesting historical observation. >> i strongly believe that the director of the cia, whether it be the cia as we now know it or as i recommended it in an analytical piece, i should be a cia professional that has come up through the ranks. i think the record shows that those who have done that have been some of the directors of the central intelligence agency that we think highly of their,

their records. now that dni we have that position -- now that we have a dni position, they should have intelligence knowledge, but they did not necessarily have to lived and breathed it his or her life. part of the confusion and roles we now have is when you appoint two people to these two jobs, both of whom are sort of considered independently, rather than one being a professional, we get some of the jostling we have seen in recent times. i think the political direction can be sent through the dni, and we should have professionals. >> i think it is it big in sight. what it requires is the president having a different visions and recognizing that the dni is the president's main, if you will, intelligence, main

personal intelligence adviser. and also, in his interest and the president's interests, the leader of the committee -- i mean, the general did not dwell on it. but when he made his statement, he said including the incoming head of the cia. nobody in the world thinks that the general came up with the recommendation of general petraeus to head the agency. not that he is opposed to it. so your point is well-taken. i want to ask you to dig down a little bit deeper on it, and then i want to ask about the split in the agency that you recommend. talk more about what the advantages are of having a career person at the head of the cia, as it is now, or the cia in two parts. >> i think the main advantage is that you have someone who knows

the organization. if you choose the right person, that person should have instant i think the best leaders of agencies whose jobs are specialized in difficult and you just cannot walk in and do them with the general purpose background is that the best leaders move their organizations a step further, more skilled, more unified, able to do things, and i think that is best done by someone who knows the organization. i am also influenced by what i saw at the cia, and that there are marvelous people. i saw any one of four people who i would have recommended.

there are good people there who could do it. then you can have the director of the cia being a professional just the way the unicorn -- uniform military police officer is. that is what they do. -- uniformed military officer. there have been some brilliant work done by outside officers coming in. if you had to handicap the odds, those who are remembered as having done the best are at a higher percentage rates are those who have the background. that is really what i think the advantages are. >> going deeper than you did in your opening statement about why separate the cia into an analytic innocency -- agency. >> starting off with trying to

clean the slate and let's look at those different functions. they are really quite different approaches. ethical, questioning, using academic skills. an officer involved in covert operations has to be positive, flexible. you have a oil and water here in terms of the sort of people who do it. in the early 1990's, they originally were divided at langley. this tower was the analyst, and these were the operators. there were some advantages. i think the main advantage work for the clandestine service.

there was also over time the operator at 6 ethic -- operating as it prevailed at the agency. they were the ones who pretty much set the tone for the agency, and that i think it detracted somewhat from the analytical ability and made it difficult analytically, especially when the analysis was not reflecting what the actions i was working

on. in addition, if you look at the intelligence and where it comes from now, i do not have the figures with me, the big -- and may very well be classified, but the bulk of the intelligence comes from the intelligence. i do not see any disadvantage to having this all source analytical shop separate. and in the clandestine service would be the specialists and human intelligence. in the same way you recall when the national gop spatial intelligence agency was formed, they were taken out of the cia and put together with the same skills from the defense mapping service, and they were the functional experts on u.s. spatial intelligence. they now hope the cia the way they help others.

it is analogous state of having the functional division of the collectors fairly pure and analysts put together. the danger in that is people get back on the stovepipes it do not cooperate. that is where a i think the d.n.i. teams together with representation from all of the different agencies is the norm. just a final point, i'd think you will find the united states is completely unusual in having this particular collection of skills. if you look in other countries, and it is not that we should be bound by other countries, but it is an interesting check of how it happened. it is more product of the history then of how it is generally done around the world. >> another words, there is a separation between the operators and the analysts and most of

foreign intelligence. >> correct. >> when i followed these things from a distance -- i followed these things from a distance, but when i came here as a senator and figured out what the cia was about, i was surprised how many people interested in briefings that i would call basically researchers. in other words, it was voluble research. they were becoming an expert in a particular country. a lot of what they were doing was from open sources. that is necessary. that is very important. but not what i think the public feels is the cia, the public thinks of it as the operators and a cloud does -- clandestine

workers. those are very interesting suggestions. let me talk to you about another one that is interesting that does relate to the osama bin laden case, which is as you indicated briefly in your opening statement, we have title 10, which covers traditional military operations by the president commended of title 50 covering intelligence and authorities. s -- in the case of the osama bin laden search, the president gave the authority to the director of the cia. although necessarily i would say, and directed -- director panetta has been a very enthusiastic about this. he called the special operations command operating under title 10.

you make a very interesting suggestion here that we effectively need title 60 for what you called joined intelligence -- joined integrated task forces. i presume this comes from a lot what intelligence officers are doing is inherently these actions. what would be the benefit of entitled 60? >> let me illustrate it first by a well-known example. if you recall when we went into afghanistan late in 2001 and cia agents famously road and russian

airplanes with bags of money between their legs, and when they got out stay started reaching their old contacts. meanwhile, secretary rumsfeld was patiently -- famously impatient the special forces were not there yet. they were slow getting in place and getting ready to jump, and never again will they be second getting into one of these. there was competition between those groups to get in and do the same job. tragically when a number of cia agents were killed with a group of afghans who had been taken prisoners, and the cia agents were outnumbered and they were beaten to death, the military backup was not readily available. what we need to do is put the

based -- the best capabilities of the defense department together with the capabilities of the cia to bring integrated staff so that you have a knowledgeable direction and use everything. the cia has a lot more budget flexibility. having the huge back up logistics' planning capability and firepower that the the part of defense can bring to bear is also important. i want to do them both. let's not have the present have to make the decision. -- the president have to make the decision to give this one to the cia or the department of defense. the other thing that has happened is the definition of

covert action under title 50 has really changed since it was invented. it was basically invented to make actions deniable so that we could take legal action against the soviet union and areas around the world. we could officially deny it. we know what not risk uld notion -- we couwo risk escalation to world war ii. there were born to the soldiers involved. there were going to be sailors involved. there were going to be 5000 people involved in that operation from the very beginning, and we were going to do it. why? because it was the border -- a job that it was not being done by a country we could call on to do it, and we felt we had to do

it ourselves. that is the nature of the challenge and the affiliate's. it is not the state boundaries cold war that we invented deniability to take care of. a lot of these campaigns go on for a long time. like the current campaign in afghanistan. it there is a less well- publicized cia action than drones in pakistan, i do not know what that one is either. cia officers call and tell them about that on a routine basis. i think the definitions are getting an hour away, not helping us. what they do set up is a competition for who is in charge. rather than a mechanism so that both sides can bring it to bear.

the questions involved are there are some very weighty questions. title 10 is part of what entitles holders to protection under the geneva protection. -- in title soldiers to protection under the geneva convention. again, that provides some protection but have been one of the helicopters went down and a tribe picked up some of our seal teams six people, i doubt if they would have been much motivated by the geneva convention. that is certainly howard is in these situations. similarly, who does this group report to it and reply to in congress? >> i was thinking about that. there is an entitlement with quite limited reports to congress.

