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 retees. 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 areut 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 le 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. gues 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 wi 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 ant. we get to go at it in the class. host: have you talked to paul ryan or john boehner? how are they both doin guest: i think they are both doing great. this is not easy stuff. you have to give pau 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 i, the day is going to come when markets react

and things start going downhill very quickly. everything the government 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. wiscsin 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 ra. they have some solid attributes ansome solid bases. allen's oblem 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 vots -- 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 cod 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 t 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 present. 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 interestn 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 insance. 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 yr current account and your budget iyou 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 nobe 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 arep.

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. mitch daniels would be an excellent president. 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'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. ifou 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. gues 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 instream 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, >> we will continue the conversation on the obama's middle east speech on tomorrow's "washington journal". we will be joined by a former negotiator from the state department. and we will be joined by somebody who issued a report on u.s. needs. later, we will be joined by dr.

jeffrey runge. we will talk about chemical and biological attacks. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern. president obama today gave a speech on the middle east and outlined the role of democracy in the region. the president's remarks are next. we will also hear john mccain talk about middle east policy. later, we will hear about the challenges facing the u.s. intelligence community. >> you are watching c-span bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal" connecting u.s. politicians. weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, policy forum's.

on the weekends, you can hear our signature interview programs. we have "q&a" and prime minister's questions. you can watch us online anytime at c-span.org. it is always searchable. c-span, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> president obama laid out his vision for the u.s. in the middle east. he says he supports democracies across the region. he urged the israelis and palestinians. we will first hear brief comments from the -- are from hillary clinton. his remarks are about 50 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> thank you and welcome to the state department. i am delighted to be here to welcome the president as well as our colleagues, senator kerry and senior officials from across our government and especially the many young foreign service and civil servants that are here today. mr. president, from your first days in office, you have charged us with implementing a bold new approach for america's foreign- policy. a new blueprint for how we advance our values, strengthen our leadership, and move on.

in a changing world, america's leadership is more essential than ever. we often must lead in new and innovative ways. mr. president, these foreign service officers and these civil servants, the men and women of the civil service work every day to translate your vision into real results. results on the ground in nearly every country in the world. the work we have done to provide them with the tools and resources they need to perform their mission is so important. it is why we need to keep making the case for those resources. alongside our colleagues in the defense department, american diplomats and experts at the state department and usaid are on the frontlines of advancing america's interests and projecting our values.

as the wave of change continues to sweep across the middle east and north africa, they are carrying our diplomacy and development far beyond the embassy walls. engaging in the streets and social networks as they seek to move from protests to politics. and working to create new economic opportunities and with transitional leaders trying to build the institution of genuine democracy. they represent the best of america. i am so proud to have them as our face to the world. mr. president, it is fitting that you chose to come to the state department to speak about the dramatic changes we have witnessed around the world this year. it is on the wall of this historic benjamin franklin room is the portrait of the leader of tunis given in 1865 given by the people of tunisia given as a

friendship to our nation after our civil war. courageous citizens from across the region have given the world another gift, a new opening to work together for democracy and dignity, for peace and opportunity. these are the values that made america a great nation. they do not belong to us alone. they are truly universal. it is profoundly in our interest that more people in more places claimed them as their own. this moment belongs to the people of the middle east and north africa. they have seized control of their destiny and will make the choices that determine how their futures unfold. for america, this is a moment that calls out for a clear vision, principles, and a sophisticated understanding of the indispensable role our

country can and must play in the world. those have been the hallmarks of president obama's leadership from his first day in office. it is with great confidence and faith in our future that i welcome the president of united states, barack obama. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. please, have a seat. thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking hillary clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark -- one million frequent flyer miles.

i count on hillary every single day and i believe that she will go down as one of the finest secretaries of state in our nation's history. the state department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in american diplomacy. for six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the middle east and north africa. square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. two leaders have stepped aside. more may follow. and though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith. today, i want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and how we can

respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. now, already, we've done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. after years of war in iraq, we've removed 100,000 american troops and ended our combat mission there. in afghanistan, we've broken the taliban's momentum and this july we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to afghan lead. and after years of war against al qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, osama bin laden. bin laden was no martyr. he was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate -- an insistence that muslims had to

take up arms against the west, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. he rejected democracy and individual rights for muslims in favor of violent extremism -- his agenda focused on what he could destroy -- not what he could build. bin laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. but even before his death, al qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. by the time we found bin laden, al qaeda's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the middle east and north africa had taken their future into their own

hands. that story of self-determination began six months ago in tunisia. on december 17th, a young vendor named mohammed bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. this was not unique. it's the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -- the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. only this time, something different happened. after local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire. there are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because

they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. in america, think of the defiance of those patriots in boston who refused to pay taxes to a king, or the dignity of rosa parks as she sat courageously in her seat. so it was in tunisia, as that vendor's act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. and in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home -- day after day, week after week -- until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power. the story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. the nations of the middle east and north africa won their independence long ago, but in

too many places their people did not. in too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. in too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -- no honest judiciary to hear his case -- no independent media to give him voice -- no credible political party to represent his views -- no free and fair election where he could choose his leader. and this lack of self- determination -- the chance to make your life what you will -- has applied to the region's economy as well. yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. but in a global economy based on knowledge, based on innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground.

nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe. in the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere. the west was blamed as the source of all ills, a half- century after the end of colonialism. antagonism toward israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else. but the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. satellite television and the internet provide a window into

the wider world -- a world of astonishing progress in places like india and indonesia and brazil. cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. and so a new generation has emerged. and their voices tell us that change cannot be denied. in cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, "it's like i can finally breathe fresh air for the first time." in sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, "the night must come to an end." in benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, "our words are free now. it's a feeling you can't explain." in damascus, we heard the young man who said, "after the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity."

those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. and through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades. of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. in our day and age -- a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication -- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. but it will be years before this story reaches its end. along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days. in some places, change will be swift -- in others, gradual. and as we've already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

the question before us is what role america will play as this story unfolds. for decades, the united states has pursued a set of core interests in the region -- countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region, standing up for israel's security and pursuing arab- israeli peace. we will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that america's interests are not hostile to people's hopes -- they're essential to them. we believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al qaeda's brutal attacks. we believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. as we did in the gulf war, we

will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners. yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the united states pursues our interests at their expense. given that this mistrust runs both ways -- as americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -- a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the united states and the arab world.

and that's why, two years ago in cairo, i began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. i believed then -- and i believe now -- that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self- determination of individuals. the status quo is not sustainable. societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder. so we face a historic opportunity. we have the chance to show that america values the dignity of the street vendor in tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. there must be no doubt that the

united states of america welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. but after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be. of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. it's not america that put people into the streets of tunis or cairo -- it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it's the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome. not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long- term vision for the region.

but we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles -- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months. the united states opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. [applause] the united states supports a set of universal rights. and these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -- whether you live in baghdad or damascus, sanaa or tehran. and we support political and economic reform in the middle east and north africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout

the region. our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. today i want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal. let me be specific. first, it will be the policy of the united states to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. that effort begins in egypt and tunisia, where the stakes are high -- as tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and egypt is both a longstanding partner and the arab world's largest nation. both nations can set a strong example through free and fair

elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership. but our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place. unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence. the most extreme example is libya, where muammar qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats. as i said when the united states joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force -- no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

but in libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the libyan people's call for help. had we not acted along with our nato allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. the message would have been clear -- keep power by killing as many people as it takes. now, time is working against qaddafi. he does not have control over his country. the opposition has organized a legitimate and credible interim council. and when qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic libya can proceed. while libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it's not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to

remain in power. most recently, the syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. the united states has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the syrian regime -- including sanctions announced yesterday on president assad and those around him. the syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. president assad now has a choice -- he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. the syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. it must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. it must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like dara'a, and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.

