power is generally applicable and it belongs to congress. we have to take it back. [applause] what the american flag shirt. >> i agree with all of this. i had four questions. when they talk about the debt, to do we borrow money from? why can we stop all foreign aid humanitarian and drastic -- natural disasters?

i have received several females about in moscow being repaired with our money i do not know if that itrue. i have not verified it. maybe someone else has documentation. how in the world did that ever get to congress? that blows my mind completely away. i am in a small minority. i especially agree with what you say about environmentalists and how much karmharm they have caud the west. ivories quarter horses for 50 years. since then taken the meat market away, i am devastated. i no longer have a horse business. many people cannot give hors away.

i am sure you are aware ofhe courses have been turned loose all over the nation because people cannot afford them. they have died from starvation. they have mingled with the beloved the mustangs. that is another whole issue. our president, i'm sure you are aware of the amount of courses they have down there. there are given thousands of tons per year. what can we do to were those animal activists to give back this and give jobs to people openly enough? ank you very much. >> thank you.

>> i'm going to try to answer these questions quickly. i want to make sure we get to as many people as possible. we borrow from lot and lot of people. some of them are individuals and some are operations. what they are called depend on their maturity rate. some mature in 30 years. there are a lot in between. it is a little over $1 trillion that belongs to the government of china. who owns our debt that any moment is a question that refers back to many thousands of corporate investors to buy these

based on the expectation that they will get more money back. there are a lot of people that own it. most of them are americans. some are not. they're making a lot of money. there are a lot of people that feel strongly about this. the it is to the extent it is doing something to the humanitarian aid are helping people who need it. that is where most foreign aid goes. that is why some people oppose it. there are humanitarian needs here in the united states. i agree that we ought to focus our own government money on american people. there are some exceptions to that.

there are some parts of the world that we have to invest money. in some senses, it is a replacement. as far as federal money go into i will be on the lookout. there may be some federal grant money. i will. there will be held to pay.

this is important part of our state industry. my father-in-l used to own a ranch where he raised shorthorns. it is a great plays. no, year sang about horses. i do not know whether -- had never been completely familiar with how it met its demise. he wouldgive them the information appeari. >> my sincere thank you today.

it is one of the most important priorities of our county. i hope you saw and realize that it could slow down into small projects. 50's are of our county is this. there are a two pending authorizations. there is the real opposition a secure schools. >> you should be especially

proud of the commissioner. they do not waste time getting to the heart of the issue. she was able to answer every question quickly. this has been difficult. you are lucky to have her appear . you're able to collect les tax revenue. we have a problem in the state's where a lot of federal land can be told. we will not.

they fell far short of what action the the real access to buy a pair. it is the lowest value. i'm a strong supporter. i will not let them make the funding go away. did that to be unjust. help itself is on sufficient. i tend to push until the allow states and counties to tax federal land are they fully funded.

she is from alaska. she feels a lot of these same issues. they have a lot of federal land as well. this is basically in the same position. do you remember what it was? >> i am on the flip side.

mostf my questions have been answered. there are a few that i would like for you to answer. >> i was at the call myself a member of it. i understand that the do vouchers for medicare and medicaid. i understand that those programs need to be taken out of corruption.

how are we as seniors to get by when it is dam near to give by now. tax subsidies to the oil company. how come it justify giving them a subsidy? i understand that they are considered as job creators. that has not happened in the last six to eight years. but let your stance on some of stuff. >> the question relates to medicare.

i do support the transition about what to make it sustainable. there is insolvency. the only dispute as to when it occurs is in the mid-20's. moving forward, those are n yet retired. this is how we make a sustainable. with bankruptcy, we cannot handle that.

we can do it effectively reduce we cannot do it effectively with this antiquated system -- we cannot do it effectively with this antiquated system. i am get subsidies any time. we have a step that helps me with that. crack>> [inaudible] >> i was answering this man's question.

i'm happy to discuss this with the. we cnot look at this. it refers to a what you referred to as tax breaks. we paid -- we have the top 10% earners in this country. we are putting this burden on them. >> wen jiabao de e->> de e is a different question. -- whatbout ge?

>>ge is a different question. we have tax rates. i am unwilling to raise tax rates. we also have loopholes and make a more complex. we need to simplify air system. -- our system. >> i just got back from chicago. i appreciate being here. one of the issues that affects all of us is the amount of regulation thats placed on

sinesses including agriculture. we're almost to the point where we cannot compete on a world scale because of the tremendous amount of regulations that are imposed on us. there are basic rules and regulations. >> a few minutes ago, i alluded to the fact that things happen when we allow loss to be made by people other than congress. it does not work for anyone who is elected. once it affects enough of the

economy, it is requiring a hundred dollars or more in compliance costs. unless congress adopted it, our laws need to be made by those who accountable. the reason why we got rid of king george the third is does it cannot let him out of office. >> my status telling me have time for two more questions. but try to enter some on my way out.

>> there's a lot of elderly people here. maybe i am not in the right room here, but maybe you can explain to me your viewpoint on entitlement programs. should the government be taking money from me to give to my grandmother or dad to pay for their medicare? and the redistribution of wealth ta? should we even have entitlement programs

that is all past that allows you to be a pirate in the name of the united states. i will get one some day. that is the power of the government in a nutshell. that is the purpose of the federal government as i understand it. there are few other powers, but that does it in a nutshell. but get back to the entitlement question. for the past -- past few decades, depending on where you draw boundaries, the federal government has had the mindset that entitlements are

inappropriate exercise. i believe that in retrospect that decision has proven to be one that is dangerous in a sense that congress has taken the money, that i am saving that money for you for when you retire. meanwhile, it spend that money also. it is one of the reasons why we need to limit power of congress. congress does not always managed things that well at the national level. national governments sometimes do not manage things all that well. it has been managed by a mindset that congress can do anything it

wants and courts will not interfere, but that does not change the fact that these programs are there. it does not change the fact that tens of millions of americans who have retired have relied on these promises for many years. it would be inhumane, it curl, and immoral to pretend these programs do not exist. we at the figure of how to deal with them in a with a dispassionate and takes care of people in handles them responsibly. in the long-run, i think we have to of an earnest discussion about what the proper role of government is and what the proper role of federal government is. that will not happen until we adopt a balanced budget amendment of the constitution and at least restrict congress' is borrowing power. that will facilitate the discussion and get us back on the right path. i do understand your frustration. there are a lot of people in this state that share many of the concerns. we will not solve the problems

overnight. we have to solve them with compassion, but we do have to solve them. >> would you support eventually phasing it out? >> a lot of it depends on that if you are talking about. if you're talking about veterans benefits, absolutely not. that is part of the u.s. military mission. i would never support that. there are other things we could do. if you're talking about medicaid. it is already administered by the state and publicly funded. there is no reason we cannot continue that. each state can determine the whole standard, eats -- each set of standard. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] i want to ask you to questions. the first one is really short, i

promise. first, going back to the legislation you are in support of. does that include organization regulation that regulates the mining industry? >> yes. probably one of your favorite federal agencies i would imagine. i am mining engineer. the second part is 2.5% of coal is locked up under federal regulation. what are you doing at this and a member and also a member as the energy and natural resources committee to release those for our benefit? >> anytime i am made aware of any person that is being locked up on deregulation, i will try to get it through. if you have something we think we could of law right now, that would be fantastic. not all of it is cold we could

unlocked in one swoop. it has all been locked up just because president clinton decided it should be. i think that is wrong. we have to get rid of that. that will take us -- require us to get another president. i personally would like to see another president office in 2012. [applause] a new president will have the power to change the boundaries of that, to adjust a biased sample presidential proclamation. let's get one in there that is willing to do it. let's get the economy -- economy off the ground.

come and talk to me and my state director on the way out. i would like to get your contact information and find out what you know about kohl so we can help unlock that stuff. thank you. i am told that is all the time i have four questions. i will have to come back here soon so i can do this again. you have asked very good questions, and i am sure there are lots of others that would like to ask more, and i would like to answer each and everyone of them. let me say in closing, i am honored to represent you. i am grateful that you tell voters chose to trust me for a period of six years with the task of representing you in the u.s. senate. i take very seriously the oath i took a couple of months ago, that i will support the constitution in my representation of you. i want to do a good job in a support me know what is important to you so i can represent you well. this is where the hard working

people live. it is a place where utah pioneers came not knowing whether they would survive more than two winters. they survived and thrived. it is time for to try yet again. we can do that as we are not energy potential here in united states, and especially here in utah. may god bless the sovereign state of utah and the united states. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we appreciate everyone in audience and a question and for my plea to come down and answer these questions. i think it is an outstanding opportunity we have had to be able to have united states senator here with us. i really appreciate his effort of being here and going to the project site and getting a hands-on view of what is taking

place there. and thank you for coming. >> a live look at the brady press briefing room at the white house. the briefing was to have started about now. it has been pushed back to 2:00 eastern. we will likely hear more about the plans for next thursday's speech to the joint session to congress. and in word this afternoon, reports that speaker banoehner

will have a job speech of his own. we will have the white house briefing when it is under way again, supposed to be a 2:00 this afternoon. until then, part of the washington journal series on the weather. we spoke earlier today with the head of the national oceanid can't national hemispheric association. -- oceanic and atmospheric association. today we are continuing our series looking at the government's role in providing weather services. tuesday, we look at disaster relief and preparedness. wednesday, climatology and weather dynamic spirit tomorrow we will wrap things up with a look at the role of the national weather service. today we looking at your of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration with jane lubchenco, administrator of noaa.

what is no a's mission? what do they do? guest: noaa's mission is very broad. we use science to provide information about oceans and atmosphere, things like navigation charts, the weather forecast. the national weather service is part of noaa. we also use science to provide warnings about pending disasters -- tsunamis, or hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, as he weighs, those kinds of things. and we have a very important responsibilities to use science to manage oceans and coasts and keep them healthy. we manage the fisheries, for example. we do all of that because the ocean and the atmosphere or an integrated unit. one affects the other. everything and no way a starts with signs. the services -- we provide -- think at -- everything at noaa

starts with the science. the services we provide a promotes safety and allow businesses to thrive and grow. we do all of that would stick to the arts satellites in space, planes and in the air, -- state of the art satellite and space, plant and the air, ships in the water, computers, lots of wonderful partners, and we do that for less than a nickel a day for americans. the best bargain in the country. host: 12,800 employees. you are contained within the commerce department. why the increase? guest: 1 to the important things we do is build and operate satellites that allow us to do many of the good things i talked about. there is a request in the president's budget for $1.7 billion to build and then fly at

a very important series of satellites that provide information that enables us to do many of these things. we have a current satellite that is in space doing that, but it has a finite life span. they are vitally important to doing the kinds of forecasts and disaster warnings. disaster warnings. host: administrator, levchen lu, what we are watching to weather, are we seeing images from noaa satellites? guest: you are indeed. the images you see on your tv screen are provided by noaa to everyone. this is one of functions that we do. all of those swirly pictures of clouds, those are satellite images. host: are those provided free of charge to the weather channel or

local news? guest: they are. host: what is the philosophy behind that? guest: we believe the basic function of government is to provide essential services to save lives and property, the kinds of warnings we do in daily weather forecasts. that same information also enables businesses like the weather channel or accuweather to take that information and add value to it, bells and whistles, and provide additional information. the core, basic information is a function of government. host: when you break down at the at national oceanic and atmospheric administration atmospheric administration offices, there is ase --