how would you balance that? >> i would say that both the intelligence committees and armed services committee need to be notified. there was an instance of a similar operation when i was involved, and we formed a joint briefing team. we went up and talk to the leadership of both parties about a very sensitive operation that involved military and the intelligence community actions come in the world did not come to an end. they ask good, tough questions, and we were able to answer them. i think we can do the notification part of it well. i think we need ways to draw those together. >> who would be in charge of one of the joint task forces? >> i would look at it and say

you know this is a mixed set of skills here. is it unbalanced? is it 51 intelligence or 49 military or the other way around? i would choose the lead commander on that basis. the deputy i would make from the other disciplines are you have the two top people bring both sets of skills to bear. i would also make sure that the top people have qualifications and experience with operating with the other agencies similar to the way we do it with joint commanders. i would mix them. i would have the stop mixed so that you had all the skills available to spark the synergy and to keep from doing something stupid in either the intelligence or the military wrong -- realm. >> would the dni always be involved in a joint task force? >> i would say his involvement

would be comparable to the secretary of defense's. i handed to the current leadership for what i understood of what happened during those hours of the raid, they sat there and let the people who were right there make the decisions. that is the way it ought to run. >> those are very interesting ideas. i think within the rules of the geneva conventions interrogated you and up today. admiral, you have been extremely helpful. senator collins talked about this briefly on the floor. you have given us some ideas. i am not sure what we're want to do from here. we may recommend some additional

legislation, if it makes sense, and i think some of these really do. we may make recommendations to the president or to the dni. if you are willing, i reserve the right to reach out and call you on the phone or ask you to come in and talk about the direction of which we're going, because the combination of your experiences and the service of the country is really quite unique and very helpful. also, you have had the independence now out of office to make the suggestions that people in office sometimes do not make, so this is what i have to look forward to after january 2013. >> i hope we can call on your wisdom after you leave the chair, too. >> think you. i think your wife for being here. -- thank you.

so we will keep the record of the hearing opened for 15 days. with great thanks to you for what europe contributed today, the hearing is adjourned. -- for what you have contributed today, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> as the hearing wraps up, it

did take a recess earlier for the boat in the senate on the nomination of goodwin liu. it fell short. there will not be a vote on the confirmation itself. that is falling short of the 60 by a vote of 52-43. later on this afternoon we will hear from senator john mccain of the u.s. institute of peace talking about middle east policy. that will get underway at 6:00. this after the president made a major address on u.s. middle east policy. we will show that to you at 5:00 eastern. john mccain live at 6:00. both here on c-span. to go no one succeed in life by themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others, and yes, love others. >> watch 2011 commencement speeches on c-span memorial day weekend in search more than 200 past commencement speeches.

online at the peabody winner award library. it is washington your way. >> now available, c-span congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112 congress. inside knew it and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter address and committee assignments and information on the white house, supreme court justices. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, american public affairs, and find are content any time through the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with

digital bus and local content vehicle. bringing resources to your community, the washington way, your way. the c-span network, provided as a public service. >> of next, a discussion on potential issues in the 2012 campaign, including the current republican presidential field and potential candidates. continues. host: former republican congressman and chairman of the national republican congressional committee tom davis. if you were running the nrcc today, would you think of the medicare plan that paul ryan has put out would be a liability for republicans? guest: i think it will be fine but a lot of people think it over -- if it goes and answered, you are in trouble. it does not apply to people over 55, their benefits are guaranteed. long term the do nothing

approach jeopardize is it for everybody. the difficulty is when you get attacked -- either side, democrats have the same problem last -- is you tend to grow up in a ball and not defend it. it is further complicated in this new your special election by the fact you have a third- party candidate taking votes away from them. but at the end of the day, the deficit is the issue of our time. it may not be front and center for most people -- but this is the next bubble that is going to burst if we do not do something. host: have the republicans in your view effectively answered to democrats? guest: no, they are running for cover. that is the difficulty. look, the ryan plan may not be the perfect plan for anybody but at least he is addressing the issue. everybody else is putting their head in the sand. this is the fastest growing program in government, growing 7% a year. we have a federal government borrowing 41 cents on the dollar. that is just unsustainable.

you've got to look at all of these programs and i think everybody is going to have to take a haircut. host: who will win the new york special? guest: it is complicated because it is a three-way race. i will tell you one thing -- it is close. host: they picked up the massa seat. guest: but we lost two other specials. it did not portend anything for the next november. medicare will help the democrats with their base vote, but at the end of the day of the democrat wins it she will be well under 50% with a tea party and republican candidate taking up the ball. this is a republican district. this is jack kemp's district. host: is corwin a strong candidate? guest: an excellent candidate. the problem is the candidates lost control. you have outside groups running ads. what the parties and candidates

spend is dwarfed by that. medicare is front and center and it is a question of getting information out. host: if you were running nrcc, would you be spending money up there? guest: they are spending money. i think they will spend a few hundred thousand dollars but you have to put on the ground. by getting your base vote out at this point, some of information across the airwaves, just adding a little bit more mike beebe value added. host: reid set to force a vote on gop medicare plan. set to vote next week on paul line that a budget but is this a smart political move? guest: it looks good today, but you've got to look ahead in politics. it is not where you are today. wayne gretzky used to say he was great because he skated where the puck was going to be and not where it was. reid and the democrats are skating where the puck is and that is trying to scare seniors. it has traditionally worked for both parties. but the debt issue is so

overwhelming something is going to have to be done about medicare. what ever you. rtyan's plan, at least republic -- whatever you think about ryan's plan at least a republican the stepped up. i think a year from now, i do not think medicare will go unscathed. host: tom davis served as congressman from 11th district of virginia, republican congressman. he was chairman of the national republican good rational committee from 1998 until 2002. he is here to talk about the 2012 elections and republicans at this point. 202 is the area code -- please allow 30 days between calls and you can send a tweet -- c-span-wj is the twitter handle. and you can send an e-mail to journal@c-span.org.

politically right now the debt ceiling debate that is going on, who does a favor, in your view? guest: what it is, is is an opportunity for both parties to come together and make tough decisions. nobody wins on a debt ceiling vote. this will be politically poisonous. this is like tarp. i saw one pundit described as park on steroids. i voted for tarp in the congress. you did not have much of an alternative -- not doing it could have caught the economic meltdown. but because we back it and became law you did not have a meltdown so you are second guessed by a lot of people. i got out and defended the vote and did not have problems doing it. this is more poisonous. polling shows people do not want to raise the debt ceiling. host: if you were chair of nrcc

today, where what resources be? republicans went from 178 seats to 240 in the 2010 midterms and democrats went from 257 to 192. are the republicans going to hold congress, and you you -- in your view? where would be spent resources? guest: we have seen in three straight nationalize elections anything can happen. all but seven house members will be running in different districts because of redistricting. host: than all but seven? guest: and they are the seven who are at large. you have to remember the key battle is over redistricting, shaping member districts, trying to make members who are maybe a little weaker have tougher districts and tried to strengthen their districts. there will be pluses and minuses. republicans control more seats at the redistricting table than in any time since 1920. and they have the lead so you

have to take -- say, advantage republicans, at this point the. secondly, president obama is still on the white house and usually a voter animosity goes toward the party in the white house. they have to have another nationalized elections under those circumstances to be the to win and a national election that works in their favor. trying to think what would bring about a fourth straight nationalize the election? voter discontent. republicans would have to nominate somebody who is really radioactive. it is possible -- i will not given to names, but it is possible republicans could nominate somebody of the goldwater strike -- and for the record, i was for goldwater and thought he was great. but 62% of americans didn't. it is important for republicans to nominate somebody who will be competitive on main street. not doing that could cost the house. host: would jon huntsman be in the main street christmas guest: i tell you why, because he would appeal to the swing voters and