otherwise, president assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad. so far, syria has followed its iranian ally, seeking assistance from tehran in the tactics of suppression. and this speaks to the hypocrisy of the iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home. let's remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. we still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of tehran. the image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory.

and we will continue to insist that the iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations. now, our opposition to iran's intolerance and iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. but if america is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with change that's consistent with the principles that i've outlined today. that's true in yemen, where president saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. and that's true today in bahrain.

bahrain is a longstanding partner, and we are committed to its security. we recognize that iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of bahrain's citizens, and we will -- and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. the only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. [applause] the government must create the

conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all bahrainis. indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. in iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. the iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they've taken full responsibility for their own security. of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. but iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. and as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner. so in the months ahead, america must use all our influence to

encourage reform in the region. even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. our message is simple -- if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the united states. we must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future -- particularly young people. we will continue to make good on the commitments that i made in cairo -- to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil

society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths. and we will use the technology to connect with -- and listen to -- the voices of the people. for the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. we will support open access to the internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -- whether it's a big news organization or a lone blogger. in the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens. such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview.

let me be clear, america respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. and sometimes we profoundly disagree with them. we look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. what we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities. such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. in tahrir square, we heard egyptians from all walks of life chant, "muslims, christians, we are one."

america will work to see that this spirit prevails -- that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. in a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. and for this season of change to succeed, coptic christians must have the right to worship freely in cairo, just as shia must never have their mosques destroyed in bahrain. what is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. history shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. and that's why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -- by focusing assistance on

child and maternal health, by helping women to teach, or start a business, by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. the region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential. [applause] now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can't stop there. so the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy. after all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets.

the tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change. throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas. the greatest untapped resource in the middle east and north africa is the talent of its people. in the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. it's no coincidence that one of the leaders of tahrir square was an executive for google. that energy now needs to be

channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. for just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity. so, drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to focus on trade, not just aid, on investment, not just assistance. the goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. america's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global

economy. and we're going to start with tunisia and egypt. first, we've asked the world bank and the international monetary fund to present a plan at next week's g8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of tunisia and egypt. together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. and we are urging other countries to help egypt and tunisia meet its near-term financial needs. second, we do not want a democratic egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. so we will relieve a democratic egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. we will help egypt regain access to markets by

guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. and we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen. third, we're working with congress to create enterprise funds to invest in tunisia and egypt. and these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in eastern europe after the fall of the berlin wall. opic will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. and we will work with the allies to refocus the european bank for reconstruction and development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the middle east and north africa as it has in europe. fourth, the united states will launch a comprehensive trade and investment partnership initiative in the middle east and north africa. if you take out oil exports,

this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as switzerland. so we will work with the eu to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with u.s.and european markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. and just as eu membership served as an incentive for reform in europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the middle east and north africa. prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -- the corruption of elites who steal from their people, the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business, the patronage that

distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. we will help governments meet international obligations, we will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts at anti- corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable. politics and human rights, economic reform. let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace. for decades, the conflict between israelis and arabs has cast a shadow over the region. for israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a

bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. for palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the middle east, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people. for over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. yet expectations have gone unmet. israeli settlement activity continues.

palestinians have walked away from talks. the world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate. indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now. i disagree. at a time when the people of the middle east and north africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. that's certainly true for the two parties involved. for the palestinians, efforts to delegitimize israel will end in

failure. symbolic actions to isolate israel at the united nations in september won't create an independent state. palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. and palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of israel to exist. as for israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. our commitment to israel's security is unshakeable. and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. but precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth -- the status quo is unsustainable, and israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

the fact is, a growing number of palestinians live west of the jordan river. technology will make it harder for israel to defend itself. a region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -- not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. the international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. the dream of a jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation. now, ultimately, it is up to the israelis and palestinians to take action. no peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the united states, not by anybody else. but endless delay won't make the problem go away. what america and the

international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples -- israel as a jewish state and the homeland for the jewish people, and the state of palestine as the homeland for the palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. so while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear -- a viable palestine, a secure israel. the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent palestinian borders with israel, jordan, and egypt, and permanent israeli borders with palestine. we believe the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

the palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. as for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. the full and phased withdrawal of israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized

state. and the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. these principles provide a foundation for negotiations. palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state -- israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. i'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain -- the future of jerusalem, and the fate of palestinian

refugees. but moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both israelis and palestinians. now, let me say this -- recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. in particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between fatah and hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for israel -- how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? and in the weeks and months to come, palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. meanwhile, the united states, our quartet partners, and the

arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse. i recognize how hard this will be. suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. but i'm convinced that the majority of israelis and palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. we see that spirit in the israeli father whose son was killed by hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together israelis and palestinians who had lost loved ones. that father said, "i gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict." we see it in the actions of a palestinian who lost three daughters to israeli shells in gaza. "i have the right to feel angry," he said.

"so many people were expecting me to hate. my answer to them is i shall not hate. let us hope," he said, "for tomorrow." that is the choice that must be made -- not simply in the israeli-palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -- a choice between hate and hope, between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. it's a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it's a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife. for all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. in egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. in syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, "peaceful, peaceful." in benghazi, a city threatened

with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist. for the american people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved.

and i would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union -- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation -- "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the middle east and north africa -- words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. it will not be easy. there's no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. but the united states of america was founded on the

belief that people should govern themselves. and now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] thank you. ♪

>> the president said the futures for a palestinian state should be based on the 1967 borders. it is withrders said

jobs and leave them vulnerable. he will be in washington yesterday. >> remarks on john mccain in the middle east. he talks about the death of osama bin laden and the death in libya and syria. his york's at the u.s. institute of peace. -- his remarks at the u.s. institute of peace. >> i want to welcome me to our home. we have been here a little over two months here. we are getting a feeling for some of the remarkable thing she can do. this great hall has a resonance which moves as of late great deal. there is a children's choir up

on the other bridge their the same to the construction people who built this place. this is a remarkable piece of architecture. they are getting paid overtime for the work that they do. we want to think the navy. it is very inspiring. this is the first lecture in its permanent headquarters. a series of presentations was conceded by a board member. unfortunately, i cannot be with us today. want to recognize our vice chair. we are pleased in be with us. they are especially indebted to the u.s. navy for their

generosity. it is the side of the first observatory. in 1996 i approached the secretary of the navy and acquired about whether we can build a facility at this site. the secretary said the institute can keep us out of just one of war and it will have more than justify the deal. they fell a deep obligation. they are filling a congressional chart. it is the focus on resolving international conflicts by

political means. since the creation in 1984, you can be an active and productive partner. this includes the u.s. navy. they are working on the grounds. our efforts are redeploying while leaving behind most -- more stable political environment.