correct? guest: correct. host: r. they equal in size? guest: no, the satellite division is approximately $2 billion. the fisheries division and weather are about $1 billion. the rest are in the remainder of the budget. host: the national weather service, is that what most people associated with it? guest: actually, many people in the different parts of noaa. as i travel around the country, many people are most familiar with the weather service because everybody relies on whether information what they don't often know is that it is noaa that is providing the information that they receive on their smartphones or tv screens or the radio. all of that information is coming, basically come from an l.a. 8. i have had a number of people say, "what do i need your

weather satellites? i have fill in the blank --" weather channel or whatever. in reality, it is an owl a that is providing that information -- it is noaa that is providing that information did the research done allows us to provide services like weather forecasts and warnings. forecasts and warnings. host: administrator lubchenco , you referred to the economic benefits noaa provides the country. could you be more specific? guest: if you consider how dependent the aviation industry is on whether, when we had hurricane irene up the east coast recently, flights were canceled, so, too, were trains and other. those transportation systems, including ones on the ocean, are dependent on weather

information. we penetrate pretty much all aspects of the economy. that is a single and example and there are many more. host: if you could talk about oceans. guest: before i got oceans, still staying on weather, the dependence on the weather enterprise, the private weather enterprise that has grown up around the basic information we provide is worth about $1 billion. that created new jobs and unable new business opportunity -- and enabled new business opportunity. on the oceanside, fisheries are equally important and provide nearly 2 million jobs in this country and considerable economic benefits. host: our guest is noaa administrator jane lubchenco. this part of our weeklong series looking at government and weather and what the government

does predicting weather, etc.. today we are focusing on noaa. if you would like to send an e- mail, you can send it to journal@c-span.org or you can send a tweet. we have gotten this tweet. is noaa the only government agency with public satellites that do what you do -- i mean, such as these images? el nino, la nina coming through. is noaa the only place to get

this information? guest: no, some of our sister agencies p fly satellites and provide nicely complemented information. noaa's satellites are focused on taking environmental dat to understand change and the oceans, sea level rise, those kinds of things. there are multiple sources of the satellite imagery. host: hurricanes -- we often hear about the hurricane hunter aircraft. are those noaa aircraft? guest: they are noaa planes, and or by the air force and they flights to the hurricane, so did once operated

by noaa. they gather data that are vital to understanding how intense the storm is, how well it is structured, and therefore, enable scientists to plug the information into models and do forecasts about where it is the storm likely to go, how big is it likely to be, how intense is it going to be, etc. information from inside the storm is vitally important. we also have another airplane, g-4, that flies above and around of the storm hit both of those drop instruments into the store and take data on temperature, precipitation and pressure, and so we have a way of characterizing what the storm looks like. because of those instruments and because of our past investment in research over the last couple of decades, we've been able to get better and better and better

at forecasting where the store is -- where the storm is going to go. we have increase the accuracy of the track very significantly and saw that in no uncertain terms with irene. on tuesday, four days before irene hit landfall, we predicted pretty much exactly where she ended up going. the thing we've not got in as good at yet and are working very hard on is increasing the accuracy of the predictions about the intensity of the storm -- how much energy is in that storm, and therefore, what the winds are going to be and how much storm surge there will be, but the rain is going to be. we are in year four of a 10- year big research push to better understand the intensity of storms like irene, hurricanes in

particular. those airplanes you asked about a minute ago have special instruments that record doppler radar as the plane is flying through the storm. that information is allowing scientists to better understand this very complex dynamics outside, inside, right in the middle of the hurricane. we believe that with sustained investment and research, we are going to be getting better and better at predicting intensity like we have done it in predicting the track. host: have you had the pleasure of going up in one of those planes? guest: not yet, but i look forward to it. host: first call for noaa and mr. jim lubchenco is from gold beach, oregon. caller: good morning, jane. web site. of the noaa we have a lot of fishermen out

here, and they really rely on your information, and it is reliable and that is really good -- host: john, can you explain, how the fishermen rely on noaa information? caller: well, they mead advanced idea of what the weather conditions are going to be out, because they go out early in the morning and they need a good idea what to expect, you know, what is going to get th -- what is going to be out there. guest: john, thanks for the culprit fishermen rely heavily on the forecast -- really appreciate -- thanks for the call. fishermen rely heavily on the forecast and i appreciate your drawing attention to that. having information about what that sea state is and what the weather is going to be helps fishermen stay as safe as possible. the same is true for maritime commerce, the big ships that

delivered so much of our goods by water, are also dependent on weather forecast from noaa. i would like to point out that the polar orbiting satellite we talked about earlier, for which there is a significant increase in the budget request for the next fiscal year, is in fact critical to being able to do the maritime forecasts. esat satellite orbits the poll and sees a different swath of the earth it every time it goes around, as to what is happening in the ocean, way far away from the land. host: administrator lubchenco talked about noaa's role in hurricane irene.

is there some overlap with fema in response? guest: no, it is not overlap, but it is a very tight coupling. noaa does have responsibility before, during and after a storm like a hurricane. at the beginning of the season, we do provide an outlook that gives us a sense of, given the ocean and atmosphere dynamics, what is the season likely to be. is it going to be normal, above normal, below normal? once we detect is from developing, early, early on, before it comes a hurricane, we start to run our models and use satellites to get information. once it is clear that we are going to have a service -- a

serious storm, we work with fema and other and agency managers so that -- other emergency managers so that they in turn can prepare communities. fema is absolutely critical in taking our information and getting it out. if there are going to be significant evaluations, for example, which we saw on some parts of the coast for irene, it takes time to do that. having advanced knowledge that the storm is coming and some sense of how strong she is going to be is vitally important to doing those evaluations, at this stage and emergency materials -- to stagin emergency materials for fema and emergency managers. we work in a tightly coupled, synergistic fashion. host: fort myers, florida, you are on the air. caller: first of all, living on

a barrier island, i would like to thank you very much for the job noaa does. the other thing is, argued the agency that would also get data from -- are you the agency that would also get data from sunlight or solar, wind for wind turbines, and possibly gulf stream data for turbines to be put out to sea in the gulf stream? guest: the short answer is yes. we provide information about wind forecasts and about solar gradients, and that is now becoming more and more important as we are seeing increased focus on renewable energy. as it turns out, we are trying to do a better job of getting information that is relevant to where the turbines are, the all the tickets they our. we have a new effort that is

designed to do exactly that, to be able to provide information to the private sector so that they can maximize both of the placement and the utilization of wind, for example, or solar energy. host: earthquake here in virginia if you weeks ago -- a few weeks ago -- guest: pretty amazing. the u.s. geological service, part of the department of the interior, has responsibility for monitoring earth? . they are part of an international seismic network. when an earthquake is detected, noaa has access to information instantaneously, regardless of where the earthquake happened. we immediately start running our models to ask a question, well they're likely be a tsunami as a result of the earthquake? that is the role of the plate.

we use information about how strong the earthquake was -- that is the role that we play. we use information about how strong the earthquake was and we provide the critical information. for example, the earthquake that happened in japan -- our forecast for tsunamis were issued nine minutes after the earthquake. they enabled americans in alaska, washington, oregon, california and it is of the islands -- and the pacific islands to know that it was going to be a tsunami and how strong it would be and when it might arrive. that is our role in the aftermath of an earthquake. host: what is your ph.d. from harvard in? guest: marine ecology. host: when you were an undergraduate at colorado

college, were you interested in these types of things? guest: i grew up in colorado and my family did a lot of outdoor the things, hiking, fishing, whenever this season. i loved science. i love pretty much everything. but my major in college was biology. that was particularly intriguing to me. between my junior and senior years in college, i had the opportunity to go to massachusetts and spend the summer there and take classes in marine biology and i thought, wow, this is really cool, i loved it, i want more. it has been oceans ever since. host: next call for noaa administrator lubchenco comes from oklahoma city. hi, scott. caller: hi. appreciate your show. i am interested in weather prediction as well, and i think it is too important a job to lead to the federal government. article 1, section 8 of the u.s.

constitution, every congressman has sworn to uphold, forbids them from setting up anything that has anything to do -- i mean, there are 17 hours there, not one of them has to do with predicting whether or anything like that, which was added to file thi-- which was in the founders time as well as today. host: too important to leave to the power of government, administrator lubchenco. guest: i think it is too important not to have it to save lives and property. the private sector has the opportunity to add value to that, create new products, and thrive. as i mentioned earlier, that private weather sector enterprise is about $1 billion. it is a nice synergy between what the government does and what the private sector is able to do that benefits from the basic core information that is so important.

you should not have to buy information about the weather to be safe. host: a tweet in to you, administrator. any comment -- guest: i am not sure what that is referring to -- host: water flow or anything like that? guest: i am not sure what that means. host: all right, we will leave that alone. good morning, mary. caller: i'm calling about the reports from noaa during storms. frequently, local news stations go to noaa for updates.

that used to be this very telegenic it died down in florida -- telegenic guy down in florida that it is great reports and these maps and everything, and i never he retired last year with a year before. -- last year or the year before. -- last year or the year before. now thae noaa reviews, i don't know where they are coming out of, and the guy that is doing it, i cannot understand it, i cannot read the map. the feed is not good, or not as good as it used to be. i'm wondering what is going on. i'm wondering what is going on. host: let's get a response lubchenco. guest: mary, thanks for the feedback. we are trying to get better. i am not sure who the personalities are of whom you are speaking, but we provide the core information that local meteorologists on tv stations

and what not present to the public. most of the core information we have is on our website, and that is actually a great source of information. the national weather service is part of -- or their website has, at during irene, 52 million hits per hour. that was weather.gov. that is a great source of information if you would like more than what you are getting it now. host: weather.gov got 52 million -- guest: hits per hour during irene, a new record for us. host: we got a call from oklahoma in a while back. lots of tornadoes in oklahoma. what is noaa's role in that? guest: tornadoes are a big

challenge, because they are so localized and can be so incredibly destructive, as we saw this year. saw this year. noaa forecasts tornado warnings, and we have gotten better and better third time -- through time in getting a more advanced morning. that is still a matter of minutes in terms of where a tornado with touchdown. however, thanks to our polar orbiting weather satellite, during the very severe tornadoes we had this last few months ago, we were able to give a five-day heads up to emergency managers that conditions at developing, tornadoes are going to be really severe, get ready. two days out, we said this is the area that is likely to be affected, and then the day off, we would be able to say, ok, it

is going to touch down here, going to touch down here. those tornadoes were devastating. some of them had really, really awful consequences. but all of the emergency managers with whom i have spoken has said it would have been much, much worse had we not had the heads of information. now, one of the things that noaa does is track the number of weather-related disasters that have been each year. we keep track of how many have happened each year that are at least $1 billion in damage. the previous record was 2008, where we had a lot of hurricanes. as of now, as of irene, we have broken that record. we have 10 at least $1 billion defense to date this year. quite a few of those were tornadoes. but we also had floods, we had

droughts, wildfires, and now irene. and we stock most of the rest of -- and we still have most of the rest of hurricane season to go. hurricane season runs through the end of november. the peak is typically september and october. and october. our predictions in june -- may, actually -- word that this would be in the above normal year for hurricane activity. . she keep a sharp eye on -- everybody should keep a sharp eye on the weather outlook, disaster warnings. we have seen with irene how important it is to be prepared and follow instructions. we have a tropical storm that just became a hurricane this morning, katia, out in the atlantic. it is too early to know exactly where she will go yet. we are attacking her and you can

get information on her at weather.gov. there are likely to be otherwise development -- other ones developing behind her, possibly in the gulf. it is smart to just pay attention guest g. host: if katia is already out there, how far in advance to you know this? could it be a week? how far out to you see? guest: she started way on the other side of the atlantic off the coast of africa, where a lot of hurricanes are spine. some of them develop into nothing and just sort of dissipate. others develop into a full-blown hurricane. we track them from the very early days before they are even a tropical storm. we do that with our satellite, we watch them, cross.