the middle of the road. i think he holds the base because i think against president obama you are going to hold the base. the animosity is there, and to the age where the administration -- their policies, the attacks on any republican candidate would help drive the bay's home. but there is a swing element in this electorate that one heavily democratic in 2006 and in 2008 -- it came back to the republicans in 2010, not because they like us but -- but because we were the alternatives in the efforts to balance the budget. huntsman -- you look at his persona, he has a sweet spot in that set of voters. not a set of voters, however, who will be nominated but they are the kind who can give you elected. host: from this story -- can a republican moderates abide about -- about jon huntsman. guest: i think so but it has to be the right circumstances. there's a lot of folks out there who are not given choices they

want in elections. if you take a look of the polarizing factors in american politics today -- number one, the parties are ideologically sorted. if you are a conservative today you are a republican. when you were growing up there were conservative democrats and liberal republicans. now the most -- most liberal republican in the senate is more conservative than the most conservative democrat in the senate. ideological sort thing which means primary process dominated by more conservative democrat -- members. secondly, a very polarizing media -- c-span accepted. but if you watch fox and msnbc they are different planets talking to different constituents, opinion makers within the different parties. you saw, glenn beck was able to assemble 100,000 people on the mall. republican leaders did not do that. they are speaking to an electorate and giving them information and political leaders lost the ability to do that. the same with the left with rachel madow and some of the

spokespeople on msnbc. the third factor and almost as important is the fact with campaign finance reform coupled with the citizens united decision, the money has moved away from the political parties. that is what campaign finance did. but out there on the wings. moveon.orgs, club for growth, if you look at the special election in new york more money is spent by interest groups and parties and candidates combined. that is in the future and that is a polarizing factor. parties are a centering force for american politics. but interest groups are not. we are where we are -- this will be a good test. but huntsman as the pedigree, i think he could raise the money and it will be an interesting test. host: what do you think of your old speaker newt gingrich's ron? guest: off to a rough start. we love them -- those who work with them. toe to toe in a debate nobody is

better. if you get him in a room with people and talk about issues of the day he has a sweet spot. we will see if he can recover. he starts out with more negatives than a lot of republicans. if you look at the head-to-head polling, huntsman is kind of the blanks late because he is not as well known. gingrich has engrain feelings about him and significant negatives. they could be overcome but he is off to a tough start. host: if you do name names, who are the two most endangered congressman at this point? guest: you do not want to name names. you can take a look at the districts that obama performed very well in the. if you have a high number of minorities in a presidential year turnout, that district is going to change its behavior patterns and be more difficult.

let's look until redistricting is done and that will give you a better feel. the last congress, it would not have been hard. joseph won a great race. he won because his opponent was indicted and convicted. we do not have that circumstance. in theory, -- >host: have you had a chance to meet with reince priebus? guest: i have not. the money is now with outside groups. a lot of these other groups are putting more money into this. host: this week for you, tom davis -- this tweet for you, tom davis --

guest: you can have a lot of ads going back and forth. there is a budget agreement that includes medicare. what worries me if the democrats win the special election in new york, i think they will dig in hard on medicare and be reluctant to deal with the fastest growing program in government. bar with 41 cents on the dollar is unsustainable. -- borrowing 41 cents on the dollar is unsustainable. interest rates are going to bounce up at one point. it will bounce up with a vengeance. this is a serious problem and you hope serious members consider across the table and come to some agreement on this. host: tom davis is also president and ceo of the

republican main street partnership. the first call for him comes from brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. i am very curious. the republicans have been portrayed as anti-women, anti- grandmothers, but what is very interesting is you have been portrayed for the very rich and against the middle-class and against the poor. can you explain to me how you get elected? guest: let's look at new york city. some of the wealthiest americans live there. these areas overwhelmingly went for president obama. you get into some of the more

middle n come precincts in new york, that is where john mccain performed best. some of the poorest counties in america voted overwhelmingly for th republicans for president, while some of the wealthiest counties in the country, fairfax county, montgomery county, md., these are where the wealthy elites voted for obama. the portrayal of the rich is just plain wrong when it comes to voting turnout. politics has been largely a cultural preference as opposed to economic preference. if you look at it the way it has evolved over the last 10 years to 20 years, republicans are not all rich.

it is just rhetoric. host: this street -- guest: that is a supreme court decision. you have the case which undermined campaign reform. it defines free speech, and corporations get free speech as to individuals. in the law that you consign has to get around supreme court decisions and is the law of the land at this point. the court defined freeze preach broadly. -- free speech broadly. unfortunately, you have a lot of people going back trying to work around these decisions. i think disclosure is the best -- right now, people can give large amounts of money and not

have to disclose this. this was far worse than it was before you had mccain it-a fine gold. the bill has been decimated. they know now it was a mistake. it made the situation worse. it has empowered interest groups. some who voted against it -- it is a disaster at this point. it is a constitutional issue. host: tina tweets in -- guest: i appreciate that. that is a prevalent deal. i respect that. to let me give you an alternative. how do you resolve budget issues and the fact that we are borrowing 41 cents on the dollar? 10,000 people today are entering medicare. as my generation retires and becomes eligible for these

benefits. if you do not change the structure in some significant way, he will not have medicare for the next generation. we can put our heads in the sand. politically, we know where the politics of this has been traditionally, but that is not where the country is going or where the budget deficit is going. you have to make these changes. if congress and the president cannot come together, keep pointing fingers, the bond markets will make the change for us and it will be hard. host: hi, bonnie. caller: it is strange when deficits only matter when there is the republican nod in the white house. we had a perfect solution for medicare. instead of medicare part d, we

should detonated -- created medicare part e for everyone because a larger pool would lower the risk. my healthy 24-year-old and i would've brought down the cost. instead, the solution is the same solution that republicans always seem to have -- let's privatize it. if you are 55, or under 55, you can look forward to be given if dra voucher. of those with pre-existing conditions will very gladly give a 65-year-old with health conditions health care for the voucher that you are going to give. your solution for the health delivery system and our problems is ari operandi. guest: i was there and supported

medicare part d. i am not particularly proud of that vote. we have to remember there was a competing bill that would provide a much larger benefit which i do not think we could have afforded. to me, it was the question of medicare part d or a larger entitlement that we could not afford at the time. we decided to have competition that was more likely to drive down cost then to let the government negotiate cost. the government has not been a good negotiator when it comes to the private sector. we think the marketplace will do more for competition. if you take a look at the way it has performed, the deficits are far below what was originally projected by the congressional budget office and we think that is the result of competition. you really do not have competition. you have a third-party payer

system. if you could shop and it was your own money, we think costs would go down and people would be more price-oriented. there is a doughnut hole in the bill. you cannot have it both ways. i think republicans have been terrible on the deficit just like democrats have. they decided to try to come in with their stimulus package and the like and to put deficit up to an all-time high. faced with the overwhelming economic problems, that was their antidote. i think voters in history will judge whether it's at work or not. we can look across the pond and see what other countries -- they are going in a different direction right now where they

are attacking their deficit issues. time will tell. i look back on this now and i do not have to worry about what anybody thinks except my wife. we are going to have to tackle this deficit, and the sooner the better. you cannot patchwork this. everybody is going to have to sit around a table. republicans and democrats. it is a hair cut for everybody. host: tom davis served as a supervisor in fairfax county here in the washington area. last night, the president in boston said this. guest: again, i think it has to be shared.