we held the two communities develop ground rules. the institute is active on the ground. they are working with political groups and reformers on issues and in coalition building. this has occurred recently. it prevents the need to prevent military forces. an example or we cannot say preventive action makes an option. these are few examples.

the praise the most frequently associated with the dean acheson is with the creation. he served the administration and that transition time from world war ii to the offset of the cold war. he helped create key institutions and institute policies that got us the the confrontation. we need leaders of the foresight

to help us create and adapt our policies. our keynote speaker continues to provide such expired the decision. the service is exceptional. to almost three decades in congress. he understands first chance the power and uses and limitations of america's military is. he understands the importance of diplomacy for peace building efforts. he understands the importance of political reconciliation that was so evident. today one of our greatest foreign-policy challenges this figure it out how to deal with

the shaking turmoil in the portable transitions now under way. we are truly honored to have senator mccain speak to us. does senator mccain? >> thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you for that kind introduction. it is always wonderful to see them. i think many of the main note that i have two sons. one is a navy pilot. another was enlisted in the

marine corps. there is a certain amount of competition between the navy and the court. the marine corps is part of the department of the navy. my other son was not amused. i want to thank you for your leadership. i appreciate the work. they help prevent conflict that is directly relevant of our men and women in uniform.

it is impossible to upstage any president especially one as elegant -- eloquent as president obama. there is a far higher estimation of my speech baking prowess. it is a far lower estimation of the judgment. one thing i think we can all agreement is a less certainly got the nicer than me. -- the new -- venue. [applause] i am deeply honored to have the opportunity to deliver the lecture. i am a great admirer. i'm not supposed to have any kind words for him.

here is how he described his interactions to congress. in making our calls, we learned to bear with more than patients as a precious time. they did not suffer fools badly. a lot of things change. some things never change. i am honored to speak with you this year on the tin -- on the 10th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. osama bin laden will not be around to mark the occasion. the president deserves the credit he is the cheating. this took real courage.

the risk of failure were high. decision spare many innocent lives. it gave us the certainty. this is a major setback. it is another development that could prove to be the real debt float. this uprising for freedom and justice has swept across the middle east and north africa this year. perhaps the most remarkable thing is that it is not about us. it is often filled with outrage. i cannot recall seeing one american or israeli firm.

these demonstrations have been a cut still demand for human dignity. in this way, the arab spring is the profoundest repudiation imaginable of everything osama bin laden ever stood for. it should also put to rest the ugly claim, heard all too often over the past decade, that the arab world is somehow condemned to despotism -- that unlike people everywhere else, arabs are not ready, not capable, or not fit for democracy. though we did not initiate it or lead it, the arab spring should be a clarifying event for the united states. it is now clear that, in the decade since the september 11 attacks, the old regional order in the middle east has been in a steady state of collapse. and now, many of the last remaining pillars have either fallen or are badly shaken. this should certainly give us pause.

if history teaches us anything, it is that revolutionary moments like this one always have the seeds of chaos and conflict sewn within them. and indeed, we can already see the dark forces of sectarian strife, religious radicalism, and rapacious regional powers lurking in the background, eager to exploit this hopeful moment for their own sinister ends. we cannot be paralyzed by this tectonic change. instead, we must work to shape it. in the last few months, i have visited nine countries in the middle east and north africa, in addition to israel and the west bank. among the many democracy advocates and young revolutionaries i have met, there is definitely a degree of skepticism, even a certain amount of anger, toward the united states. many of them believe that we stuck too long with the rulers

they were trying to overthrow. but this does not mean that they want america to be neutral or non-aligned. to the contrary, they want american leadership, and they want us on their side, and for their cause -- not dictating to them, but supporting them and assisting them. i believe this arab spring is the most consequential geopolitical event since the end of the cold war, perhaps since the fall of the ottoman empire. and it is an opportunity. it is an opportunity for the united states to better align our interests and our values in a region where they have often diverged. it is an opportunity to rebuild the bipartisan consensus that existed in this country just a few years ago: that promoting human rights and democracy in the middle east is not only in our moral interest, but also in our strategic interest. just as dean acheson joined forces with senator arthur vandenberg to solidify the cold

war consensus of containing communism and supporting free peoples, this is a moment that calls for similar national unity. this is a moment when we must clearly define what we stand for, not just what we are against. in short, this is a moment when america must lead. the question for us now is, what will be the contours of the new regional order in the middle east? and how can we support our friends and allies in building it? i would submit to you that we should focus our efforts on four strategic objectives. the first objective is the peaceful change of regimes that are irreconcilably tyrannical, anti-american, and hostile to the democratic regional order that we seek to build. put simply, these are regimes that are incompatible with a freer, more peaceful middle east.

and at the top of the list is the current government of iran. it should be clear for all to see that the iranian regime has no plans to bargain away its nuclear weapons programs. furthermore, it is using this threatening pursuit to further its hegemonic ambitions in the region. iran operates a network of terrorist proxies and military- intelligence forces that use every means at their disposal to destabilize our friends, disrupt democratic transitions, and stoke sectarian conflict. though the arab spring is a repudiation of iran's goals and could serve as a check on its power, iran is doubling its

efforts to sew chaos at this critical time. that is why our strategy should be to squeeze iran through the toughest sanctions we can muster, set back its nuclear progress as much as possible, and speed up the moment when the green movement inside iran is able to peacefully change the regime. in addition to iran there is syria. now, i know some have entertained the belief that bashar al assad is a reformer. but at this point, with assad's tanks, and artillery, and shock troops terrorizing cities across the countryafter countless peaceful dissidents have been detained and disappearedwith the assad regime soliciting counsel in oppression from the rulers of iranand with the death toll in syria now closing in on one thousand civilians, to believe despite all of this that bashar al assad is a reformer is an exercise in gross self- deception. lest we forget, this is a regime that has the blood of hundreds of u. s.

troops and countless iraqi civilians on its handsthat serves as the main gateway for iranian influence and weapons into the levantthat is a major state sponsor of hamas and hezbollah in the regionthat has sought to develop nuclear weapons before and may be doing so again now. . . and that is seeking to divert attention away from its own internal unrest by fomenting attacks on israel's borders. for those worried about whom or what might follow assad, i would just ask: how can it be worse? indeed, the strategic impact of regime change in syria could be enormous: it could blunt iran's reach into the levant, remove a long-standing threat to israel, diminish hezbollah's access to money and arms, and reinforce lebanon's independence. we must do all that we can, short of military action, to help the syrian revolution succeed. i commend the president for imposing additional sanctions

on top syrian officials, including assad himself. and i would urge the administration to continue ratcheting up the pressure, in concert with the eu and turkey. the president should also call publicly for assad to go, just as he did with mubarak and qaddafi. finally, we must seek regime change in libya, which may not be the stated intent of nato's military intervention, but it is certainly furthering that goal, as it should. what i would like us to do differently is move away from an incremental escalation of pressure on qaddafi in favor of a more decisive course of action. that is why i have called for getting america's unique strike aircraft back into the fight to degrade qaddafi's war machine and destroy his command and control. that is why i have urged the administration to recognize the transitional national council

in benghazi as the legitimate voice of the libyan people. and that is why i want to see a greater u. s. role in providing support to the opposition, including money and the facilitation of arms. in fact, my colleagues and i will soon finalize legislation to transfer billions of dollars in qaddafi's frozen assets to the libyan opposition. nonetheless, i still hear it said that we shouldn't do any of this because we don't know who the opposition is -- and that they could be al-qaeda. this is just willful ignorance. i visited benghazi last month, where i met with the opposition. their prime minister got a doctorate at the university of pittsburgh. their finance minister was recently teaching economics in seattle. some are former members of qaddafi's government who broke with him when he began slaughtering the libyan people.