we watch them come across. if the tracks suggest they are close to u.s. territory, we send out the hurricane hunter plans to get additional information so that we canhone the forecast in the warnings. if you look at path of many of those hurricanes, they often come across the atlantic in a westerly and northwesterly direction . irene turned northward, and our models and did exactly -- that -- predicted exactly that. as the administrator at fema pointed out a few days ago, a decade ago, our hurricane track decade ago, our hurricane track forecasts were not as good as they are today and we probably would have had to evacuate most of a florida for irene. but in fact, because our track

said no, it is not going to hit florida, it will hit north carolina, that was spot on and it's a unnecessary evacuation's -- it saved a lot of unnecessary evacuations as well as a lot of disruption. improved warnings is what we improved warnings is what we constantly strive for. host: an email for you, administrator. "are more volunteers needed?" guest: the national weather service, will be on the show tomorrow. yes, we do use volunteers, and if you have a chance to ask jack, a great trait if not, we can provide more information if you send me an e-mail. host: we will put that aside and say that for tomorrow.

california, eloise. caller: i am interested in stopping a hurricane while it is still a tropical storm, an article one, section a, speaks of a navy and an army, so under that aspect, you do fall under the constitution. guest: [laughter] thank you for that. there is so much power in a tropical storm that it is inconceivable how one could even conceive of stopping it. our job is to understand that there are very real forces of nature, and our task is to understand how they works so we can get out of harm's way and that is what we do with our forecasts. host: roanoke, virginia. hi, gerald, you are on with jane lubchenco as "washington journal" looks at weather and

government. caller: this is so good to hear a doctor who was educated and well versed in weather. she was talking about wind turbines. we are spending this tax money on these wind turbines bro. i heard on a national broadcast three weeks ago that three of these large projects have now been shot down. here in the roanoke area, they planning to install 54 in the mountain area that can be seen from the blue ridge parkway for 20 miles away. the blue ridge parkway in this mountainous area here is very beautiful and attracts many visitors. the wind now is not even blowing. it has not belong here for at least three days. -- has not blown here for least three days.

i cannot even see a leaf twitching. these wind turbines have to be restarted when the when it does not blow. and they have to have electricity, or they have a draf -- have to have gasoline -- host: what would you like to the administrator to respond to? guest: to the wind turbines and the fact that these are inefficient. guest: thanks, jerrel. one of the challenges with wind energy is the intermittent nature of the wind, and that is what you described. that is why is so important to have information about what the typical winter is like at a particular -- typical wind is like a particular place so that one can place this in the right spots. even if they are in the right spots, and thought has been given to how to accommodate the intermittent nature.

nonetheless, many of the places nonetheless, many of the places where they are, i think, are providing a good wind energy that is not polluting. they have to be designed properly. the department of energy has the department of energy has primary responsibility for those and is working closely with the department of interior as well as noaa. noaa's role in that is to provide information about the winds that enable others to do their jobs. host: very quickly, a couple of tweets. guest: i believe that everyone i have spoken to appreciates some aspect of noaa. one of my challenges is to represent the diversity of what

we do and interconnected nature of it. i believe that noaa brings a significant benefit to the nation, and in communicating that, we will be able to sustain all the important things that we do. there are very significant downward pressure is on everybody's budget, and we attempt to live within our means and address the deficit, as i believe we need to. guest: noaa does not have satellites that sitting around ready to be launched. we build them and then fly them. we build them and then fly them. host: does noaa have official or non-official opinion on global warming? guest: noaa is the science agency and we track to provide records about temperature, it changes in precipitation, changes in storms and other things.

the evidence is very strong that we have seen significant warming over the last century, since the 19th century. we are seeing increases in temperatures and about 1.5- degree fahrenheit. we are also seeing increases in extreme storms, extreme precipitation events. more flights, more droughts. all that is consistent -- more floods, more droughts. all that is consistent with the predictions that have been made about climate change. we track records, provide information, we use the information to inform people's activities around to the nation. activities around to the nation. host: in fact, dr. lubchenco served on the national academy of science's study on policy implications of global warming during the george h.w. bush administration. she served from 1977 to 2009 as

a professor at oregon state university and prior to that taught at harvard for a couple of years. chris tweets -- would you like to address that? guest: noaa played a very important role in responding to the deepwater horizon oil spill, as we do to other oil spill. that is one of our responsibilities. we provide a lot of the scientific information that enables the response, whether it is weather or oceanographic models that say where the oil will gold. we have responsibility for protecting wildlife and habitat. we are in the process of assessing the damage and then we will help with the restoration. all that is integrated and underpinned by the science that we do. i believe that we did a very, very good job of our part in the

oil spill. it was a disaster, it was highly unfortunate, it went on for too long, and there are a lot of lessons to be learned from it. but i am exceptionally proud of the role that noaa played in that event. not a single piece of seafood that was tainted made it into the markets. we closed fisheries in anticipation of with the oil was going to be and worked closely with fishermen to open up areas as soon as it was safe. we continue to test seafood from that. our models about where the oil would go and what would you have been spot on. -- and what would you have been -- and what would you have been spot on. there was a lot of miscommunication during the event, lessons learned, but we've been pretty much vindicated with what we did. i'm proud of our folks. host: jane lubchenco is the administrator of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. the website is noaa.gov.

if you want to follow them on twitter, >> we are live now at the white house. the press briefing room getting set for the briefing with jay carney which should get underway in a moment or two. the white house and the last half hour making a couple of announcement, that the budget projections indicating 9% unemployment rate next year -- from the white house budget office. associated press writing the figures from the budget office predicted the economy would grow just about 1.7% this year, a full percentage less than the administration predicted. also, is scheduled update from the president that he will be headed to new york city to

attend the u.n. general assembly the 19th and returning the 21st and the president will deliver remarks in new york at the clanton global initiative. a week from today the president of deliver in remarks on jobs before a joint session of congress next thursday. we don't have a time yet for you but we will have it live on c- span when it does happen. that will be next week. john boehner, the speaker of the house, also speaking on jobs. his speech before the economic club will be the week following that, thursday, september 15. that, thursday, september 15.

waiting for the briefing to get under way with jay carney. you may remember yesterday the white house sent a letter to speaker boehner about the speech before a joint session of congress wednesday the seventh, and now the agreed to have the joint session on thursday the eight. the house and senate coming back actually on tuesday, september 6, will be back at 2:00 p.m. and the house back at 10:00 a.m.. the house legislative agenda for next week is still under development. in the senate they will begin to take up the nomination on a patent overall system -- overall system. >> thanks for coming to the white house for your daily briefing. i have no announcements at the top so we will go straight to

questions. >> the new budget projections predict 9% unemployment as the president faces reelection. the white house believe the jobs initiative the president will announce next week will change the projections for the pots of? >> yes. absolutely. as i mentioned yesterday and i think as i mentioned earlier this week, the president will come forward with specific proposals that by any objective measure would add to growth and job creation in the short term. and that will be part of a broad package that reflects its commitment to grow the economy now and to build a foundation for economic growth for the future to ensure we win the feature. the answer is, yes. >> if the congress were to pass the package, unemployment would be less than 9%? >> when you talk about economic

predictions -- yes, economists will be able to look at this series of proposals and say that based on history, based on what we know, based on their collective expertise, that it would add to economic growth and cause an increase in job creation. >> the flat yesterday over the date and timing of the speech. is there anything the white house would have done differently in retrospect in terms of consulting with the hill or announcing a joint session? >> our focus from the beginning was to have the president have the opportunity to speak to the american people and congress, in front of congress, at the front of congress, at the soonest possible date upon congress that a return from a long recess. wednesday seemed to be the best option. when that seemed to be a problem, thursday was fine with

us. we are looking forward to -- the president is looking forward to an opportunity to talk about what the people care about -- the economy and the need to create more jobs. we are focused on that. look, all we care about here is we address the issues that are most important. we are certainly not interested in inside-the-beltway political gain to bush -- gamesmanship. what we are interested in coming up with a proposal that makes sense, can grow the economy, create jobs, by historical standards would have broad bipartisan support. and if congress comes back from their districts -- if the members comeback with the same sort of an emergency the president has and having heard from their constituents the same thing the president heard when he went on his bus tour, everyone will come back with the same amount of urgency and focus

to get this done. because what the president will propose can get done, should get done, and will benefit the country. >> the justice department lawsuit to block the at&t team mobil merger, could that be viewed as the administration taking a more aggressive approach on antitrust? >> this is a law enforcement action, about which you should adjust your questions to the department of justice. it is based on a law that was designed to foster competition and protect american consumers. but beyond that, i refer you to the department of justice. >> democrats are unifying around the advice the president needs to go bolden the speech. is that the way you would characterize what he is going to roll out and are there certain expectations one creates when you do a joint session of congress speech? >> i will leave it to you and

others to characterize the speech. in the terms that you just described. what will be the case and the reason why the president wants to speak before congress is because it is an important moment in our economy and it is an important moment for the american people, who are demanding that washington put an end to the gridlock and bickering that has paralyzed the process and take action to help the economy, to create jobs, to help them. that is what they want. they are not out there scoring political points. the vast majority of americans, whether they voted democratic or republican or registered with a party or not, they want washington to work for them. they want them to take sensible action to work for them. to create jobs, grow the

economy. that is what the speech will be about and a concrete pole -- proposals the president will put forward. >> when you ask them what would constitute -- like $400 billion in fiscal stimulus -- will you be looking at anything on that scale? scale? will he be going to give specifics, a jobs package might creates when he unveiled the? >> i will not preview the speech any more than i have except to say it will focus on the need to grow the economy and create jobs. it will be a collection of proposals that, again, should have bipartisan support, and at seminole -- similar times has had bipartisan support, that will be by any objective standard pro-growth, job creation, and can be acted on right away if members of congress come back from their recess ready to do things to

help of the american people beyond that, i am not going to characterize it. >> you talk about bipartisan ideas, support. did you have any indication some of these ideas will bipartisan support? are people in the white house consulting with people on the hill about the specific proposals and that communication that they will be accepted? >> in the previous day's you have not been here i have been asked western in a variety it -- variety of ways. the president has consulted widely as he has. ideas folks might have outside of his administration, congress. he spoke recently with businessmen, ceo's, workers. but i am not going to be tell conversations he has had or layout which policy proposals made or may not have the support from this segment or that segment of congress.

>> how has the president reacted to the whole debate yesterday over the issues of the scheduling of the speech? >> i spent a great deal of -- deal of time with him this morning and it never came up. i honestly. i know you guys love this stuff. i know it is catnip, but we are really not focused on it. >> a basic question. if you can't even get the congress to agree on a date for a speech without a political sideshow, how can the american people expect you could do something much more difficult,, with a jobs plan? >> the sideshow's don't matter. the economy matters. the american people mad. jobs matter. that is what we are focused on. thursday is the day, thursday is the day. we want to give a speech. the president wants to talk to the american people. the president wants to call on congress to act. that is what we are going to do.