if you take a look at the bush tax cuts, the wealthy part of that was less than 20%. if you really think there is a revenue issue, you probably have to spread its more than 2% and may be let everything expire or look at it more broadly if you really want to increase revenue at this point. it is easy to go after the rich. this year, the irs announced 51% of households paid no federal income tax. what is fair on this thing? if you over-taxed at the top level, capital goes elsewhere. rich people mover. you do not attract capital. you have to be careful. will we end up with an agreement where everybody pays more? probably.

that is going to be difficult given the fact that a lot of members have signed tax pledges. we will see where it goes. going after the rich does not give you that much money. but we will see where it ends up. right now, we are at the rhetorical stage of this debate. we are an airplane flying into the mountain, and we need to steer a different course. to do that, both sides are going to have to go after their base. host: tom davis, if you were in charge of the national congressional committee, which democrats would to be targeting? guest: first of all, i would be focusing on redistricting. in indiana, the have picked up a seat. -- they have picked up a seat.

you look at redistricting because the map is going to be completely different when this thing is over. they got rid of the low hanging fruit in the last campaign. instead of saying i am going to go after this democrat or that democrat, you do not look like what -- you do not know whether district will look like at this point. it is a little bit early to take a look at which democrats we are going to target. host: the next call comes from san antonio, texas. caller: good morning. obama made a speech the other night, and everybody picks up on the same thing. shared sacrifice. government employees that do nothing in the formation of wealth.

the only format debt. the private sector seems to format all of the wealth around here. how do you sacrifice if it always has the be the private sector that has to sacrifice anything? guest: federal employees right now -- there is a five-year pay freeze. the obama administration has put a two-year pay freeze on this. i think everybody gives on this. if you are taking a look at your governmental employees and your cancer researchers, scientists, he won the best people you can get in these jobs. you do not want to take the dreg. to do that, you have to pay them and treat them appropriately. the reason we have what we have

is we have layer after layer of reporting requirements and the bureaucrats that congress are the ones who have authorized these and put them on. many times when we have a crisis we add a new layer of government. he won the best and brightest people going into government. -- you want the best and brightest people going into the government. our greatest asset was not our buildings. it was not our computers. it was our people. we understood to be successful in information society like we have today you want those people coming back every day. you have to appropriately incentivize them. they are your food inspectors, your safety personnel, your faa people in the tower keeping to

save on your airplanes. you want to pay people well that are doing their job. given the budget deficits we have, shared sacrifice means federal employees, taxpayers, everybody has to come to the table. we have let this deficit go on and on and on to the point where there are no easy solutions and nothing that is politically palatable. they are going to have to step forward and take some risks. there is nothing wrong losing an election if you are there trying to do it for the right reasons. that is what we get into public service. host: have you ever lost an election? guest: no. host: the next call for him comes from fort worth, texas. caller: thank you, guys, for taking my call. there is no question that the

spending on medicare has to be addressed at some point in time in the near future. however, wouldn't it been more politically advantageous to the think theys if the perso focused on was national defence? that is what we spend the most on in our government. we have military bases all around the world that have nothing to do with national defense. guest: if you go back to the 1960's, which were spending over 60% of our budget on national defense. now it is only 20%. that has gone steadily down at this point. it is basically congress's budget. the congress and sometimes uses the department of defense as a jobs court. when you take a look at

entitlement spending, entitlement spending is almost three times what it defense spending is, 2.5 times anyway. you have to look at everything. defense spending is not going up at the rate that entitlement spending is. the reason why you want to start addressing these changes is because you have 10,000 baby boomers a day retiring becoming eligible for these programs. if you lock in 15 years from now which will not give you immediate savings but at least make the out-year projections more palatable, people will be able to make arrangements in their lives and in their retirement plans so they know what they are eligible for. if you make the changes very quickly which some other countries have had to do, it becomes more draconian. that is why it is important to address the medicare and social

security. from a cash flow point of view, social security is now generating deficits. we are going to have to address these issues. a medicaid has to be addressed. so, that is a huge burden on state governments. what we found is that is crowding out money for education in state budget. when you take a look at federal pensions, veterans, interest on debt, medicaid, medicare, and the social security, almost two- thirds of the budget we are spending on retirees. we are not spending it on research and development or infrastructure. our global competitors are focused on the future. they are not investing in the past. we look over our shoulder and we are no longer going to be number

one. we are not investing in the future. we are running huge deficits that are going to cost us. host: this tweet coming in for you -- guest: you know, we are not tea partiers. i think the thrust of what the tea party is looking at, i think we all share that. the teap party has done a service to the country by identifying the national debt as an issue. people usually are not looking at the future. i think they have done us a huge service in addressing this issue and focusing on this issue. they are in pretty an eclectic group of people that are out said the box and recognize that

it needs to be a coalition and not a private club. we have pro-life, pro-choice, some very strong conservatives, and we have some that have links to unions. we are main street. we are not wall street. host: the next call comes from chicago. caller: [unintelligible] --you just lose some people. listening to you and knowing about your politics, you have progressed from that. when you say that, you just lose some people. anyway, tom, you all missed a golden opportunity. does make some sense, however there was no agreement to raise revenue.

you cannot talk about cutting programs that hurt a certain segment of society without saying at least raising taxes on revenue. i think you all missed that opportunity. guest: that is a good comment. what shared sacrifice is is different to different people. the ryan plan does talk about closing some of the loopholes. there is going to have to be a revenue component. i think those that have looked at this recognize that. i love goldwater. he would be considered very moderate today and libertarian. he was also president of the -- a member of the naacp in phoenix. it was a different time and a

different era. as i like to tell my class, you had a higher percentage of republicans to vote for the civil-rights act in 1964 than democrats. it passed with republican votes. the vast majority of the filibustering was from democrats. that is history. parties have involved a long time from that. host: where do you teach? guest: at george mason university. i teach a three-hour class once a week. i also have to do with me and jim grant. we get to go at it in the class. host: have you talked to paul ryan or john boehner? how are they both doing? guest: i think they are both doing great. this is not easy stuff. you have to give paul writing

credit for attacking a problem. people will probably tell you that medicare is an issue that we have to address. people recognize that it is an issue. to his credit, he came out there with a budget proposal. the challenge for the administration is to come out and saying here is the way we would address it, said across the table from each other, and at the end of the day if nobody is happy with a, at least you have addressed the problem. we cannot agree on energy policy. we have not had a good energy policy in 30 years. we have not solved the issues along the border and what we are going to do because people are afraid to take a tough vote.

just kick it down the road. i will tell you this. if we do not do it, the day is going to come when markets react and things start going downhill very quickly. everything the government is doing will hurt the private sector. where were you guys? i was on c-span trying to sound the alarm. host: give your impressions on scott walker and the recall election. guest: it is going to be very interesting. they have basically been a cultural. this puts a big fisher with your blue-collar union workers and sympathizers. for the record, mass. the did something similar without a scratch. it was more collaborative and

less confrontational. wisconsin did not have collective bargaining for public employees until 1959. for the first time, they come in and reward their base. in virginia, we do not have collective bargaining for any public employees. federal employees have fewer rights and collective bargaining. if it is such an outrage, the president and congress can try to change it. it is not what you do but how you do it. they were itching for a fight, and it is going to be bloody. host: are you done with electoral politics? guest: i am done with electoral politics.

it is going to be an interesting race. they have some solid attributes and some solid bases. allen's problem is going to be northern virginia. in a presidential year turnout, the turnout is going to be very high in nova. the minorities are going to turn out very, very high and will be overwhelmingly democrat. northern virginia is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. it can be pretty affluent. they are a base for many caribbean and hispanic voters. they are swing voters -- korean and hispanic voters. in the urban areas, it is where allen will have to center and hold down the margins.