others are lawyers, doctors, women activists who fought qaddafi in the courts, and young libyan-americans who have returned to help. if these people are al-qaeda, my friends, then i am a liberal democrat. but one thing is for certain: the surest way to get al-qaeda in libya is through a stalemate. ultimately, my trip to benghazi left me optimistic about the future of a free libya. an amazing experiment in homegrown civil society is occurring in the liberated parts of the country. media outlets, political associations, police forces, and other institutions are being built from scratch. qaddafi has left the country little in the way of authoritarian institutions to dismantle and much in the way of frozen assets, more than $100 billion in total, to pay for future reconstruction. all of this makes me hopeful that libya is well positioned

for a democratic transition, which is all the more reason to increase our efforts to get qaddafi out as quickly as possible. as we work to support democratic revolutions in iran, syria and libya, our second objective should be to consolidate democratic transitions in countries where they have already begun, especially in tunisia and egypt. tunisia is where the arab spring started, and thus it is strategically important for democracy to succeed there. and egypt, of course, is the heart and soul of the arab world. for egypt to emerge as a successful democracy would be a game-changer in the middle east. it would become the anchor of stability in an entirely new kind of regional order. not surprisingly, both tunisia and egypt have significant challenges to overcome in their democratic transitions. both countries have a huge amount of work to do if they are to hold free, fair, inclusive

and competitive elections in a few months -- the stakes of which are vitally important as a benchmark of democratic progress. both countries are facing an explosion of political activity -- tunisia, i'm told, now has 63 registered parties -- which will make it harder for secular groups to compete with better- organized religious ones. finally, both countries are facing serious short-term economic difficulties as a result of their revolutions. their tourism sectors have been shocked. when senator lieberman and i visited tunis in february, we stayed in a huge hotel, and we were the only ones there. similarly, when i visited the pyramids a few weeks ago in cairo, the place was deserted. it is the economies of these

countries that will largely determine their political fortunes. expectations in tunisia and egypt are sky high. everyone expects the benefits of democracy to come quickly and all at once. and many fear what will happen if these expectations are not met. as one women's rights activist told me in tunisia: 'it is not the first election we worry about, it is the second election. '" these young people appreciate our assistance with their elections, but what they want most from america is our investment, our support in creating jobs. for this reason, i strongly support the new economic assistance initiatives that the president announced today -- from debt forgiveness, to the announcement of free enterprise funds, to the proposed expansion of the european bank for reconstruction and development.

i have worked with senator kerry to draft the authorizing legislation for many of these new initiatives, and they can make an important difference. but ultimately, no one should expect this congress to pass a marshall plan for the middle east. these new members were elected to cut spending, not to increase foreign assistance. like it or not, that's just a fact. so if we are to going to help countries like tunisia and egypt to grow their economies, we will need to be much more innovative. we should move urgently to begin negotiations on free trade agreements with egypt and tunisia -- and to explore ideas for new free trade areas in the middle east and north africa. we will need to find creative ways to marshal the support of our private sector, as well as the generosity of wealthy partners like qatar, whose leadership during the arab spring has been indispensible. it is in this spirit that i will be teaming up with jeff immelt of ge to lead a

delegation of american ceos to egypt and tunisia next month. our goal is to reinforce the message that greater democratic reform can lead to greater foreign investment. beyond tunisia and egypt, there is another country that can and should continue to emerge as a pillar of stability in a democratic middle east -- iraq. i traveled to baghdad, irbil, and kirkuk two weeks ago, and iraq's democratic system continues to take two steps forward and one step back. but it is largely going in the right direction. the key decision now is whether we will keep a small military presence in the country beyond this year. the goal of such a presence would be to help the iraqi security forces fill critical gaps in their capabilities, such as intelligence, air sovereignty, and stability operations along the arab-kurd fault line. i'm confident that we can reach a new security agreement with iraq -- and that this can be a

cornerstone in its continued development as an example that people of different faiths and ethnicities can live together in peace in the heart of the middle east. the third objective i would propose is perhaps the hardest of all -- for it involves urging some of our most important security partners, governments that share our strategic interests but not always our democratic values, to embrace evolutionary reforms as a means of stabilizing their countries. if the arab spring teaches us anything, it should be this: when people have no voice in their political systems, their demands will only grow more radical, and eventually they will take these grievances into the streets. though it is difficult for regimes with long habits of control to be begin loosening their grip on power, i believe there is no sustainable

alternative to such a process of evolutionary reform. ultimately, this is the best way to stabilize their regimes, protect our interests, and enhance our partnership. some of our friends have embraced this fundamental bargain. the king of jordan, the king of morocco, the sultan of oman, and the emir of qatar have all laid out forward-looking reform agendas, and the challenge for them is following through on the painstaking but essential work of implementation. some of our other close friends, however, are in a more challenging position. in bahrain, rather than further crackdowns on the shia population, which inflame sectarian tensions across the region, the kingdom might consider initiating new political reforms unilaterally, which can begin moving the country to a constitutional monarchy. the united states is fully

committed to our partnership with the kingdom of bahrain, as well as its gulf neighbors, but we want them to stay on the right side of history in their countries -- because that is where the united states must, and will, remain. the final objective we must pursue is the vision of two states, israel and palestine, living side by side in peace and security. to be sure, the realization of this vision has gotten more complicated with the recent reconciliation between fatah and hamas. there are still a lot of questions to be answered about the composition and platform of this unity government. but whatever the outcome, a palestinian unity government must state unequivocally that it recognizes the existence of israel -- because the end of the conflict, the end of the occupation, and the creation of a palestinian state will only come as a result of negotiations between the parties, not unilateral declarations at the

un. though the arab spring has not been about israel, there are those, like syria and iran, that want to make it about israel, in order to distract attention from their own failings. i worry how a stalled or a deteriorating situation between palestinians and israelis might play in the new democratic politics of the middle east, and i will be eager to hear from prime minister netanyahu when he is in town next week. the four objectives i have suggested tonight -- changing anti-american regimes, consolidating new democracies, reform in pro-american autocracies, and renewing israel-palestinian peace efforts -- could form the basis of a new regional order in the middle east, one that is beneficial to our interests, aligned with our values, and consistent with the aspirations of people across the region. however, there is need for some straight talk: even under the

best circumstances, a democratic middle east is going to be a very different and more challenging place to navigate than the region we have been accustomed to. this is how a jordanian official whom i met in amman described the difference: 'for years,' he said, 'the united states has paid wholesale for its policy in the middle east. now you will have to pay retail. '" engaging in retail politics in a democratic middle east and north africa will not be easy. we will confront new political actors, particularly islamists, who are not inclined to do us any favors and who would prefer to keep america at arms length. many of these new political actors will be hostile to our interests and at times our values. but through it all, we should judge future governments in this region not by the nature of the people and groups that compose them, but based on their actions and policies -- do they respect the universal rights of all of their people, do they abide by the rule of law, do they uphold democratic practices and processes, do they honor their

international agreements, do they foster peace and security? ultimately, a more democratic middle east and north africa will be one in which countries are more willing to go their own way, to do their own thing, to reject our advice and protestations. and we cannot change that. but the important thing is, those will be their decisions. they will have a choice in the matter. it is the people of the broader middle east who will at last be determining their own destiny. we may not like the decisions that free peoples will make, but we must recognize that it is this freedom, this dignity to

choose and govern oneself, that is the true source of lasting stability in the world and the ultimate remedy for violent radicalism. if there is any consolation in the fact that osama bin laden lived as long as he did, it is that he got to witness the beginning of the new era that he fought so hard to destroy. he got to witness his fellow arabs and muslims -- the very people he tried so hard to convert to his twisted way of thinking -- rising up by the millions to reclaim their dignity and seize justice for themselves, not through mass murder and self-destruction, but through political freedom, economic opportunity, and peaceful democratic change. this could be the death knell for the brand of global terrorism that attacked us ten years ago, and i for one am happy that osama bin laden got to hear it -- just before a team of american heroes ended his wretched life.