>> you can to work on -- >> this is small stuff. the issue is, wednesday was the soonest possible day on their return from recess. thursday is fine with us. he will give the speech thursday. look, going back to what i said before, cooperation, it is about do the member of congress return next week to washington having heard from their constituent its -- constituents that it is enough. they are tired. you and i have been in washington long enough and covered this long to enough, that the cycles of gridlock, cycles of partisanship -- not new, right? people get frustrated because they think washington is incompetent or broken. what they saw the summer is it is not incompetent, it is dangerous. the gridlock actually threaten

to end armed the american economy, harmed the american people. that is not acceptable. what i think and what i hope will happen upon congress that return is they would have heard from their constituents that enough is enough and it is time to actually do things that are productive and helpful to the economy rather than, you know, retreat to your corner and hope you win the partisan political battle for an in-depth audiological part of your political party. the president believes, again -- he will put forth proposals that it believes has bipartisan support -- based on that compared because everybody here is working for the american people and members of congress like the president elected by the american people will do the right thing and focus on issues that matter, economy and jobs. >> early indications are that. clerk of all of this speech. the super committee -- kerfuffle

over the speech. democrats meeting with democrats meeting with democrats, republicans meeting with republicans. does not seem like inauspicious -- an auspicious start. >> again, members of congress have to answer to their constituents. the president answers to every american citizen. they have heard -- they will have heard the imperative from the american people to put an end to the nonsense, to get to work. and i think there is an opportunity here for the american people to drive this process, to have their demands heard. we are faced with a challenging situation. there is no question that the recovery is moving too slowly, that we need to do something to boost growth, to boost job creation. that is the number one priority. and any data you can come across that we have, the overwhelming

majority. with that information, we should act. and the president is hopeful that congress will want to join in and doing it -- in doing that. >> you blame partisanship, but isn't this -- isn't the real culprit and l but -- inability to communicate on the most simple terms? >> no. no, we communicate all the time with congress. we spent a lot of time this year communicating with congress. and this president has since he took office. lesson't need a civic for me, but i will give you one anyway. i think the problem is -- and i think everyone here is aware of this -- is that the partisanship and the apparent polarization that is sometimes observed and felt here it is actually not very reflective of what is happening out of the

country. the company is. -- pretty unified when it comes to priorities, that compromises necessary, and when it comes to their acceptance that the far ends of either spectrum don't have the answers necessarily. so, if you look back over our history, we are closer together in many ways than we have ever been and we ought to take advantage of that instead of fabricate that divides that prevent us from getting things done. >> compromise requires effective communication between the two parties. my understanding of what happened yesterday is the president's chief of staff first reached out to the speaker around 10:30 a.m. in the morning and delivered a message that the president wanted to speak to a joint session of congress. but there was no give-and-take, that is part of the regular give and take that goes on between the white house and congress about delivering a joint session

of congress. you cited from the podium congressional scheduling as one of the concerns, and yet it appears there was no one to check with congress about what they could get everybody back in time to hear from the president. what happens to the communication between the president and his staff and the speaker? >> we have a fine communication. and i think the focus on this is really yesterday's story. it is not what people care about. we were interested in speaking wednesday because congress was returning, both houses, after labor day, wednesday, after a long recess, that was the first day they were back. there were no initial objections to that. when problems were expressed, we said -- we talked about it and said, fine, thursday will work for us. it is not very relevant. what is relevant is moving as

quickly as possible to raise and then address the issues the american people care about -- the economy, jobs, the need to build a foundation that includes getting our fiscal house in order while we invest in key areas like innovation and education and infrastructure, building the capacity to compete in the 21st century against a world that has grown more competitive. i think that is what people care about. they don't care about what happened at 11:00 versus what happened at 4:00, but they care about what we are going to make the economy grow, to help the private sector higher hands to make sure that their kids are getting educated. >> working this out behind the scenes before there was this public spat. given what happened during the debt ceiling when there were people who were elected members who hung up on one another and would not return phone calls.

what could you say today that would give confidence to the american people that republicans and the president can actually work together to solve the park -- heart problems facing the country based on the track record? >> i would go back to what i said to john. we believe that members of congress, house and senate, will have heard from their constituents what the president heard in a moment -- minnesota, and the small towns in minnesota, iowa, eleanor, what he heard the previous week in michigan. which was the american people, democrat, republican, independent, a tired of the bickering and they want reasonable solutions to the problems that face the country. they want the government to do things that helped the economy grow, that help the private sector higher, and they get frustrated politicians who don't listen to them. i think everyone would have gotten an earful by everyone who

sent them to washington about what their priorities are. and everyone works for the american people, that would have a salad tour effect on their behavior. -- saltatory affect on their behavior. >> a couple of people unemployed -- obviously. but you don't seem to of knowledge there is a process in washington that has to be dealt with to help these people who are unemployed. i think what john was suggesting, the president having this much trouble on the day. this much trouble on the day. james carville said the last thing the white house needed was to appear to cave in to the speaker. so there is a perception among democrats that he does not have enough clout with the help. how do you expect him to pass a plan for the american people? >> i honestly think your assessment of this -- what the american people expect the president to do, what the american but expect their

senators and congressmen to do is to listen to them and take action. they do not give a lake about they do not give a lake about what day next week the president speaks before congress. they want to hear from him. they want to know what his proposals are. they want to know that he has a reasonable, sound, serious ideas to grow the economy, and to create jobs, and that he is going to pay for it and he has a plan for getting our fiscal house in order on the long term. that is what they care about and they care about whether or not congress has similar ideas and is willing to take action on those ideas. they simply do not care about this stuff. abouty don't give a lick the day and time -- why doesn't he give a speech from the oval office tonight? >> the recognizes that while there are things he can do without congress, and he will to them, there are actions that need to be taken with congress that require legislation to grow the economy and create jobs, and

he wants to go to congress, speak directly to members of congress, and layout his proposals. the first opportunity to do that is next week. so, that is when he will do it. >> and president visited the solar company in may of 2010. he said "companies like this are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." you probably heard overnight yesterday the company after getting a half a billion dollars from government money and attention from the visit is filing for chapter 11 and laying off one -- 1100 people. what does it say about the president's policy so far as he gets ready for this new plan, when this company promoted and gave money to is going bankrupt and laying off people? >> this program, which had a broad portfolio of many companies that are doing well, the purpose was to invest in cutting edge technologies with

some government assistance, with some government loan guarantees, which would help us establish a beachhead in vital industries that would allow americans to compete in the future. there are no guarantees in the business world about success and failure. that is just the way business works and everybody recognizes that. that is why there are over 40 companies, as i understand, for the guarantees involved in this program that merits looking at. there is no individual -- you cannot measure success based on one company or another. >> you said several times today and yesterday that the president wanted to speak to congress as soon as possible, when they get back. was this the plan all along to give the speech to a joint session? >> obviously we discussed this as the present work on his proposals and this was the idea settled upon -- and as the president worked on his proposals. when he decided this is what he wanted to do we moved forward. >> yesterday?

>> it was made this week. >> let me ask you straight up. did the president capitulate to the speaker about the schedule? >> the president wanted to speak to congress. congress is back this wednesday, the first day both houses are back in session. therefore he requested that he speak wednesday. if wednesday does not work, thursday is fine with us, as long as he gets to speak to congress and he looks forward. >> i know you are loath to get into the details of the speech -- whether it will go big or small, whatever. average unemployment rate of 9 percent, and of course, 2012. he said the president's policies if enacted would lower that rate. correct? >> i would say objective outside economic analysts will look at it and say, if enacted, this plan will have a positive

impact on growth and a positive impact on job creation. >> what is the target for growth and unemployment? am i will not make projections nor get into details on the proposals. >> i was just treated to a conference call with the projections, that is what it was all about. >> this is a new series of proposals the president is making next week and rather than preview them now. i am not going to get into projections or show anymore leg on the details of the speech. what i am going to say is they will contain a series of proposals that are aimed at having a quick impact on economic growth and job creation. >> the new tarp -- session review -- obsolete? you guys put it out a month and a half late, a week before the president delivers a new economic plan, making it a

completely -- and >> there are a lot of factors. this is obviously been an interesting budget year. these are separate issues. the president is moving forward on the job and growth proposal next week, and obligation is to put out a mid-session review, which came out today. these are not connected in any specific sense. >> should we or should we expect an updated -- >> you have to ask omb. >> a time on thursday? >> i assure you, all football fans, it will be before kickoff between new orleans saints and green bay packers. >> you said -- yesterday and today the president has consulted -- the president's team has consulted with republicans on the hill. then i think that is a slight --

as i said, the president has consistently throughout his presidency and including in recent weeks and months, consulted with a wide array of folks in his administration, outside the administration, congress, both parties, business, and elsewhere, about economic ideas and proposals for growing the economy and creating jobs. that has been true throughout and this process. >> i am not going into did he have specific -- >> they say he has not. >> have you spoken to every member of congress? >> republican leaders say they have not been consulted. >> he has consulted widely, as the always does. he gathered ideas from his economic team and has put together proposals that we are quite confident, if congress quite confident, if congress comes back to washington filled with a righteous sense of the urgency about the need to grow the economy and create jobs, they will act on it for the

american people. >> you cannot say whether not he spoke to -- >> i answered the question at half dozen times. >> in the hours between the letter from speaker boehner and his statements -- your statement last night, it did not seem as though -- thursday is fine with us. did it go to the president and he said, fine, we will do it on thursday? >> i think we were clear we were in conversation with the speaker's office and looking at what the alternatives were, and again, talking about a matter of hours, not days and weeks, resolved -- resolve the that thursday was fine with us. >> the president made that decision last night? >> the president makes all the decisions here. so, we were discussing among ourselves and talking with the speaker's office and decided to go thursday.

>> if the address is done by kickoff, does that mean he perceives the speech as a pregame show? [laughter] >> it means he will have the opportunity to watch the game like millions of other americans. >> you referred us to the justice department about -- on the question about law enforcement action, but i want to ask a couple of white house questions on that. did the justice department notified the white house before announcing the decision and was the white house involved in the decision or given any consultation, and did the jobs impact,? >> the decision was made by the justice department as a law enforcement action and it with any questions for any factors considered, i refer you to the justice department. >> was in consultation -- >> a justice department decision. they look at the factors and make the call. >> did the white house consult with them before they made the decision?