host: who are some of the senators? guest: i could go back to rorschak. you have to go back a ways. voters make up their minds, it is tough to come back. on the other hand, tim kaine was the democratic chairman. i think he is very intelligent guy who would be a good campaigner. host: "roll call" this morning -- guest: the dynamics are different. you have an economy now -- last time, the republicans are owned

it and you were in an economic meltdown. you were coming off of the republican president whose members were in the high 20's. obama at that point at 8221 spending advantage. it is a different dynamic going into this next round. these tend to be referendums on the president. if he gets unemployment under control, and continues for policy, let's face it, the osama bin laden killing has helped his foreign-policy, giving him a little bit of a boost that he did not have before. it is going to be the economy, peter. it will be a referendum on that and to a lesser extent of who the republicans match him up with. if the republicans need to do what they have to do, it will

not matter. if things are in bad shape, there may not be anything he can do about it. host: we have about five minutes left with our guest. indiana, james is a democrat. caller: i have a question. you talk about entitlements and social security. social security had a lot of money before the guys like you starting giving i.o.u.'s for social security. we take every year and borrow $6 billion. we pay interest on that $6 billion. we give that money to israel. they bring it back and we pay the interest. that is absolutely ludicrous. their income is $2,000 a year more than spain. they have free health insurance.

why don't we wised up? nobody has the nerve to stand up to them. guest: it is not going to solve your deficit problems. you can make the argument that we are spending money abroad that we should not be. everything needs to take a hair cut including foreign aid. look, what was happening is you are generating more revenue through your taxes than you are paying out in benefits. what do you do with that money? do you put it in a shoebox? the government ended up borrowing that with treasurys. we are having to pay it out of current account. when i left congress, social security was dinner and $100 billion a year in surplus money -- one unless congress, social security was paying out $100 billion a year in surplus money.

what it has done to your current account and your budget is you are paying out what you are taking in. i've fought for a lock box and a lot of other issues to put a fence around that so it would not be spent on other items. that is what happened. i was also there for the signing of the balanced budget act in 1997. we had four years of surplus. i did what i could. i appreciate the call. i think he is a part of the problem. peter, everybody needs to take a haircut on this. it is a shared sacrifice. these are tough issues. i do not think you can pass a balanced budget of any kind unless there is a feeling of a shared sacrifice.

that is the problem of doing it piecemeal. it is not a sure thing. you look at where the retirements are and the fact that 22 democrat seats are up. i think they can pick up three or four seats. nothing is automatic. " we have seen -- what we have seen, elections where people are going one way or the other in block because they are not happy with anybody. traditionally, when presidents to get reelected, congress gets reelected. 1972, nixon carried 49 states. the year due but unpaid an incumbent, democrats picked up senate seats in that year.

you take a look at 1984, virtually nothing in that election as well. host: what happened in to the fore with president bush? didn't he poughkeepsie to in the congress? guest: they picked up three seats but five of them were texas in his district. basically, it stayed where it was. but i am talking about massive landslides. these were huge republican landslides that did not bring in republican congress's. regime changes, 1980, 2008 -- those intended to bring in the coat tails. there are exceptions. kennedy was elected in a very close race. we could have a lengthy discussion. by and large, if voters are

happy, they re-elect the president, the reelect the congress, they do not give the president what he wants. excellent president.be an he is the total package. intellectually, from an experience point of view, he is the anti-obama in the sense that he is not charismatic. but he is on performance and has done very, very well in the indian act. he understands the budget, foreign policy, a very class guy. host: this tweet -- guest: the texas budget has its own issues right now. i think the governor is taking himself out of the presidential consideration. texas has a a dynamic economy. if you take a look at job growth in this country, but it has huge budget is used right now. i don't think he is interested.

host: tampa, you are on the air. caller: it is like a breath of fresh air to listen to you. the republicans have become so extreme over the last several years that it just makes me crazy to hear how they are not reasonable. they shun science. if you care about the climate or pollution, they try to make two out to be crazy. -- they tried to make you out to be crazy. it is an issue. we are not allowed to even address it as republicans. guest: we ought to be looking at these issues. republicans have a different way of addressing these issues. instead of cap and trade, there are other ways to address these

issues. the epa started under richard nixon. i think we got a bad rap on that. both parties are to some extent just a collection of interest groups. we join the parties to advance their interests. sometimes, the interest groups speak a little bit louder than the party as a whole, but i think there are a lot the republicans who are interested in the environment. and what we are always nervous about boris huge mandate that do not make any -- what we are always nervous about our future mandates. these are conversations worth having. the inability of republicans and democrats to get across the table and say we have a problem and to argue the thing out and come up with a solution. instead, they read their talking points and kick the can down the road and go on to the next

issue. if there is wanting to take away from this morning, i would say we cannot continue to do that on the budget cycle. time is running out. nobody knows if it is tomorrow, or three years from now, but we 10-yearave a five-o- or span to get this figured out. it is not easy. everybody is going to take a hit on this. host: finally, this tweet -- guest: nothing. ron paul brings a lot of energy to it. ron is out of the traditional mainstream of were the party is. i enjoy serving with ron in the house. i find him to be very engaging

and intellectual on this. one of the few members to vote the way that he wanted to vote. party leaders could not twist his arm. i found ron pollack refreshing and i consider him a friend -- i found ron paul refreshing and i consider him a friend. mitt romney is the front runner right now. but it is a long way to go. front runners get attacked, >> ahead of a visit by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, john mccain, ranking republican on the senate armed services committee, will be talking about middle east policy. he is that the u.s. institute of

peace. we will have his comments live at 6:00. ahead of that, president obama's comments from earlier today, which will be aired at 5:00 eastern. >> history is, as you know, much more than politics and soldiers, social issues. it is also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas. we should not look things into categories. it is all part of the same thing. >> samuel morse, james been more cooper, harriet beecher stowe, thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on a "q&a," part one of two weeks with david mccullough on the americans amid the greater journeyed to 19th century -- who made the greatest journey to 19th century paris. >> this weekend, cleveland

state prof. regina williams on the music of duke ellington. on "american artifacts, clothes for a look at the smithsonian efforts to preserve an exhibit of the jefferson bible. the 50th anniversary celebration of the freedom rides and 13 men and women, black and white, boarded two buses bound for new orleans -- their goal -- to integrate southern bus stops. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history, or press the c-span alert button to get our schedules e-mailed directly to you >> -- directly to you. >> this weekend, authors on the gulf oil spill, wall street, the universe, america's largest slave revolt, india, and the middle east, plus a panel discussion on the book industry. also, the former ambassador to yemen on the u.s. but the counter-terrorism efforts in that country. and one of the most significant standards of the cold war era -- the berlin wall.