[applause] >> we are deeply appreciative. as a modest token of our appreciation, this is a day of putting something on your wall. thank you very much. thank you ford joining with us today. -- for joining with us today. [applause]

>> we will continue the conversation on president obama 's speech tomorrow. wheat and joining by the spinning department. -- we are joined by the state department. the recently issued a report on this. later, the security for health affairs. we will talk about defending against chemical and biological ones.

this is a morning. the former director of national intelligence talks about some of the challenges they face. later, they speak on a medical update. >> follow the house and senate. there is a comprehensive resource. it makes it easy to find information about your elected officials. video of house and senate fashion. next, dennis blair testifies but

u.s. intelligence operations. there were to fail -- two failed terrorist plots. this committee hearing chaired by senator joe lieberman is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> this is our second hearing. this is part of a series of hearings that is convening this year.

we explored a variety of issues. we are focused on any single issue. they have the authority is needed to feed our strong intelligence community. we are honored to have with this the director of national intelligence. he is had an exemplary career. this is before he overtook the production in one of washington's most challenging jobs.

he is uniquely qualified to help us answer the questions we have about how they have performed. it is keeping with the lifetime of service to our country. i thank you for being here today. it is the act of 2004. no one is in charge of it. it resulted in dysfunction. the nature of the threat has changed.

it is a cyber threat to our security. our intention was that it would bring the necessary demand and efforts to our team agencies. we come together to ask this. do they have the authority to lead the intelligence committee? they have the need for intelligence.

these are the overarching questions that i hope we will have the opportunity to pose. >> the operation that attracting killed osama bin laden demonstrates the kind of successful collaboration between our intelligence and the operational capacity that we envisioned. this was undoubtedly a great victory. the fact remains that al qaeda and other terrorist threats are not going away. that is why it is time for

congress to build upon the intelligence reform that bill created the director of national intelligence. it is the 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 d.n.i., what didn't work and what might be changed about the structure that we designed seven years ago. i would note with great pride that admiral blair is a fellow mainer hailing from kittery. coming from a great navy town or following five generations of

naval officers, perhaps pre-ordained his career. we all hope that he has what we call a great navy day here as we hear from him about his experiences as the d.n.i. as well as his recommendations now with the benefit of actual experience and 20-20 behindsight. almost 10 years since september 11 and seven years since our landmark legislation we are safer as a nation but not yet safe. our intelligence community is stronger and more effective than ever before, but plenty of turf battles remain. during his tenure, admiral blair was at the center of some public dispute with the c.i.a. to help address lynnering deficiencies in the intelligence community, the d.n.i. must be the quarterback that the 9/11

commission envisioned and that we intended. at last week's hearing, general hayden performed the term coach. i will be interested to hear whether or not admiral blair believes the d.n.i. has been empowered to fill this critical role regardless of what you call it. at the first hearing in this series, the leaders of the 9/11 commission, governor kane and congressman hamilton agreed that presidential visor john brennan is performing the role we envisioned for the d.n.i. when we enacted the law. not any doubt to mr. brennan's capabilities but because that choice, that structure undermines the statutory role of the d.n.i. we must ask therefore, the fundamental question, are

changes in the law required in order to realize the potential of the d.n.i. or is this simply a mat every of more -- matter of more fidelity to the law? i look forward to hearing your testimony. thanks for being here. >> admiral blair, it's all yours. thanks for being here.

>> as we celebrate the brave work of those who found and attacked osama bin laden in his hideout, now is a similar time for both laws to make this nation's intelligence enterprise more effective than it is. as i look to our future national security challenges and opportunities, i'm convinced that we need an intelligence community that operates under authorities that are relevant to the future, not to the past and intelligence community that is organized on a rational basis and 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 d.n.i. but i was reluctant to appear publicly before this committee that my comments would be miscast as sour grapes but the imperative of integrated

intelligence community should transcend politics and permits. we should have the best intelligence. let me use the rest of my time to highlight the improvements that i believe are still needed. the objective is to make the structure, the structure of the intelligence community worthy of its people whether in the c.i.a., f.b.i., d.e.a., service intelligence organizations along with the other seven intelligence elements of our government, these heroes, these people who are in that organization are every bit dedicated, patriotic and skilled as a member of the armed forces and first responders that make us proud. we owe them integrated leadership. let me run down areas where i think we can do more. first, organization. right now the department of

defense and the intelligence community conduct operations together under separate authorities. to be effective under dangerous adversaries, a new title is needed to authorize joint task forces that can bring both organizations under unified direction. we need a title 60. right now the structure of the central intelligence agency, one of the most important of the agencies is one organization that collects human intelligence and conducts covert operations and another organization that provides all sorts of intelligence analysis of which the greatest proportion is provided by the n.s.a., a different agency. but the skills, procedures, competencies and cultures of these two suborganizations are different and co-locations yields major disadvantages. i recommended that the c.i.a. be

broke into a annual lit call agency and a clandestine service. each reporting separately to the director of national intelligence and i recommend some elements of the defense intelligence agency perform analysis on one hand human intelligence on the other hand and be added to those two new agencies. moving to authorities, current legislation and constitutional precedence has little application to the information age and the efforts to adapt them have been 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 dock and --.com and .gov domains.

we need to protect these vital systems. right now there is no legislation that authorizes offensive cyber operations by the united states against enemies that use the internet to threaten american lives and property. bomb making devices, drug cartels use the internet to arrange deliveries of drugs, purchase weapons. nations are making cyber plans that threaten vital interests. these are carried out on american internet servers or there is a possibility of collateral damage or because an illegal action has not occurred, the united states has no action in current law for quick action against these threats. the country needs legislation. it should include limitations related to the proportionality and needs oversight mechanisms

and provide a basis for action commensurate with the threat. the authority of the d.n.i. within the intelligence community. the intent was clear and you have both stated and i believe it was correct, the intelligence community needs a leader, integrator not a coordinator. the intelligence community does not self-synchronize, first organizations do. the white house has neither the staff nor the time to lead it and approves misguided schemes as the country has learned to its sorrow in past instances. the authority of the congress intended for the d.n.i. to exercise is not intact. a portion has gone back to the director of the c.i.a. and national security staff on the on the other hand. the result is a confusion of responsibility, bureaucratic fiction and potential gaps in intelligence that adversaries can ex exploit.