>> i am not sure -- the justice department looks at the factors and make the decision about proceeding on a law enforcement action so i did you should ask them about what their considerations were. >> including the white house's role? >> the white house did not have a role in making the decision. >> has at&t been to the white house today? is it possible to get a definitive answer, would you be able to help us? thanks. >> one question -- should we assume whatever money the taxpayers put into it in terms of loan guarantees, that cannot be returned? >> i don't know the technical details. but i can take -- department of energy, probably. the question about the speech next week. you keep on saying the proposal is the president will lay out should have bipartisan support different from saying you are designing a package with the best pants -- chance of passing.

what is the goal? >> i know you asked it yesterday. >> said they were designed to pass which were raised a lot of his supporters, that you are designing something that will pass and therefore -- >> i think it is a difficult process to know precisely what is in the hearts and minds of 535 members of congress as they consider legislation. what we know with great confidence is that proposals the president will put forward next week are reasonable and to reflect based on historical precedence what should be bipartisan -- should receive bipartisan support. and i think they will be judged that way when he unveils it on thursday. >> that a different than saying it is a package designed --

>> it is a distinction without a difference because you could say nothing can get congressional support or anything could get congressional support. again, if members of congress, that focused on the needs to address the economy and hiring, they will view this proposal has an excellent path to take to grow the economy and create jobs. and a reasonable one and one that merits broad support. that is what we believe and that is what we are coming forward with. >> following up on what john at this -- jonathan was asking, the idea the president cannot did anything out of this congress, not even a date to speak. is it fair to judge him what he gets out of congress or just on his proposals he lays out and his decisions? >> i think it is fair to judge the president on the actions he takes and the determination he shows to do what he was elected to do, which is, first and foremost, protect the american

people and help the american people and the american economy. and he has done that since he took office and he will demonstrate it. that is his book is -- what can i do as president, either administratively it or with congress legislatively to ensure that the american economy is best positioned to grow, that the private sector has conditions that will allow it to hire and encourage it to hire, and the american people will go back to work. we have been through a horrible situation, the worst recession since the great depression. americans in general, we can have short-term memory. part of what makes this break. we look toward the future. it is important to remember what we are emerging from and how serious the economic recession was. and this president has been focused on this since the day he

took office, and he will be focused on it until, as he says, he knows every american who wants a job and is looking for a job has a job. >> could you explain a little bit about what the president expects to do and see and hear when he goes to paterson, new jersey? >> i think what you saw throughout the process, hurricane irene, very concerned about the devastation of the storm. the fact that it was not as severe as it could have been maybe true, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that many, many americans were severely affected by it and some lost their lives. new jersey was a very hard-hit state. then a tour of the town? >> we will come out with more details about his itinerary a little later. >> is a going for moral support,

or seen it firsthand helps him hone the government responds? >> i think it is very important just to see up close and personal what the effects of a storm like this work, talk to local officials and affected americans, first responders and those officials working on recovery, and hear from them. so he looks forward to doing it. >> does the white house know that this president has gotten much respect from congress as the office deserves? >> the white house spends zero time worrying about that. we spend our time and the president spends his time focusing on the job at hand. the job at hand is to come up with, proposed, and act on the things we can do to help the economy and to help job creation.

and the other responsibility the president has. >> no worry at all about the office of the president being demeaned? >> so much more of this van is merited. the president will speak to the congress, the joint session, and the american people next week. it is an important time for our country. it is an important time for the economy. he will speak directly to the people about what we need to do to grow the economy and create jobs, and he looks forward to doing it. >> does the president have any regrets -- regrets about making a big deal about this? >> the president is committed to the idea that we need to make investments in clean energy technology in the kinds of industries that are the industries of the future and will be the job creation engines in america in the future, if we intend to be number one in the

21st century the way we have been in the 20th and the earlier part of the session -- century. we need to make those key investments. the america -- american history is full of examples of the american government providing seed money in areas that allows for explosive and economy- changing growth in certain areas -- whether the transcontinental railroad, or the internet. the president is very committed to that and as i said before it does not mean that each individual investment we make -- we do not change the rules of business by doing this. by nature of these could be high risk but also very high reward investments, and we are committed to the process. >> you have regrets about this particular company? some republicans said they thought this particular company with a dubious proposition from the start. >> they thought it clean energy was a mistake, were ready to cede it to competition.

they were ready to cede the automobile industry to foreign competition. we disagree. >> are you satisfied this company got the scrutiny it should have had? >> i would refer you to doe a meticulous of the process. we are satisfied that this program is necessary and is working. >> thank you. when you say that the president will make some proposals in his address next week that will be things he could do administratively, would that make up the bulk -- >> i said obviously what i meant, or i meant to convey, is i think i was asked why congress, and that is because we want to act with congress. much of what we need to do requires legislation, requires action by congress and that is why it is important to go to congress. he can also do things, as the has in the past, administratively that could help the economy grow. the regulatory look back, to relieve businesses from burdensome regulations.

there are other measures he can take the ministry of late that the not require legislative action. he will continue to do that as well. there are many pieces of this that are both legislative and administrative. >> you think it be finishes before the time kickoff, he might also leave of time for republican response? >> again, we don't have a specific time yet for when he will begin speaking so i don't have an answer to that. >> just to follow on two points you made. you said a couple of minutes ago that the president has zero interests in the notion that the prestige of the office -- should he had zero interest? is it the prestige of the office a significant component? >> what he has zero interests in and what the american people have zero interest in is the petty political gamesmanship

that goes on and it's followed assiduously by the press. it is not what the american people care about. in fact, when they are forced to pay attention to it, they recoiled in disgust. [laughter] you know, go out there and talk to the regular folks. i know you do. i think that is what you here. when you go out into the country and you talk to ordinary americans who are struggling to make ends meet, ensuring they can make their car payments and they are saving money for their kids' college education, coming up with great new ideas to increase the productivity in their small business, you know, telling the field or working in a shop, they do not have any time for this. they do not have time for the pettiness, smallness, posturing, and mostly they don't even pay attention to it. and that in one of the things

that was so frustrating about what happened this summer is because of the seriousness of the consequences of the posturing, they were forced to pay attention to it and eight -- they were appalled by it and scared by it. the president is focused on the big things, the things that matter. and i think that is what the vast american -- majority of the american people are focused on and i think with any luck that is what members of congress will be focused on when they come back. >> the communication but -- you describe communication between the white house and the hill as fine. i think this might be the only room in washington where you can say that. to what extent do you think that the fact there was a communications gap with the speaker's office, it appears this was done at the staff level. do you have any regrets the president himself did not call speaker boehner? >> first of all, i think you need to fine-tune your reporting on what happened. who was involved.

but it is irrelevant. it really is. the president will speak to the nation and to congress next week as he hoped to do and he will talk about some very important things that have nothing to do the -- what i think is the issues trump that kind of stuff. as you know, the president has a working relationship with the speaker of the house. they spend an awful lot of time together, in person and on the phone this year, and they will continue to do that. the same is true about the democratic leaders in the house and senate and the senate republican leaders, and other leaders and members of congress. that will continue. the issues matter farmer than this. -- far more than this. the american people are fed up with this so we will focus on the stuff that matters. and i think, listening to their

constituents, congress will focus on it, too. >> "the boston globe" reported that the president's," has been arrested. it was the president aware that his uncle was in the united states? >> he became aware of the story when i walked in his office and among other subjects mentioned it to him, and it was new to him on monday. >> also is his administration committed -- seem all but the laws being enforced. >> he expects it to be handled like any other immigration case. >> that things the president can do without congress -- you mention regulation did can give examples of things he can do administratively or by executive order to create jobs? >> i don't want to ruin the surprise. of course, the president has certain powers. the executive branch has things

it can do. i talked yesterday on the housing front, measures that were taken to assist the unemployed homeowners. that is a measure that can be taken at the executive level, administrative level, to help home owners on an economic issue. there are a variety of things it can do. >> completely different subject. the president in minneapolis reaffirmed his commitment to get all of the troops out of iraq by the end of the year. former prime minister alawi said this morning in a strong op-ed piece in "the washington post" that things were getting much worse and he referred to a big debate in washington about whether you are going to maintain this troop withdrawal. is there any debate on that in the administration? and i trust your sources in washington on this and i would simply say we made significant progress at great sacrifice in iraq and the fact of the matter is that violence overall remains

down significantly and iraqi security forces have demonstrated great improvements in their capacities to maintain security in that country. it is not perfect. there are still incidents, no question. and there are still folks there who have a great interest in being disruptive. but the accomplishments of the american men and women over there are substantial. the fact is, it is important to remember, we turned over, that leave their quite a long time ago. iraqis have been in the security leak or a substantial period of time and that progress continues. no question there challenges ahead in iraq. but substantial successes have been achieved. thank you guys.

>> just before the briefing, the white house budget office announcing they predict the unemployment rate will remain at 9% next year. figures that lead into the president's speech next week on jobs and job creation, that speech before the joint session of congress will happen next thursday. as you heard in several questions, no particular time indicated so far for the white house. i can tell you we will have live coverage here on c-span. also live coverage on monday. the president will be in detroit on labor day. he is making a speech there. and the president on sunday will be in paterson, new jersey, touring some of the damage from hurricane irene. yesterday the commission on wartime contract and released its final report showing the u.s. government's reliance on wartime contractors in iraq and afghanistan has resulted in as much as $60 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse. earlier today on "washington journal" we talk to the commission co-chairman shays and

charles tiefer. and how did it come about? guest: well, it's a commission created by congress. three-year commission. congress had seen there was too much waste, fraud and abuse in the wars in iraq and afghanistan from contractors. it created a commission. the eight commissioners, including myself and chris shays to go to iraq and afghanistan, hold hearings and find the facts and make suggestions. host: chris shays, what did you find? guest: well, we found a lot. first off, the obvious half of our military effort, the personnel are contractors. we learned that there was significant waste, fraud and abuse, and we started out thinking, my gosh, if half of the people there are contractors we better oversee them better. and then we said, well, if you can't oversee them, maybe we're using too many of them.

and then we thought, even if you can oversee them, maybe we're still using too many of them. guest: they became the default option. you know, if something had to happen, well, let's have a contractor to do it. host: how many contractorsate its peak were we using in iraq and afghanistan? guest: over 200,000. host: over 200,000. how many are still active? guest: probably half that. you know, we're still -- the irony is as we leave iraq, the military leaves iraq, the state department is having to hire a plethora of contractors. security folks. they have to have basically their own air force. that's contractors. so there is some irony. if the military leaves, we're having to hire a lot of new contractors. host: charles tiefer, are contractors held to the same rules as government employees? guest: they're not. everyone who works in the government puts the taxpayer

first. everyone who works for a contractor is expected to put the profit of the company first. and so the effort that people within the government make to make sure that the expenditure is at the absolute minimum is not the -- contractors don't do that. guest: and that's contractors. in other words, they have a responsibility to their shareholders but we want them to also have a responsibility to the government. host: so it's estimated about $206 billion has been spent on contractors for these two wars? guest: service contracting. host: what does that mean? guest: well, in other words, the government buys things. that's separate. when we buy services -- services to provide health care, to provide water, to provide cafeteria services, to build buildings, those are service contractors. host: and according to your commission, the defense department in march, 2011, had

207,000 defense department contractors, state department had 19,000 contractors, usaid had thousands of contractors. -- 35,000 contractors. 99,000 troops. 48% of the d.o.d. work force was contractors. guest: right. this is the challenge. we weren't prepared to go to war in iraq and afghanistan with contractors. we didn't have the proper mechanism within the government. we didn't have the proper oversight. we didn't have the proper planning. and that was alarming. what's even more alarming is we can't go to war without contractors. now, this whole beginning part has been a little negative on them. i mean, they do fabulous work.

they can be less expensive because we can use them when we need them and not pay for them when we don't need them. so this is not a criticism of contractors. it's a criticism of bad contracting and bad oversight by the government. host: charles tiefer, what are some of the instances of waste and fraud that you found in your investigation? guest: well, a whole chapter in our final report, chapter 3, has over 40 of the most striking narratives in -- and in iraq we found half had not been completed. the ones that went to k.b.r. cost over $3 billion more than they should have. in afghanistan we have found that we are building -- contractors are being tasked to build and often this is not their fault. the tasking comes from the government. are being tasked to build many facilities that will not, as

far as we can see, be sustainable after the american withdrawal. and so $6.8 billion in security forces facilities is at risk for becoming waste. for becoming waste. host: chris shays, what about outright fraud? guest: we found outright flawed. how difficult it is when iraqis -- an iraqi company or afghan company. fraud is estimated to be between 5% and 9% of the total waste. it is probably closer to 9% than 5%. host: a couple of headlines.