look for the complete schedule at booktv.org, and get our schedules e-mail directly to you. >> the southern part of sudan will separate from the northern part of the country in july, and the ~ zero sides are holding another round of talks this week. at the state department on wednesday, we got an update from the special envoy to sudan and the head of the u.s. agency for international development. they had just returned from the region. their briefing is 25 minutes. then, to darfur -- >> then to door for and then to juba. the issues very much on our mind are the following. the door for situation where we are hoping that doha, where

negotiations have gone on for some time, that there can be an agreement between the government and at least two of the rebel groups. obviously, they both have been invited. my colleague has been spending a great deal of time in doha with one of his staff to bolster the negotiating process. it is a hard process, but at least the parties are talking. i spent some time in khartoum talking with people there about the progress under the comprehensive peace agreement. and then in south korea on, because they just had, and at that time it was the first day of elections, an election for governor and state legislatures. very critical stage because it borders on our for. it is also supposed to be where one of the processes of popular

consultations take place. it is where a lot of the civil war was fought, but it is in the north. since then, the election has come off, but there's not a dispute over the results. the national electoral commission has declared the governor to have been reelected , and the opposing candidate has raised a number of what they feel irregularities. we have encouraged them to follow the process established, which is to go to the courts with these complaints, and we have urged all parties to allcalm, and so far -- urged all parties to stay calm, and so far, everybody has. i was looking at recent displacements, talking about questions of access talking to

displace people, getting a sense of the security situation, and the possibilities for better access and better programs there. then, there was a crisis in a region that is in dispute between the north and south. is now in the north. there was to be a referendum to resolve whether it should be in the north or south. that has not been resolved. there was a clash on may 1 in which 11 members of the joint integrated unit that was a military unit were killed, and it looks like the two sides were almost ready to go to war. together with the un and au, we

work hard to get the parties to go back to an agreement they had signed but not implemented, whereby both sides would withdraw the extra forces that brought into the area. meetings are going on to establish a clear timeline for that withdrawal. unfortunately, it has not started yet, but we hope the agreement will be implemented and reduce the tension in the state while we continue to work on an overall solution. the final thing i would mention is that the parties, after something of a hiatus, are backed negotiating issues under the comprehensive peace agreement. they start tomorrow in ethiopia to look at the most difficult and important economic issues, and that will be followed by political talks to take on the other issues. that process has now resumed,

and we will be following it closely. let me leave it there and turn it over to the administrator. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking the ambassador for his strong leadership on all of these complex and important sudan issues and recognizing that the united states has played such a critical role in implementing the cpa and pursuing effective implementation. i have the opportunity to travel to sudan with my counterpart development ministers from the united kingdom and from norway, and the purpose of our trip and the decision to go together was to send a united and coordinated message and to have a development dialogue in both the north and south that was well-

organized and consistent across some of the major development partners for south sudan and for sudan. we had the chance to visit with the president, the cabinet, various members of civil society, and the private sector. our messages were pretty consistent across those groups. we first and foremost to reaffirm the importance of the cpa and continuing to make progress on a range of issues that the message as described, but we spent most of our time talking about the development strategy for the south and what it would take to help southern sudan become a successful and viable economy with real private investment and transparent and effective governance. we underscored that private sector growth and transparent, credible government that allows for businesses to work in southern sudan would be critical to the efforts to diversify the economy and the

population needs. we noted that the usa partnering with others have helped southern sudan improve its performance on the business report significantly, and we heard from a range of private sector partners about how conditions have improved so that now, they were seriously investing in various sectors. we focused on agriculture, and we had the chance to announce a major new partnership with the government of southern sudan and with a range of important partners, such as the alliance for green revolution in africa, the international fertilizer developer corporation, at 40 bank, and others, to make sure that a focus on small holder farming and small holder agriculture would allow for a more diversified and productive southern sudanese economy and begin the process of creating real food security in the south.

we have worked with the world food program to also design programs and projects that would help towards that end. the project was jointly launched with the minister of agriculture in southern sudan, and we are optimistic about what that will result in in the near future. our conversations with the government there also highlighted the need to fight corruption and to put in place transparency initiatives with respect to how oil revenues are spent. our region counterparts, having had a unique experience with that issue, have offered to take the lead in partnering with the government in pursuing that objective. we also want to send a strong, coordinated message that too often, development assistance is not a well coordinated and well organized, and everybody tries to do everything. we suggested that the united states will take the lead in donor coordination, especially across the u.k., norway, and

u.s. programs. that does not mean the u.s. will lead in every sector and every area of work. it simply means we will work in a more coordinated way with our counterparts to make sure that the real division of labor and a consistent way of working with the government of southern of sudan and against the government's own plans and strategies going forward. finally, we offered to host in september, and the president accepted this offer, a major development in private investors conference here in washington where we would offer our southern sudanese counterparts the opportunity to present their own plan and their own vision for a diversified economy, a well governed southern sudan, and the ability to attract real private investment. we expect that a broad range of donor partners at the world's multilateral institutions, and private partners and private companies will participate in that important meeting. in the north, we had a continued

dialogue on development issues, and we continue to work with the u.k. and norway on issues like debt relief and exploring what that might look like in the future. the norwegians have offered to host an investor conference for the north, and we certainly support that effort. most of our conversations in khartoum from the u.s. it goes a perspective focus on our for -- the usa's perspective focus on our for. asked for real progress in that area of work. we also asked for a real partnership to accelerate recovery efforts where safety and security is strong enough to allow for more diversified programming and allow for people to move out of camps and into local communities in a way that

is safe and productive, and we work with our range of implementing partners and ngo's to learn about some of the issues they are having and some of their really enterprising efforts to try to diversify their programming to allow for voluntary resettlement where that is possible. this was my second trip, following a trip that i may perhaps 10 months ago or so, and i came away very optimistic. especially with commitments that the southern sudanese have made to transparent governance, to having an integrated development strategy, to working with boehner partners and development partners in a coordinated way, and with a real desire to attract private investment as the core driver of wealth and wealth creation and employment in their economy. we look forward to working with ambassador comedy from the state, and with our partners in sudan to achieve those outcomes. thank you.

>> we are a little bit under two months out from city and its excel sedan declaring independence, and he said they are only just now getting back to the table with these outstanding issues. do you think they will be able to make the deadline to get the south of by the time south sudan becomes independent? secondly, on the khartoum's actions in darfur, we have had reports of air strikes being carried out against villagers. do you have expectations for them opening up behavior? >> what happened up until about two weeks ago or so is that what were called the cluster groups and sub cluster groups -- these are the technical negotiating committees -- had more or less completed their work and identified issues which had to

be settled at a higher political level -- level. that is what is beginning now, to take those issues, which need higher level political resolutions -- let me just give you some examples on the economic side, which are being taken up in the next two or three days. two of them relate to the oil sector. one is the amount of oil proceeds to the north during what is perceived to be a transition period before they lose most of their revenue from the south, but second is our problems of ownership of the pipeline and other complicated structural issues in how you run the oil sector when the countries divide. some of those are political- level positions and are being addressed. then there's the question of redemption of sudanese towns when the stock issues its own currency and how that is

handled. that needs to be addressed. and there are some remaining issues on division of assets, etc. so those are issues being taken up by a higher level of economic leaders. then, there are the political issues they will take up afterwards. mainly, borders. security. i think they are not engaged at the political level. they more or less finished all the technical work. on your second question, we are disturbed by the continued fighting. the security council had said that the government of sudan should not bomb, and when they do, it means civilians are affected and displaced and often killed. we have also urged the rebels to reach agreement on a cease-fire

or cessation of hostilities. so far, they have not been prepared to do so because both sides seem to feel that such an arrangement should only be part of a broader peace agreement. i find that somewhat frustrating, but that is the situation. in the meanwhile, the kind of fighting that took place recently is quite distressing. >> given that darfur was central to the u.s. proposal to khartoum about the road map for eventual normalization, is it safe to say that cannot proceed any further while the situation in darfur remains as it is now? frozen? >> it is not frozen. the road map pertains to progress under the cpa and the situation in darfur. as i mentioned, progress is going on, and there are negotiations going on in doha

which the government is participating in, on darfur. i would not at all say the situation is frozen, but how things play out in our offer is obviously relevant to how we proceed with the road map -- how things play out in darfur. >> i did not feel your answer the specific question, given the timelines we are facing. >> actually, i am optimistic for two reasons. i think for some of these issues, it is critical that they reach a decision by july 9 because on july 10, they will want the oil to function. they will want the borders, people to continue to be able to trade on the borders, etc. i do not think initiations will be easy, but i think there's a great deal of evidence to reaching the critical decisions that enable the two sides to go forward, so i am reasonably optimistic that it can be done.