there are several legislative changes that can strengthen the accountability of the d.n.i. first personnel. in addition to naming the heads of the intelligence elements currently provided, they should approve second and third level officials within the elements. this authority will ensure community-minded officers occupy the posts where much of the real work of intelligence is done. the d.n.i.'s budget is strong but relatively weak in the current fiscal year. he or she should have the authority to initiate reprogramming of funding from agency budgets to urgent and unexpected objectives, network security or through higher priority objectives or simply to programs that aren't aren't making the progress they should. in conclusion, the success against osama bin laden should not cause us to rest on our

oars. we are long way smoothly interacting with the department of defense and department of homeland security and i believe congressional action is indispensible to this goal. this is a vital piece of business and i find it reassuring you see fit to keep this challenge alive and take seriously the progress we need to make and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> i appreciate what you said at the beginning, no one listening to your statement could think you were here out of some sort of personal peak, we asked you and listening to your statement it is substantive and why we asked you, because you were part of the small group of people who have been the d.n.i. so you have that perspective and

you bring to it everything else you have done in your career. we are going to do seven-minute rounds of questions. let me ask you a question to begin with. in the testimony last week, i was fascinated at different points our witnesses which were jane harman and general hayden, suggested it may be as critical accepting the goal of the strength or legitimacy of the d.n.i. that it may be as critical to achieving that goal for there to be adequate support from the president and to a lesser extent congress in a different way, as it is to add onto the statutory authorities of the d.n.i. and i wonder what you think about that.

may not be an either/or question but give me the sense of how important the nonstatutory recognition and authority giving for the office is. >> 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 don't think that 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 as i mentioned, administration and personalities come and go but it's the responsibility of the administration to put that structure right after what we

have learned over time. i think what we have learned over time and this is not the only time that the congress has attempted to integrate related but not really cooperating well agencies, the national security legislation of 1947 which brought the services together based on the results of world war ii, the goldwater nichols act. these things are difficult to think to bring children into an orphanage. it doesn't always go easily but takes dedication and congress has a role. right now there are two models of an intelligence community that we have seen in the last five years. one is in which the director of national intelligence is expected to be able to integrate the community and to be responsible for that.

another in which that are authority is sort of spread among people and the white house picks and chooses what it will use. i think right now we see the model going towards that second model, which the group that's in the executive branch now believes i think the first model is more correct. and i think that's what the congress intended and we need to continue to push that. and i think that five years into the d.n.i., we had -- well, six years now, we are making good progress and we need to continue to ring that out. >> let me talk about some of the authorities that the d.n.i. has and how they might be expanded and then i would like to come back to your very interesting suggestions. the 2004 legislation gave budget authority to the d.n.i. and that

authority includes having the final say over the intelligence community budget that's presented to the president also certain authorities, as you know budget allocation related to how the intelligence community spends its budget during the fiscal year. in your prepared testimony you called for the d.n.i. to have increased comptrollership so agencies under the d.n.i. could not circumvent the d.n.i. on budget issues. how strong the authorities that the d.n.i. has had over the budget have been in practice at least certainly during your period of time and whether you think the d.n.i. has fully utilized those authorities over

both budget development for future fiscal years and research transfers during the fiscal year. >> yes, sir. i think there are two important background points. number one is 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 tradeoffs have generally been taken care of by putting more money on them than by repriorityization. those times are coming to an end and we will see budgets flat and perhaps decreasing and will make the central ability to make tradeoffs even more important. the second item was just due to the number of tasks that faced d.n.i. early on, there was not a strong staff support structure. my experience was in the department of defense, program of analysis, established the

comptroller of secretary of defense had not been established, those were coming into maturity while i was d.n.i. and i spent a great deal of time trying to strengthen them. so i found towards the end of my time i had the tools to use the budget authorities let me give you two examples because they came up in my final months of the job. i came back from a trip from afghanistan horrified by the lack of language ability that we had among our deployed officers in that country. i won't give you the numbers, but the number of the speakers was smaller than i thought was safe. as you know language ability was a task from the beginning. it was time to say, all right,

damn it, now, and we are going to make it happen. that's the sort of thing that i'm talking about which well meaning agencies making their own priorities allowed a national priority to drift down and you needed to be able to punch it. >> were you able to do it at that point with the authorities you had? >> at that point, it was within -- we had the -- we had to have a conversation and i was going to give them one more chance and then i left. but that's the kind of thing -- >> you felt you had the authority to carry it out if you needed it? >> that would have been the. >> we had obvious problems in

the search engines that were available to counterintelligence analysts that required different skills on different systems and as you saw from the final reports, we missed some of those and part of it was due to an analyst not being able to make one click. it required a lot of skill which busy people often don't have everything they need. we received more money to fix that problem and my job was to spread it out. there were fairly decent battles on how to spread it out and each agency said i ought to get the lion's share and those are the problems of putting it on a thing which is what i was talking about in terms of real comptrollership. so that's really what i'm talking about in this sense. >> understood. well said.

my time is up. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral you were talking about some of the problems that were exposed by bad intelligence failure. i'm curious were you consulted by the attorney general on the decision to charge as if he was a criminal suspect? >> i was not consulted on that particular decision, senator collins, nor do i think i would have had much to add. i think that the key role that the director of national intelligence plays is during the questioning phase of a suspect, once ap present heppeded or arrested, how much do we lean on intelligence gathering and how much do we lean on gathering

material for prosecution, which involves different set of protocols. the reading of miranda rights, provision of a lawyer and so on. he wasn't consulted on that. on the hearing, a set of decisions were made by the agents at the scene and it wasn't supervised and we didn't have the high-value interrogation group. but i believe strongly that's the point of the director of national intelligence should make an input and the goal is to be able to do both so the attorney general can make a decision, military tribunal, federal court or nothing. if you have to make a tradeoff, that's when you need to say ok, we are drilling ahead to get intelligence information and going to back off on perhaps gathering intelligence. and we should be involved in that. >> we have gone through that

issue before. but the reason that i brought it up again is i want to lay the predicate for my next question, which is what is the role of the d.n.i. when a terror suspect is apprehended? it seems to me that one of the first calls, if it is a surprise apprehension should be to the d.n.i. so that a search can be done immediately of all data bases so that intelligence analysts, the hague, which is set up, could be flown out to wherever they need to go. but i want to hear from you more what you see as the role.