$30 billion to $60 billion. guest: we think it is closer to $60 billion. the waste is between in our judgment 10% to 20%. the fraud is between 5% and 10% of the total. we have built so many buildings that we do not think can be used. there's a power plant that should never have been billed. -- built. the $60 billion may end up being low.

guest: there is an effort to get back some of it. efforts -- there were kickbacks in 2003. that is a fact of life in the countries we are talking about. kickbacks from foreign subcontractors in 2003. the justice department has just brought its claim this year. the scale is on the order of $400 million. guest: waste can be a project that needs to be done. at one point, there is a threat letter sent to contractors and says this contract company cannot continue work unless it obtains permission from the mujahedin, or else it does not

have the right to complain. it is a bill from the enemy to be paid. we did not leave the phone number and. host: is this report available online? guest: it is, but i screwed it up. host: how did you screw it up? guest: .com. you can call and talk with chris shays and charles tiefer. here are the phone numbers -- also twitter, facebook, and e- mail. first call, from san diego,

forests, honor democrat line -- forest, on our democratic line. caller: what was the iraqi democratic unit changed to the united states dollar? i have been trying to find that out for years. why was the chains to the u.s. dollar -- why was it changed to the u.s. dollar? guest: the gross domestic product is about $1 billion, the economy of thethe country. i would guess their currency was meaningless and worthless. you have so many u.s. dollars in the country. host: kbr has been mentioned a

few times. we got hundreds and hundreds of calls about kbr and their role in iraq. do you agree with the assessment? guest: for the next 10 years, we have contingencies and you are the only player. a lot of companies bid on it and they won it. they got this huge windfall. the government was at fault in not going to -- they were way too late and now you have three companies that are allowed to bid on certain contracts and you have more competition. we also have a problem that we end up paying bills and later, we go back and say is this justified? then you go back and try to get

the money. this company got a little fat and all loose. host: next call comes from taxes on the republican line. vet.er: i am a vietnam all you could get was the vietnamese money. i am trying to remember the name of it. their money was not worth nothing. i have to ask important questions. why is the gas line over there $200 a gallon for the troops? why hasn't anybody been convicted? guest: we looked into a number of instances in which the contract had been to buy

gasoline and found instances in iraq and afghanistan in which large purchases had been made in a situation where there was not competition, where the purchases were made and were sold sourced by the contractor and there may well been overcharging. that would have resulted in a higher price to the united states than it should have. as far as no one been convicted, there have been some convictions, there are many obstacles in the way and particular, what we found is that often foreign contractors have not submitted to the united states jurisdiction and it is difficult to get them if they are in kuwait or in afghanistan, to get them in a u.s. court work they can be

convicted for criminality. guest: so one of our recommendations is to put them under jurisdictions. but legal cases take forever. i wouldn't be surprised if there haven't been 100 that have been convicted, companies and individuals as well. host: here are some of the recommendations that have been made. what does that mean? guest: contingencies are a term where they are limited to actions for even something like hurricane katrina. we need to be more selective and careful, as chris shays earlier. the tennessee is to use contractors as a default option -- the tendency is to you

contractors as a default option. guest: it is not a helpful tool in deciding what the government should be doing. sometimes the government should still be doing it and we won it based on risk -- and we want it based on risk. when we developed a sophisticated way of saying what the risks are in a particular situation -- we don't make overall judgments. in afghanistan, there is a particular risk that afghan security subcontractors guarding the convoys on the road might funnel off a piece of what they are paid to the insurgency, to

the taliban. we say that function should be phased out and be done by contractors. guest: there may be a certain static security where we say this should not be done by contractors. we leave it up to the people in the field. it can be based on risk. host: next call comes from kevin in wisconsin on the independent line. caller: i was over in kuwait in 2005 through 2006. i work with kbr and i did a lot convoy escort over there. what i got from talking to kbr people is that the country of kuwait paid the al qaeda not to commit any terrorist acts or set

in kuwait.d's we did not have to worry when we were in kuwait. but once we went over the border into iraq, there were. in 2001, donald rumsfeld held a news conference and it was something like $14 million was on account for in his defense budget. the next day, we never heard about what happened to the $14 million after the pentagon was hit. host: going to paying off the enemy. is this becoming standard practice? guest: it is an alarming practice. i think it has been documented that it is happening. i think there may be some in the

military who think that is the least of the evils and inmate save american lives. there is a group within afghanistan that is happy we are there. we have added to the gross domestic product manyfold. the taliban are happy we are there. there is some irony going on. we're spending a lot of money in afghanistan. we need to rethink that. guest: we were briefed by the experts when i was in afghanistan in march. even a limited amount of siphoning of u.s. money has a terrible impact. our report finds that the second largest source of money for the insurgency is siphoned off u.s. funds.

that would be a couple of hundred million dollars. that would be a big piece of the taliban budgets. guest: that is the general. we give you more specifics. half of our military efforts are contractors. they do not train with the military. byhoughtws are not sof the military. it would be someone who is focused on contractors. focused on contractors. we have a qdr in the military, there five-year plan of action.

we think there should be 8 da dual-headed person so that they are talking about operations and talking about money and making sure the two mix. host: is there a role for a large contractors in wartime? guest: chris was right. we cannot do without them anymore. we depend on them for a great deal of the construction. the days when there were as the marines or other navy building people who go to specific islands and do the construction, they are in the past. we need to hire people for that. guest: congress wanted the military to be the tip of the spare.

we do not want the military having to be the cooks. as long as we don't lose a critical core. we have contractors to work on the helicopters but we better have enough military folk that know how to do it to. o. caller: i appreciate the remarks of charles and chris. i'm two blocks away from it lipstick building, bernie madoff's office. he was involved with fraud of private funds. some people might have been prosecuted, 100 or so. if the numbers of waste -- let's take $40 billion.

that is a taxpayer money. is the government pursuing these people and putting them in jail? in terms of construction and our military, somebody mentioned kuwait and i think we say it kuwait. we saved saudi arabia from iraqi. these are all rich companies -- countries. countries. the united states taxpayer are paying 75% of that. host: we got the point. mr. shays. guest: i don't think we've done justice to the number of people that have been prosecuted. it is not an insignificant

number. it takes a long time. viper view people who commit fraud against the government -- i view people who commit fraud against the government as being treasonous. they undermine the government. when you look at governments around the world that do not succeed, it is because there's too much corruption. we don't have enough people overseeing contractors. we are making bad decisions on what to do in those countries. it is a lot of things that don't involve sending someone to jail. making government more efficient. guest: there was one example of a prosecution that produced jail time for a significant official. a man got a year in prison and

served it for kickbacks. the obstacles in the path are so great that the justice department will be spending years more trying to get the company, kbr, to pay back on painted subcontracts. years more. host: you can read the final report at c-span.org. you can read it on our website. you guys are awesome. st. louis, missouri, bill. turn down the volume. idaho. jackie. good morning. caller: kudos to the two guys you got there. the tournament that called in before hand, i am retired from

the federal government. i have worked in contract in and it doesn't just happen over in afghanistan and iraq. i live in a town that has an air base. i put myself through college working construction, a girl of the 1970's. i had to try everything. i just want it to let you know that this is one of the reasons -- the president says stimulus or something like that, everybody cringes because the government isn't known to handle money very well. i know that i loved my country. my father was in the specific in the second world war. -- my father was in the

pacific. i just hope you guys -- this is what we need to start doing. host: jackie, thank you. onst: the contract nikko's overseas is part of the general department of defense. the kohl government is more dependent on contractors. -- the whole government is more dependent on contractors. the mechanism for oversight overseas is weaker than here. you don't have it focused as one of the reasons which suggest things like an assistant secretary of state or an assistant secretary of defense for contingency contract in. we have to get visibility of the overseas visibility contract to make up.

guest: i know charles would want to make this point. to make this point. the folks that do, attracting at state and defense come they are fabulous people. they do a terrific job. but there are limits to what they can do given how understaffed they are. understaffed they are. host: who appointed you? guest: john boehner and then mitch mcconnell and john boehner made me the co-chairman. i was grateful -- host: who were the other three republicans? guest: i have to think. the former controller. the former controller. a former finance person in the

department of veterans affairs. and we have -- who is the other republican? doug, zach. host: while you think about that -- guest: he is quite right. it is amazing that chris shays is my co-chair as much as he is the republicans' co-chair. we have catherine, who is with the general accountability -- government accountability office all her life. mike is the deputy head of the defense contract audit agency. and clark kent ervin, an

inspector general for two different departments. he brings a fiery approach to the investigation. guest: grant was the acting cochair and he was the number 3 at the state department. he was on the national security council. what a great background. what a great job he did. host: jack on our republican line. thank you for holding on. caller: this is all but perplexing. you mentioned a fraud. it seems to me that with all the layers of existing government auditors who are auditing contracts, during auditing contracts, during the bidding process, we're already paying extensively for things that looks like you're

duplicating now. guest: we are not duplicating. guest: we are not duplicating. we do a much better job and even then we have our problems. it's not sexy. it is not the joint strike fighter for the f-22 or the things that the public seems to focus on in government. service contradicting continues to become a greater part of our budget. service contract it is larger than the things that we buy in government. that is -- we don't give it the same way and we don't give it the same attention, and we should. it is more than a half now. host: the wartime commission recommends --

host: how much did the commission cost overall? guest: we were given $30 million guest:. -we new line-- guest: we spend about $20 million. close to 5 million dollars year. host: we have a tweet. guest: how do we know? guest: there has been waste. go back to the revolutionary war when there was considered corruption in the thames by george washington to buy munitions for the army. we used to buy goods, munitions

from the outside. there might be waste in that. the services were largely been done internally. we have access to analyze that and there is a level of waste. guest: you boys have waste in wars, so what is the big deal -- you always have waste. this is preventable. if you are spending $30 billion, why notned a -- spend a small sum to correct that? caller: i remember seeing a documentary -- i do not know if anybody is familiar with that. they showed how much money the contractors were spending. if something happened to

escalate, they would say, don't worry about that. we will get you a new one. i i look at how much money they are spending. there will be cutting my medicare. it irritates the heck out of me to find out all this money is being spent over there for nothing. guest: i want to say how well informed your callers are and how interesting their questions are. this is a budget that has been thinking about these issues. i saw the documentary. it was quite interesting. it is based on allegations. we took it another step and we looked at not just should this be audited but what did the audits show? sell iraq for sale gives us a picture of what was suspected in

the mid 2000's. it was the iraq war. you would think the lessons learned in iraq were being carried out in afghanistan. they were not. problems like those in iraq were there in afghanistan. host: our last call, from maryland. caller: good morning. i am a contractor and officer with the army and have been doing this for 18 years. i was in iraq in 2009 and i met mr. tiefer when this commission came there. what is being done to improve the active military personnel who are serving as a contracting officers representatives who are

tasked with the oversight of the service contract? it was my understanding that the number of contracts that they have and the lack of streaming was leading to less oversight and more potential for perhaps errors and waste to occur in these contracts. thank you. thank you. guest: it is nice to hear from someone who i met on the trip over there. i learn on my trips. chris shays had taken 20 trips to iraq before the commission even started. i had to learn allotted to even -- i had to learn a lot to catch up to him. our first report found a shocking lack -- 85% were not

being filled. we started in our first report and have continued and put more in the field. guest: you need to make sure that they have the ability to become a flag officer. to not end the career as a colonel. -- do not end your career as a colonel. there needs to be a career track that says if you go through contracting and overseeing personnel, that you can become an admiral or a general. we need to make sure they get there before the last ones leave and to make sure they are well informed. the contractor has been there before and will be there after. there is one contractor who knows the whole history of the project.