>> you mentioned that you went with the other two ministers. in europe, there has been a tendency of the african countries asking your to develop infrastructure that can generate employment and democratic institution development. what is happening on that front? >> i think the conversation and the programs that are in place in southern sudan are a good example of the steps forward on that front. we are working together with a range of local construction firms and with the world food program to help build out road infrastructure and be a road infrastructure in particular to support the development of an agricultural economy. that is a joint effort between that states and the u.k. in factors like health and water, we are also working

together to address malaria, for example, which is the number one cause of death for children under the age of five in sudan, and doing that in partnership with the u.k. and norway so we have a coordinated effort about achieving real results. i think across the sectors and across our conversation, the conversation is very focused on the results we are trying to achieve and how we are going to accomplish a division of labor across our three countries partners in order to help southern sudan achieve those results, and that is really what they were asking for as well. they were welcoming eight in an orientation where it was about achieving real results in the agriculture sector, the health sector, education programs, and efforts like that. >> back in washington -- can i ask you a question for here? yesterday, the five democrats --

>> [inaudible] >> ok. >> ok, thank you. any further questions? >> there has been a number of reports suggesting that the northern economy might really be in trouble after separation. you have stressed with the u.s. is planning to do for the south. i wonder what the u.s. has in mind for the north. do you agree with those assessments? do you think they are looking at times? and can you talk about the debt relief proposals? are we closer to an understanding of how and when that might happen? >> i do believe that in the north, they will have important economic issues that require real leadership, and we discussed them in some detail. they need a more diversified economic space, particularly in southern parts of the north. they need to reinvest in agriculture, which continues to be the area of employment for 80% of the population in those

particular areas and communities, and they need to do that in a way that recognizes that trade with the south, whether in the agriculture sector or other sectors, is going to be a critical part of an economic strategy, just as for the south, trade with the north will continue to be quite important for their economic viability. we did have important conversations on this types of issues. it is important to recognize that together with the u.k. and norway, it is our expectation that the u.k. in particular will take the lead in engaging with the north on a set of development programs and projects. when it comes to issues like debt relief, u.s.-held debt is a very small proportion of the aggregate of the -- of the total aggregate debt. while those discussions are ongoing, it is really other country's leading the technical process. of course, the united states is part of the technical process with, i believe, our assistant secretary of treasury. either they are there now or

are under way soon to continue technical conversations on debt relief. >> can you give any sense of a time line? how long will this conversation is likely to take? >> i can just add a little bit to what the administrator said. it is an interesting insight into the negotiation process. one of the things that did occur at an earlier negotiation session was a tentative agreement between the north and south, how they would handle the debt issue in something called zero option in which the north assumes all the debt, but the south works with them to get international debt relief, and the international community does as well. there was a meeting at the world bank during the spring meetings, in which this was discussed, and the bank -- the african development bank are leading a technical effort, as administrator said, to gather

all the information, etc., that goes into a debt relief project. this is a complicated long-term process, reaching what is one of the critical stages in determining if sudan is eligible for heavily indebted for country's debt relief. it can take as much as two years, so that process has started, but it is a long, complicated process, but i really was struck by this tentative agreement, which is a very good win-win situation and the kind of thing we would like to see more in the negotiations. >> u.s. and india are parting together. are there any projects which both countries are working in sudan? >> not that i am aware of in sudan. there are specific projects in a number of other countries, but to keep this book is, i will not going to describing them now, but i will say that joint trilateral partnership is moving forward very effectively in a

number of other sub-saharan african countries. >> thank you. >> the pentagon last night confirmed that it is looking into claims of misappropriation by pakistan by sending helicopters to sedan which are meant for the fight against terrorism? have you received any requests to check on this? >> i'm sorry, i am not familiar with that. i will have to look into it. i was not familiar with that issue. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> senator john mccain, the ranking republican on the armed services committee, will be speaking about u.s.-middle east policy this evening at 6:00, ahead of a visit by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, who today rejected a key aspect of president obama's

mideast policy speech today. the prime minister saying a return to his country's 1967 borders would spell disaster for the jewish state. he called those 1967 lines indefensible. we will likely hear something about that this evening with john mccain at 6:00. ahead of that, the president's comments earlier today. those will be air at about 5:00 here for you on c-span. >> no one succeeds in life by themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others and, yes, love others. >> watch 2011 commencement speeches on c-span them with a weekend and surge more than 800 has commenced and addresses from politicians, activists, authors, and other world leaders and more online at the peabody award winning c-span video library where you can search, watch, click, and share every event we have covered from 1987 through today. it is washington your way.

>> now available, c-span is congressional directory. a complete guide to the first session of the 100 will congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments, and information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> the c-span network, providing coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites. and find our content anytime 3 c-span for the video library, and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content the hickel, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a

service. >> next, doctors at memorial from a hospital in houston provide a medical update on come was woman gabrielle giffords -- congresswomen. she underwent surgery to replace a piece of her school that was removed to relieve swelling after she was shot in the head in january -- replace a piece of her skull. the news briefing is about 25 minutes. >> good morning. i am the president and ceo of memorial herman health care system. we welcome you all. to this program is to bring you up-to-date on a surgical events of yesterday for congresswoman giffords. in the middle is dr. kim, the chairman of the department of of

theut health, and heat -- director of the department at ut held theory to his right is dr. francisco, chief medical officer of tear memorial hermann and the chair of the department of physical rehabilitation and medicine physicalut -- rehabilitation and medicine act -- at ut health. we are going to start off with dr. kim, updating you on yesterday's events. at the end of the group discussion, we will open it up for questions. >> good morning. yesterday was an important step in gaby's recovery. she had two procedures yesterday, and i will describe both to you. the first was a cranial plastique. then, she had a shot in place at

the same time. the cranial plastic was for this goal the fact. it was an implant we use, and this was something we had planned to door around this time. she had also developed a condition called mild hydrocephalus, which just means water in the head in latin. it is a condition that develops in many patients who had a brain injury. we produced daily clear fluid called several spinal fluid. that fluid is also absorbed on a daily basis, and when there is injury, that reabsorption can be partially clogged, like having a partially clogged drain. the fluid can build up, and that is something that can be treated with a shunt. because she did not have the

bone, that flow it was not causing her any problems because it was coming out under the cell, and she was recovering and proceeding with her rehabilitation. we waited until now to do these procedures for several reasons. first, we wanted to make sure there was no infection or other problems from the initial injury that can complicate putting in an implant. second, we wanted to see if they hydrocephalus or water in the head with resolve on its own because many times, it is temporary. when it became clear that it would not resolve, we felt that this was the optimal time, so she had the implants put in, and then, the shunt is a permanent, completely internalized system that goes into the fluid collection. it is entirely under the skin. it goes into the abdomen where

it is reabsorbed. you cannot see it from the outside, and many patients in the u.s. have sounds -- shunts. it is something you can have for the rest of your life, and it does not impede any thing. the procedure went well yesterday. she has woken up. we did not get didct -- we did not get a ct scan to check on how everything looked. the shunt and a plan are in good position, and everything looks great. at this point, we are starting bedside rehabilitation because she is so soon after surgery, we will start -- not stop the full rehabilitation probably for about two days. dr. francisco will talk about that. we are expecting she will be here until sometime next week, at which point, she will go back to the inpatient facility at

tiir memorial hermann. >> since she is doing so well, we agreed to start their day. when she goes back to tirr, we're going to do another reassessment and decide whether or not we're going to continue with a program that was interrupted by the surgery or maybe even upgraded. is not clear after these procedures that patients who received the shunt do even better. i am looking forward to that, and, hopefully, we can upgrade for rehabilitation program when she comes back this year. i am still overseeing her rehabilitation care even though she is here, and when she transitions back whentirr, dr.