>> who can supply their skill to it. let's say that we on a surprise apprehend a member of al qaeda, we should be able to get the best intelligence, yemen, analysts, best counterterrorists analysts and the bs -- best f.b.i. intragators and structured process that they have a quick decision making process so that a call can be made in terms of that balance and then under tremendous time

pressure, minutes, hours at the most, the people on the scene go ahead and proceed with that guidance and you have to practice it first. and it's 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 general guidance from the top they can do the job and there are several key questions, the balance between gathering evidence and intelligence that needs to be made at the top. and i think in the quace of abdul, i think we had all the evidence that this guy had a bomb and tried to blow it up. we didn't need a lot of self-inkrim nation and should have leaned harder on intelligence throughout than we did because we thought we had a

conviction. >> there are really three levels of power. one is access to the president. the second is authority over personnel and the third is control over the budget. and i'd like to talk about those issues with you starting with the personnel issue. part of our concept was to try to have a gold water-nichols joint approach to service in the intelligence community and i'm sure it took the military a long time to embrace that. but now, at least from my outside perspective, the military really has largely

embraced 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. >> senator, i think your provisions of the law were exactly right and they are are having an effect. if i try to compare it to the five years into the goldwater-nichols act, it is sort of comparable in terms of the fact it is having and will take more time. but two trends encourage me. number one, as i talk to people, younger theyr the more they get

it. half of the heroes in the intelligence community joined after 9/11 for the right reasons. and they are naturally more prone to sharing and don't carry that baggage of bureaucratic per og georgiatives, the past bureaucratic wars and which didn't help the country much. as they age up, i think the trends are good. the second one is in the field and you all have taken many visits out there, you walk into an intelligence center in afghanistan, in iraq, just about any place in the world, you find people, c.i.a., armed forces, if someone has a piece of information, so they are growing up in this atmosphere and as they bring that back, all we have to do is provide them a modicum of structure and not

rewarded for bad behavior. but they'll bring it back and use it and it will take over. so i think we are headed in the right direction. like you, i'm i am patient at the scale. i thought we decided this. let's get on with it. and i think the next generation -- the generation is right on the cusp of leadership within the agencies is going to be quite joint-minded and get the structures right, they'll fall right into it. what you have to realize is you can be proud of your own agency and say i'm a c.i.a. person, but you also need pride in the team and pride in everybody doing well and you do well, too. i think when you haven't experienced it, you think the pride is a fixed amount. if someone else gets some, it

detracts from what you have. both pride and effectiveness go up when you can get over the hump of that jointness and working together and i think we are headed that way. but everything you can do and the suggestion of putting special attention on second and third level people is at peace of that and help it along. >> your point on the generational changes is right and networking and sharing of data bases because that's what the next generation does naturally. >> thanks. i hope particularly since 9/11, people within the intelligence community understand that they can come under -- including congressional criticism and a

look back, it appears one or another part of the community including the military -- i see we are talking about, were playing on the team. as a result, the team suffered and therefore they'll suffer a kind of rebuke they wouldn't have suffered. >> votes started. general hayden testified that the i.c. needs to find a balance between critical parts and the effort of the whole, is that achievable and what ways can the relationship between the d.n.i. and heads of the 16 intelligence agencies be improved or strengthened? >> freedom of action and what was the other -- >> freedom of action for the parts and unity as part of the whole? is that balance achievable. >> it is very much achievable. and what you find is 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'll gather that for you. they come in with an attitude to contribute what they can do and based on their much better understanding of what other people's problems are and what the mission is, how they can contribute this ways that are not traditional. when you form these teams, you bring people in and with the attitude that everyone needs to contribute all they can and maybe more and then magic happens. i have seen it in terms of our teams in the intelligence community, they can gather intelligence on difficult targets by using our collection capabilities in new ways and seen it in action teams where i think the -- one of the most

poignant things i saw, i was out visiting one of our bases in a dangerous part of the world and a young c.i.a. case officer told me she had been on a way to a meeting, an asset to recruit, complete other agency had picked up a warning of danger. had been able to get a phone call to her, turned around and didn't go to the restaurant, life saved. that kind of team work in the field that i think becomes the norm when you create an atmosphere in which it is expected and it's valued. >> thank you for your service, too, in your position. general hayden testified last week.

can you describe your relationship with the secretary of defense and does the role of the usdi have an effect? >> that was not my experience, senator brown. i thought that general clapper undersecretary of defense and i as d.n.i. worked very well together. and if he were sitting here together i'm confident he would say the same thing. i know senator leiberman was involved in some of the angsts from the department of defense. that dissipated by the time i had the honor of being d.n.i.

there are two important reasons for this. number one is the really important security challenges we face these days have so much of a military aspect mixed up with the nonmilitary aspect, economic, social, others, the idea that you can hide a problem and say that's for the pentagon, this other stuff is for c.i.a., i.n.r., it's long gone. if you look at our big problems, afghanistan, terrorism. the military aspects are all together and you have to use intelligence whether it happens to be signals intelligence or geo spacial intelligence which is a hybrid to look at the whole question. we are driven to this unity just by the nature of the problem. second, the officers or

civilians in the case of ms. long who is the head of the n.g.a. has grown up in this joint era and understand the advantages of team work and what can come from that work. i didn't have any stronger teammates than admiral at n.g.a. and general alexander and general burgess. that leadership was strong and usd inch in my observation, the other part of the team also. i didn't see that. i know it was a historical fault line, but it seems to have helped. and secretary gates having had some piece of my job previously had a good understanding. >> thank you, sir. >> general clapper has said exactly the same thing to me

about how goodal working relationship he had with you. these are interesting comparisons because this is the case where i think the personalities that were in these positions under secretary rumsfeld were part of the problem, if i can call it that. and as you said correctly, secretary gates comes to his position after having spent most of his service in the intelligence community. but 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 admiral, that during the legislative battles on the intelligence reform act of 2004, the toughest ones were with the defense department about the changes we were trying to bring about, strength at the thening d.n.i.

and yet in practice, the tensions between the d. nmple i. and d.o.d. were much less than reflected at the negotiating table. i would say it was the opposite for other components. so i really apologize for having to break the flow. the vote is going on in an important judicial nomination. i ask that we stand in recess and i will be back as soon as i can to continue the questioning. thank you.

>> i have had one round. i apologize, admiral for having to leave to vote. >> i do have a question. welcome, admiral. i salute you in more ways than one. i understand that today's reform -- intelligence reform hearing is focusing on whether the intelligence community is operating better and if this question has already been asked, i apologize. but since the passage of

legislation in 2004, the intelligence reform legislation in 2004, after the successful operation against bin laden and the thwarting and as a navy veteran of 22 years, i salute our seals and everybody who is part of that operation, i said to my colleagues today in another meeting, while i think there is a sense of justice with respect to osama bin laden and hopefully some closure for families who lost loved ones on 9/11 and other attacks, the greater benefit as i hope is going to be to use the intelligence we recovered to better folks in this country and other countries who might otherwise be at risk. but after the successful operation against osama bin laden and the thwarting of any number of terrorist attacks, i think that things are working

better. i also believe we are in a safer place as a result of this reorganization that we put in place a number of years ago. i was impressed last week's remarks by janet napolitano and how information, intelligence information from the radar and osama bin laden's compound was almost being shared throughout our intelligence community. i'm not sure this would have happened as quickly or smoothly before 9/11. and while it's clear that institutional reorganization and they are needed every now and then, without the national security leadership working together as a team in restructuring our federal government is going to work partially. here's my question, it sent rs on the relationship between the president, deputy, national

security adviser and john brennan and director of national intelligence, john clapper and whether the director of national intelligence will ever work as it was intended to the first two positions being in close proximity to the president than the rest of the federal government's national security leadership and would you think about that for a moment and maybe some thoughts with us on that? rsh -- >> on the first observations, i agree. this was a very well done operation. what i think we need is to make that the norm and i think it's understandable we did well.