host: chris shays serves as a commissioner on wartime contractor. charles tiefer was a commissioner on that commission. you can read the entire report online. they continue to be commissioners. charles tiefer is a law professor at the university of baltimore. he served in several different capacities with the house of representatives, a solicitor. a general counsel and the acting general counsel and he served on the bosnia-gate subcommittee and as assistant legal committee in the senate. trial attorney. trial attorney. columbia and harvard law degree and regular viewers know chris

shays. he served in congress from 1987 to 2009. word is you are going to run for senate in connecticut. what about those reports? guest: i am looking forward to doing some new things this fall. you are not giving up on me. i intend to file to run for the senate the day i am no >> a reminder, you can read their final report on the commission of wartime contract in, the final news conference from tomorrow. you can watch c-span.org that. ad. throughout the week on

"washington journal," we have been bringing you a series on the weather. we conclude the series tomorrow with the role of the national weather service. that is live at 9:15 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." rearing in the evening at 7:15 p.m. on c-span2. >> he is a parson guy who wants to unite people. i mean, all of the problems of the air and you could get from this guy and why you cannot elect him as the same reason we eventually went to war. the cannot be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower, so i deny really think that there was any way that adlai stevenson could have won. >> you think of al smith in 1928 and herbert hoover.

paved the way for franklin roosevelt. there 14 people in this series, many of whom i guarantee be worse may have never heard of, and all of whom i can pretty much guarantee they will find it interesting, fascinating, and certainly surprising. >> history professor gene baker, a real clear politics editor carl cannon, and presidential historian richard norton smith talked about the 14 men who ran for president and lost, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and as a the. it is a preview for "the contenders," a 14-week series on c-span beginning friday, september 9. >> machiavelli had become an adjective. i doubt many people in this town would like to have themselves described as a machiavellian. i have a feeling that many of them lead them secretly inhabit next to their bedside. but not too many people would call themselves machiavellian.

>> his name is synonymous with cynical scheming in the selfish pursuit of power. sunday night, the author argues that maquis of elite's theories may have been in response to the corruption around him. that is at 8:00 p.m. >> more road to the white house coverage saturday on c-span at noon eastern, live coverage of a speech by sarah palin. she is one of a number of speakers at a tea party of america rally at the national balloon classic field in iowa. that is live at noon. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. politics in new hampshire today, jon huntsman saying that "i want to put you on notice, we're going to win this state. of the acknowledged today that his campaign manager for the granite state had been fired. yesterday in new hampshire, and a metal fabricating plant, jon huntsman talked about his job

creation plan, proposing changes to the tax cut by eliminating capital gains and dividend taxes. this runs about 40 minutes. >> i believe we're a pretty prototypical small business and manufacturing company with about 45 hard working, conscientious regular people employed here. we support industries that at that all of our daily lives, and i do not even think we think about it sometimes. it could be food-processing, economic, deepwater drilling, television, broadcasting, and a lot of others and are apt to confess to you all that i have been an addict and professional gambler for about 35 years. my professional gambling has hurt the company. i estimate all our jobs. we hire people and purchase equipment based on what we think

will happen. we pay 100% of our employee's health care, dental insurance, short and long-term disability. we have no guarantees of success, continuing purchase orders, are any business continuation. have no safety nets. since july of last year, when we had a little accident in the gulf of mexico and there was a drilling moratorium put on, mike companies lost about $50,000 a week of sales revenue and very good fabrication for us. since then, there has been a lack of permiting. that lifted a moratorium, but they will not grant any permits for deepwater drilling. so it is kind of a snafu with me. government involvement in my role this is significant disincentive for me to take further risks. i am anxious to hear what governor huntsman's plan is to improve the business climate in america. with that, i turn you over to governor jon huntsman. [applause]

>> thank you, everyone. jack, it is an honor to be with you. to your colleagues, your friends gathered here, it is honored to be at a manufacturing plant, a great manufacturing plant here in new hampshire. i would like to outline my plan today to put america back to work. and rebuild our economic engine stronger and more powerful than ever before. we have an economic crisis in this country. the marketplace is a crying out for predictability, competitiveness, and signs of confidence. above all, people need jobs. as we gather this evening, 14 million of our fellow americans are unemployed. millions more are so disspirited they have given up looking. our economy is often framed

through such numbers, get behind the numbers are human tragedies. families that are torn apart, relationships that are pushed to the brink, men and women struggling to maintain self- esteem, and the pride that comes with self-sufficiency. there is no more urgent priority at this point in our nation's history than creating jobs. and strengthening our economic world. everything else revolves around it, and it is dependent on it. meeting our economic challenges will require a serious solutions, but above all, it will require a serious leadership. a quality and high demand in our nation's capital and among my opponents on the campaign trail. it was just four weeks ago that i was the only candidate to stand up and support a

compromise to save our nation from default. which would have triggered a calamitous consequences for our economy. president obama never even offered a plan of his own. and all of my opponent's support it the fault. even as far as attending to undermine the deal at the 11th hour, this simply does not cut, especially in these very trying times. the ideas i will discuss today are not radical or revolutionary. they are straightforward and common sense. many of you have heard them talk about before, maybe even four years, but therein lies the problem. washington has never suffered from a vacuum of ids. it suffers from a vacuum of leadership. i am not running for president

to promise solutions. i am running to deliver solutions. now, some of my entitlement reforms come directly from the paul ryan plan. other solutions come from the same symbols commission, a bipartisan group that last year put forth some very sensible tax reforms. -- simpson-bowles commission. it may be challenged by special interests on the left and right, but it represents a serious path forward toward fiscal discipline and economic growth. it also represents a very different vision for our country than the kind occupier of the white house. the president believes that he can tax and spend and regulate their way to prosperity. we cannot. we must compete our way to prosperity. when i was born, manufacturing

comprised 25% of our gdp. today, it is down to around 10%. this does not reflect a decline in american ingenuity or work ethic. it reflects our government's failure to adapt to the realities of the 21st century economy. we need american entrepreneurs not only thinking of products like the iphone or segue. we need american workers building those products. it is time for "made in america close " to mean something again. overseas, i have heard our adversaries speak of america's decline as if it were pre- determined. it is not. some say today's economy is the new normal that all of us need to accept. i refuse to. it is time for america to compete in. and here is how we're going to

get it done. first, on debt. let me start by saying that is a cancer that if left untreated will destroy our economy from within. i have been outspoken as a supporter of the paul ryan plan, which i believe begins to address the long-term problems and make our current course of spending absolutely unsustainable. i also support a balanced budget amendment. our debt is immoral and should be unconstitutional as well. but we cannot restore our nation's economic strength by cuts alone. we must compete. second, over the last few decades, our tax code has devolved into a maze of special interest carve out, loopholes, and temporary provisions that cost taxpayers more than $400 billion a year to comply with.

rather than tinker around the edges of what is a broken system, i am going to drop a plan on the front steps of the capital that says we need to clean house, get rid of all tax expenditures call loopholes, all deductions, all subsidies, all corporate welfare. use that to lower rates across the board and do it in a revenue-neutral fashion. [applause] thank you. for individual taxpayers, i propose a version of the plan crafted by the simpson-bowles commission known as the zero plan. we will eliminate all deductions and credits in favor of three dramatically lower rates. eight, 14, at -- 8%, 14%, and 23%. we will eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which

is unfairly penalizing a growing number of families and small businesses. we will also eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, which will lower the cost of capital and encourage investment in the economy. the united states cannot compete with the second highest business tax rate in the developed world, so i propose lowering it from 35% to 25%. one-point lower than the oecd, 40 developed world average. a tax holiday for repatriation of corporate profits earned overseas should also be implemented immediately. making between $400 billion dollaand $600 billion for capitl investments at home. third, our creative and entrepreneurial class is being strangled by a complex and convoluted web of misguided and

overreaching regulations. one of the most indefensible examples is the's national labor relations is ongoing effort to prevent america's largest exporter, appalling, from building a new plant in south carolina in an effort to block investment in right to work states. if elected, i will immediately instruct the nlrb to stop pursuing this politically motivated attack on free enterprise, and if they fail to do so, i will replace them. and equally chilling regulation we must repeal is john frank -- dodd-frank. the american people were handed a 1600-page monstrosity that gives an unelected bureaucrats unprecedented and unreview of all power over our financial system. another fundamental problem with dodd-frank is it perpetuates too

big to fail. taxpayers must be protected from more bailouts. yet -- [applause] thank you. yet, we must reconsider whether increased competition between smaller entities is more efficient than a vast new regulatory apparatus that will almost certainly produce more bailouts. we also must repeal obamacare, a $1 trillion bomb dropped on the taxpayers that only hampers businesses and job creation. we must and being the epa's serious overreach, exemplified by its current effort to pass a new ozone rule, which would effectively halt new construction. we must also reform the fda's ridiculous approval process that increases development

costs and unnecessary delays on new products, particularly those that have a potential to cure diseases and extend human life. fourth, to free ourselves from opec's grasp and create american jobs. we must and our heroin-like an addiction to foreign oil. every year, america since more than $300 billion overseas for oil. this is an unsustainable, and it largely is in route to in friendly regimes. we need to expand and open up new sources of domestic energy, thus lowering costs to businesses and improving our overall global competitiveness. [applause] thank you. we must start by expected -- in expediting the approval process

for safe environmentally sound products, including our oil and gas reserves in the gulf of mexico and alaska and appropriate federal lands, along with supporting the keys to the -- keystone pipeline project in cooperation with canada. we must eliminate subsidies and regulations that discourage domestic energy sources, such as natural gas, biofuels, and liquids. here's one example. the u.s. has more natural gas than saudi arabia has oil. yet the obama administration just issued fuel economy regulations that effectively bar heavy duty trucks from converting to natural gas. simply said, we can and must begin producing more energy right here at home. [applause] thank you.

fifth, as it relates to free trade, as a former diplomat, a trade official, governor, and business executive, i have witnessed firsthand the tremendous economic opportunities of free trade. 95% of the world's customers live outside of our borders, and with the u.s. party to only 17 of more than 300 trade agreements worldwide, opening more markets for american businesses should be a common- sense tool to spark immediate growth. for two and a half years, the president has failed to act on free trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama. i would make them a top priority. washington must also immediately start discussions with india to end, a bilateral free-trade agreement, strengthening our

relationship with a friend who will prove to be critical to america's success in the 21st century. now, friends, on each of these points and more allied in our american jobs plan, which i would refer all of you to, president obama's jobs record has been marked by a failure. as the obama administration has dithered, other nations are making the choice is necessary to compete in the 21st century. i have seen that firsthand. in brazilia, beijing, new delhi, and seoul, our competitors are making the hard choices that will help assure their children a better life. if we fail to do the same, we are robbing our children of an inheritance every previous american generation has enjoyed.

i am running for president because i am prepared to lead the american people to that better and that brighter future. we are the most optimistic, common sense, a problem-solvers on earth. we can turn this thing around. i seek your vote to reignite the america's light. ladies and gentlemen, we have no choice. we must unite and look beyond politics for real solutions. it is time for america to start building things again. it is time for america to start working again. it is time for america to compete again. i believe with a new administration, we can do just that. president obama won in 2008 on hope. we're going to win in 2012 on real solutions. thank you also very much for being here. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now, jack, i guess we can take a couple of questions. is that allowable? >> keep this clean. i do not know who wants to ask what. does anybody have a question? >> [inaudible] said they're going to bar the at&t takeover of t-mobile. at&t says do it and we will bring back thousands of jobs for americans. it did you feel at&t is holding the government -- [inaudible] d feel they should bring those 5000 people back now?