-- when she transitions back to tirr, dr. kim will be in her care. >> what we open up for questions? >> [inaudible] there can be improvement. can you elaborate what kind of improvement and why would that be? >> because the fluid is pressing on certain parts of the brain. once the shunt release that fluid, there will be more chance for certain parts of the brain to heal. we cannot tell to what extent until she gets better, but i am optimistic that when she comes back next week, we expect to see changes rolled out to upgrade the rehabilitation program. that i can you say how long the surgery was yesterday?

>> from skin to skin, which means when you make an incision to when the closure was done, was about 3 1/2 hours. >> [inaudible] >> we talked about this, and he always said that he wanted her care to be at the optimal time and not to be around his shuttle schedule or any of his work issues. i just felt that this was the right time to do the procedure, and that is why we did it. >> you are talking about her rehabilitation. [inaudible] are we talking weeks, months, days? >> [inaudible] as i said earlier, i would like

the opportunity to reassess her when she comes back to tirr and over the course of the next several days or few weeks, we will decide what is best for her in a structure of the hospital. >> what part of the skull was replaced, what did you replace it with, how the procedure was done, that sort of thing. >> as you know from our prior conferences, about this much bone is removed to help relieve the swelling. we have two options, either to put the patient's bone back or to use an artificial implant. her role was in several pieces because of the kind of injury she suffered, and parts of it were contaminated with a bullet coming in, so there may be germs, so i did not want to take the chance of increasing the infection risk of the procedure.

because it was an implant either way, infection is a problem that we worry about. what happens when we are not going to use the patient goes a ong bone -- the patient's own bone, which obviously is model perfectly, we take a scan, and the computer can make and model that fits perfectly in the defect, and we place it on the model of the skull to make sure it fits, and when we go into surgery, it would be rare -- it has never happened in my experience with the implant is off and does not fit perfectly. it is a synthetic material. interestingly, it is porous. it is designed that way. over the next several months, her own bone cells will migrate into this porous material and will lay down calcium, so if in

two years, somebody gets a ct scan, you can see the new bone having formed. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> nobody is excited to go to surgery, but on tuesday, i mean, i can say she was very pleased that this step had come. we have been talking about that. this morning, she looked great. i started calling her gorgeous gabby today. she has not looked in the mirror yet, but as soon as she does, she will be very pleased. >> [inaudible]

>> if you have the bone flap up, you do not have to wear a helmet all the time, but whenever you are in a situation where you might fall or some kind of trauma can occur, you need to wear it. she does not need to wear the helmet any more, and since she came out of surgery, she has not won it, and we can start rehab again without needing to wear it. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> can you assess her progress and maybe tell us when you think she might be able to return to work? >> i'll start with that. if you think back to our first press conference here, we were talking about, you know, whether she was aware of her surroundings or whether she was out of her coma. it has only been about four months.

really, for a patient to come as far as she has in that time after the kind of injury she has had is almost miraculous. i mean, she has made tremendous progress. the rate of recovery is variable over time, and we cannot predict exactly how much more progress she is going to make going forward, so it would be very hard to say if and when she can return to work, but she has done very well so far, and we hope that progress continues. >> i'm sure you all saw the video of her ascending the steps last month. that was three or four weeks ago. she is recovering very nicely. that was three or four weeks ago, so just imagine what she can do now. she is doing very well. in terms of her condition, it has improved significantly. we are having more meaningful

conversations. she has cracked me up several times. she has made some jokes. we have had very good social conversations as well. for instance, returning to work, i agree with dr. kim. it is difficult at this juncture to make any guesses as to when she will go back to work. this is something we will reassess when she goes back to tirr and maybe even after her discharge. >> [inaudible] >> depends on what kind of walking activity we are doing. >> [inaudible] what would you mean by upgrade? what would you change? >> that depends on the changes we will see next week. we can either increase the level of difficulty, come up with activities.

>> can you tell us more about the shot? what is made up, when it is attached? we are trying to envision it. -- more about the shunt. >> if you look at a picture of our brain, and that is a cavity called a ventricle. that is where the fluid is. that fluid is generated inside and then flows around the brain, and it is reabsorbed on the outside of our brain. a shunt is a little too made a plastic that goes back for the brain right into the cavity, and it has holes on the end, and it comes through a very small hole in the skull, and is attached to a valve so that we can regulate how much fluid flows, and it has a pressure sensitive mechanism, so it only flows when the patient needs it. if her high persepolis -- if it

resolves itself in a few months, that the shot was set itself off, then a goes into the abdomen, and we can do the whole procedure with two little incisions -- one in the abdomen and one usually -- for her, it is right here behind the ear. then, we have a hollow tube that we can pass between the two incisions and once the tube is a cross, we can pass the catheter through an only take it out when it is entirely under the skin, so it is not visible. it is something that nobody would tell somebody has. patients often even forget they have that after a while, and we can change the setting now with a magnet without having to go back to surgery, and we can turn it off if we want. because of the valve, it will

regulate itself virtually. >> were you ever in contact with her husband directly? are you going for nasa? have you talked to him directly? >> yes, we have several times throughout the surgery. we talked about the possibility of all this before he went, so we have been able to communicate with him. he is aware of what is happening. >> i spoke with him once yesterday afternoon when the surgery was almost complete, and his brother spoke with him last before he went to bed yesterday. that was after the surgery was complete, so we were able to get the good news up to space. >> [inaudible] >> obviously, it is a big week for us, we knew going into this week that the surgery would be on wednesday, and she is excited. it marks a major milestone for

her. she hates the helmet. she tells us about it every day. someone wrote 5/17/11 on the top, as the final date. it was an exciting week for her. she has been looking forward to this for a while. >> talking about contamination, are there any bullet fragments still there? >> yes, there are. before we did the surgery, we did scanning to make sure there was nothing that could cause an infection. as a precaution, i also scanned her to make sure all the arteries were ok because that is something we do think about, and everything looked perfect. >> it was not much of a decision because the main thing we worry about with this surgery is the risk of infection.

on a per 100 patient basis, it is not that high, but it is much higher than other surgeries, and the reason is that we are putting in a large implant that blood does not flow into. if it does become infected, then we have to remove it, we have to clear it, and you have to put it back in, and it is weeks of hospitalization. mark did mention that to me. i said that it was hair, it would go back, and i want as little chance that we're going to have a problem as possible, so we ended up cutting everything up. it looks quite a few, if you ask me, and her hair will grow back evenly and soon. >> [inaudible] >> in general, it is about 1% or less in general. for this, it is several times higher. >> a couple more questions, and th w