deep personal involvement from the president, the high level cabinet-level officers and so on. no surprise to me that we did well on that. but what i think we need to do is get that same sort of interaction and legislatively mandate that same sort of interaction, team work in order to get everything done that the department of defense and department of homeland security are involved in. and i think we have made strides, but we have a ways to go. >> on the question of the relationship between the d.n.i. and the president versus his staff, i mean, this is what staff line 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 on defense. and i used to be on the national security staff as a commander in the navy, department of homeland security officer. served at the national security staff. outside experts brought in. we all know how the advice of staff versus the responsibility of line officers should work and i think that in the white house relationships with departments and with the intelligence community, same principles should apply. you should carry out your main actions and get the recommendations of your -- of those who are -- whom you appoint and whom the senate confirms and use your staff to evaluate their recommendations, check on how they're doing and there will be tension between

those two at times. no good staff officer thinks he can do a better job than the job guy who has that job and then wisdom occurs. these tensions are natural. the formal structure should be that they should be carrying out the job. >> do i have time? >> i chair a subcommittee that focuses on better financial management and a heast of other areas. but one of the things we try to do in the subcommittee, we try to look in every nook and cranny of the federal government and ask the question, get better results and try to do that throughout -- i sort of described as a culture change. we know if we try hard enough we

can change the culture and this committee is really a great committee to be on. used to be government affairs and how do we get better results for less money. and now we have homeland security which is terribly important but we haven't forgotten what our bread and butter used to be. i was returning from south asian been to other places, pakistan and afghanistan and india and reviewing our regional counterterrorism strategy in pakistan. and how our intelligence community analysts and specialists, both men and women were sitting side by side each other in analyzing intelligence information. and i was very impressed with the cohesion i saw on the

ground. my question is, today is whether this new approach is part of a broader counterterrorism strategy if the reason and secondly, are there lessons learned from your experiences that you would like to share with us that you would like to see our intelligence communities act tacticically. >> what you saw is just as good as you said it was and it's 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 subordinates and these extraordinary leaders in all of these agencies and services have learned to cooperate at the local level. i say they do that right now with the tolerance of the

leadership. no -- in some cases with the local leadership but there is not a structure they can fall into naturally or new people will fall into naturally when the urgency and passion of 9/11 caused -- so i recommended in my prepared testimony for this committee that we form joint interagency task forces. we have a way -- pick a place like yemen where military counterterrorism exarktse and military counterterrorism are brought to bear. the military officer and be a community officer but they need to be qualified for the job and experienced and all of the tools. and then instead of this

extraordinary cooperation which now occurs, you can have a -- you can have a unified effort in which the task group commander after he submitted a plan can choose to use intelligence assets one way, military assets and puts them together. because what we found in our joint task forces in the armed forces you come up with new ideas with a set of core competencies that are pretty extraordinary. find different ways to do it -- oh, that's what you need? we can help you out with that? that comes about much better by putting them under one boss than it does by sitting in individual stovepipes and if the right people happen to be there you can work it out. the incentives and awards aren't right. there are certain dangers for

not cooperating. i agree for pointing at the key rears where we point to al qaeda. >> thank you for your response and that analysis. thanks for joining us today. >> admiral blair let me approach the topic we have been talking about by sharing this analysis of our 2004 legislation which is that it gave the d.n.i. two major responsibilities. one was to be the leader of the intelligence community and the second was to be the senior adviser on intelligence matters to the president. and i wanted to ask you both from what you know of your predecessors and successors' experience and your own, one, just in terms of responsibility

whether that's too much to ask of one person. maybe i should leave it to that. and the second is that -- inconsistent with the first, that -- in some ways following senator carper's question -- is it necessary for the d.n.i. to be the senior intelligence advisor to the president in order for the d.n.i. to have the capability to be the leader of the intelligence community, two different questions related to that same dual responsibility. >> i think the d.n.i. should have both of those responsibilities. i don't think the d. nmple i. can have the additional responsibility of directing the c.i.a. that was a hand we dealt the d.c.i. and c.i.a. integrate the

community and advise the president and i think it was extremely wise to cut those two off. but i think it is essential that leading the community and advising the president be combined in one person so it can be realistic as to what the community can do, number one. and number two, so that the director seeing the sorts of information the president needs can turn around and say we have got to work harder on problem x. it's important to the president. we aren't 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 and unless you

ensure that all of that happens and direct where it's not being done well, you aren't in a position to tell the president otherwise you are taking a report and telling it to him. you might as well have the analyst tell him directly. the one who has responsibility for making the intelligence good and passing it to the president is important. i found it was it was as important to tell the president what we didn't know and why we didn't know it and telling him what we knew, because making high-level conditions on uncertainty -- i would say if i'm perfect in intelligence, your job wouldn't be difficult. but it's that interaction what the intelligence machine can do, the burn that you need to do better so when the president

turns to you in a year and says what's the situation with nuclear weapons in country x, you have a good answer. i don't think those two responsibilities can split up. and finally, the d.n.i. should have the political sense of what's important to the president over the long-term. i mean, grant knew he had to win a battle before the emancipation proclamation came out. i fully accept the will of the people expressed through their elections has got to drive what we need to do. you have to be close to the political sense but not so close that you make all the mistakes that overplight sized leaders can make. >> so there was a good statement. you have to be mindful of the

political realities that the president is facing but also, obvious tell the president the truth. how important to the d.n.i.'s strength and credibility is it that the d.n.i. himself be there at the daily intell 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 -- daily briefing of the president was correct, but i didn't have to be the one to brief it every day. so i think it's the former responsibility, it's the more -- it's the more important and then i think the president -- d.n.i.

needs to attend enough of those sessions so he gets the sense are the right questions being answered and so on and he needs to do that, i think on a fairly frequent basis uniquely because you always -- i would always receive a memo from the person who gave the briefing, here's what happened and here's what the president asked and so on. it's not quite the same as being there and saying well, we aren't hitting the mark on this one. you need to be there for some of the time. >> last week incidentally at the hearing, everybody agreed including those who had most of their experience at the c.i.a. that the d.c.i. had unsustainable -- it was an unsustainable position and it was too much and therefore creating the d.n.i. made sense.

general hayden said something interesting, that he thought that -- he thought he was probably the only director of the c.i.a. who was nominated during -- since we had a d.n.i. who was actually recommended by the d.n.i. and he thought that wasn't good. he was recommended or admiral mcconnell chose him and that the others had come up through -- as what would eventually happen through the white house. i don't know if you want to come on that. i wanted to share that with you as an interesting historical observation. >> i strongly believe that the director of the c.i.a., whether it be the c.i.a. as we now know it or how i talked about in a clandestine piece should be a c.i.a. professional and has come

up through the ranks. the record shows that those who have done that have been some of the directors of central intelligence agency we think the most highly of their records. i think that now that we have a d.n.i. position, that's the position you should put someone who does not have -- have some intelligence knowledge but hasn't briefed it all his or her life. i think part of the confusion and roles we have now is when you appoint two people to these two jobs, both of home who are considered independently rather than one being a professional. we get some of the joss willing we have seen in recent times. and i think the political direction can be sent through the d.n.i. and ought to have professional bcia's.

>> it's a big insight and what it requires is the president recognizing that the d.n.i. is the president's main, if you will -- main personal intelligence adviser and also in his interests, in the president's interests the leader of the community. general hayden didn't dwell on it, but when he made his statement, he said including the incoming head of the c.i.a. because no one in the world thinks that general clapper came up with the recommendation of general petraeus to head the agency, not that he is opposed to it. your point is well taken. i just want to ask you to dig deeper on it. and i want to ask you about the split in the agency that you recommend. talk a little bit more of the advantages of having a