>> this has nothing to do with one company. this is something everything to do with the big picture approach to getting this country moving again. this is an about little tweaks here and there. this is about half measures and halfhearted efforts around the tax code or individual complaints are arguments. we fundamentally have a problem with respect to competitiveness in this nation. we're not going to be able to expand our manufacturing base. 25%, was born in 1960. a 10% today. you cannot live off services along, i hate to tell you. we have got to get back to where we can make things in this country anymore. and we're not going to do it by one-of conversations are decisions on individual companies. it is going to get right to the heart and soul of fundamentally making our tax code. it will get right to the heart and soul of the mentally addressing the barriers and the red tape has been in the way called excessive regulation.

it is going to get right to the heart and soul of dealing with the reality that we can create 500,000, so says t. boone pickens, jobs right here over five years. if we began a transition to feels, like natural gas, they are ours. in great abundance, they're clean, cheap, and carry pretty profound national security implications. instead of getting into an at&t discussion, i am here to tell you, folks, we have no choice, we need a big picture approach to problem-solving in this country. we cannot afford half measures any longer. it will not do for this country what needs to be done. [applause] thank you. yes, sir? >> i was in the navy when you were born. i cannot find anything that you said to disagree with, and i appreciate your enthusiasm and yours deal. when you get elected and you walk into capitol hill, 80% of the people that are there now

are still going to be there. how are you going to get all these things done. >> you know, i was born in 1960, and the u.s. navy paid for my birth. i was born in the navy. i have been forever grateful. now i have two sons in the navy, just in a small attempt to pay them back. there's nothing like the voice of the people when they speak out. that is built an attention- getter in this country. we're still camino, elected officials, the consent of the government, it is the people who speak and actually get things done. i am here to tell you that 2012 is going to be about nothing beyond expanding this economy and creating jobs, plain and simple. there may be some, you know, some ancillary issues that loom large, but it has got to be up about fixing our core, getting us back in the game, getting this country back on its feet, the economy, and jobs. i believe the discussion leading up to 2012 is going to be a referendum on exactly the things

that we discussed here. what do you do about taxes? what about obamacare and dodd- frank and these women regulatory measures that are crushing enterprise and ingenuity and the free-market system to some extent? when the people speak in 2012, it is going to be an attention- getter. i can feel it coming already. that is going to speak to congress, and it is going to speak to the bureaucracy. it is going to say, we, the american people, we want to get things done, and we want to follow a particular course of action that is going to ensure prosperity for the american people. and reverting back to a system that believes in our capitalistic traditions, free- market some innovation, and powering the entrepreneurialism allowing the marketplace to solve a lot of our problems. i believe that is going to be the message loud and clear. when that message is delivered, there is not going to be dithering. i believe congress, as they always do right after the american people speak, they're going to

whether you are a governor or you are president, that is the message you get on election day. i found this out as governor. you have about a two-year window in which to get things done, and that closes and you know longer have an opportunity. that's the problem with president obama today. the door has closed, and he has not expanded the economy. i believe there will be an alternative in 2012. you have two years after the stamp of approval by the people to actually get things done. what i am trying to do, as i mentioned in my comments, is too narrow the priorities for the american people down to that, because that's the cancer that if we do not contain is going to mess that -- to metastasizing kill this country. that is how are going to get out of this whole we are in? we have to grow, expand revenues. you cannot do that until you

reform taxes and you cannot expand the economy until the deal with the regulatory environment. three is energy independence. that's an engine of growth so powerful that those are the three things i'm going to talk about. those are the issues that will drive this country forward and you will get the stamp from the people of this country and you go through for the next two years. thank you for your service in the navy. >> [inaudible]

an understanding of the chinese social and economic culture. what message do you bring to the american middle-class that will give hope for a brighter future, hopefully not the there's a good sale at walmart. >> maybe i could even say it in chinese at the appropriate time with great clarity for a billion people. there is always a fear factor when you talk about china. economic difficulties, challenges, closed markets, challenges with the international -- with the delightful property, currency problems, with a deeply discounted currency, given their export machine at an advantage. they're all bad and we have to hammer on those issues. but on the other side, there is an opportunity for the allied states and i do not want that lost on anybody. you've got a largest middle-

class in the history of the world, consumer class in the history of the world that will form in china. they will be inclined to want to buy our products. to my mind, that means exports from the united states. as governor, china was no where on our top list of export nations. within a couple of years, it went to the top five and then the top three. for every state in america, china's marketplace will emerge as a voracious consumer. that means jobs, opportunity, economic expansion here at home. you have to balance the yen and yang, so to speak. you have to balance the realistic approach, rebalancing the currency, doing things that suggest you play by the rules. that has been a challenge for 40 years and i'm realist. it will continue to be a challenge but you have to hammer home at. but i am not going to miss the

opportunity for the united states to see the reality of growth in china. it's a country with 8% economic growth for 30 years. that will taper down as a tape -- as they move toward a consumption machine. they will be buying our stuff and that when the europeans to be dust out and i now want anyone else to beat us out. i want to make sure we are on our feet, competing, ready to export and we have the wherewithal to penetrate the markets and make the cash registers ring here at home. thank you. [applause] >> final question. >> based on your familiarity with china, what do you feel the implications are of their one child per family program over the long term for trade and as a market for our debt instruments?

>> that is a sensitive one. i hate the one child policy. so do a lot of people there. but i also have a daughter because of the one child policy. i have a daughter we adopted from china and i have no doubt about her circumstances. her mother, for whatever reason, gave her life and decided to keep her. that is sometimes an uncommon thing in china. she was abandoned and put in an orphanage. we then took possession of her at a very young age and she is now 12 years old. every time i looked at her, i think about china's one child policy and how is robbing the chinese people of life and opportunity and creating a certain disequilibrium in terms of their population in ways i don't think any social scientist has ever thought through. on the other hand, it has given me one of the love of my life in

my own daughter. i wish she were here today because you could see what a brilliant, beautiful, and thoughtful 12 year-old she is. i call her my senior political adviser because she usually travels with us and at the end of each day, she says that, you screwed up on this, you forgot to say this, he said this wrong, and i listened to every word she says because she is right on. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> my brother used to work for your data. he was a chemist back in virginia. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] >> that will be interesting to watch. >> i have six children. they are all grown. i know what family is and i really appreciate what you were saying. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible]

>> it's going to take awhile to get a balanced budget amendment. i think it is the will of the people to have a balanced budget amendment. i think they have had enough of the large and unpredictable deficits to say we have to do this right. >> [inaudible] >> everybody when we have the legal immigration debate, everyone gravitates to the illegal side. we have always relied on brain power in this country. >> [inaudible]

>> we need party unity at all costs. >> thank you for your work. >> you are a navy brat? >> [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] >> how are you doing? good to see you. whenever you have got and

whenever you like. >> [inaudible] >> you are talking about their plans or their records? >> your plan and their records. >> i do not know the specifics of what they're offering. i don't believe you are going to find any other candidate with a tax reform program that hits the mark like ours, where we are willing to phase out all of the loopholes, all of the deductions, corporate welfare, clean out the cobwebs completely, so they you can pay down the rates. i do believe that is quite significant and we may be alone in terms of candidates who are offering such a program. >> there was talk of some revenue for deficit reduction treaty don't want to do that? >> i believe any extra revenue

you will see in our model and we have used to bring down the capital gains rate. if you look at our plan, it is a hybrid. you have one aspect of simpson/bowls and and as our own addition as well. >> [inaudible] >> spending cuts and growing. the ryan plan for spending cuts and tax reform and regulatory reform and that will stimulate the economy and a revenue flow the old fashion way. you have to earn a revenue flow to begin paying down debt. i believe our plan is comprehensive in the sense we're hitting on trade, we are hitting on energy, we're hitting on regulatory reform and tax policy. everything is included that i think represents not long-term

but short-term effective this in firing the engines of growth. >> you talk about taking away deductions that are very popular like a first-time home buyer. perhaps >> you have to start with a negotiating position. i did the same thing as governor. when we reform our tax code and a fairly revolutionary way -- has never been the -- it has never been done this way in the history of the state. my idea is to phase out everything and move toward a more predictable tax and then the negotiations began and you have a different and point. people want their president to get things done. right now, we are polarized and no one is moving the agenda forward. the president needs to move the agenda for word and get things done. what i laid out today represents our growing in

position. there's a reality of negotiations going forward and i would like to stick as closely to this as possible. i believe if we can achieve something like this, it will leave this country with a 21st century tax code that will fire the engines of growth and provide an element of predictability for entrepreneurs and accretive class in this nation so people began hiring again and capital does -- capital expenditures are deployed into the marketplace. >> the plan you are advocating today, did you look at what the effect of that plan would be and who would be paying more taxes under the plan? >> we have looked at it. we looked at the scoring that went on from the congressional budget office. we have not scored hours specifically. we can estimate what the implications will be, but we have to do some scoring. we're taking off some of the

scoring that was done because we read the three primary proposals. this one that my own view of good, comprehensive tax reform. but i believe this hits the mark and we will continue looking at the numbers as we move forward. >> would net lower that after- tax income of the wealthiest americans? >> it will provide three rates. i believe getting to a simpler, more predictable tax rate and, you can deal with how you approach phasing things in and out, as i had to do when we did tax reform in the state of utah. it is never overnight or a one- size-fits-all plan. this is my going in position. i think it is a realistic and a good place to start. i would like to stick as closely to it as possible. >> >> it is a global business

and, like any global business, you have to meet customer demands. this discussion is about to getting in the competitive environment here on the home front. manufacturing, shoring up manufacturing, we have to -- >> the president has called in a joint session of congress. >> i think it is political theatrics. if you do not have a plan to put forward, sometimes you fall back on political theatrics and i cannot help but think this is no coincidence. you have to look at when the debate is taking place and could afford your own proposal and it results in what a lot americans come to find cynically as political theater. >> thank you. >> @ do you think a compromise message will energize the base?

>> what compromise? he said that was your opening position, you are open to position -- open to negotiation. >> i like the plan. that's why put it forward. i liked the plan as governor and that's the way you put it together and going to stick as closely to it as i can. what we got out of it was i think the best tax reform in the nation. if you look at what some of the analytical organizations say about it, they do a pretty good job analyzing tax policy. you go back and check the record, we had the best tax policy in the nation that year. >> what's more video of the

candidates and see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contribution with the c-span website for 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates and the latest polling data. all of it is a at c-span.org. tonight, the transportation secretary joins a panel of business and labor representatives to discuss creating jobs through infrastructure investment. the meeting of the president's council on jobs and competitiveness took place today as other massive -- southern methodist university in dallas. they have held a series of sessions are on the country since its creation in january. see that tonight at 8:00 on c-

span. drop the week, we're bringing you book tv in prime time. a look tonight at some of the year's best sellers. tonight, how the west was lost, 50 years of economic folly and the stark choices ahead. then, the origins of political order. 10:10 eastern, best-selling author on his book "sex on the moon." that's tonight and tomorrow night on c-span2. in 10 days, the u.s. marks the 10th anniversary of the september 11th attacks. the president plans to travel to new york, pa., and the pentagon that day. he is expected to deliver remarks at the washington national cathedral. we'll have lots of coverage on that day. we continue our look at the u.s.

10 years after the september 11th attacks. a report card was released yesterday on the state of u.s. national security. they talked about commission recommendations. this was hosted by the bipartisan pauley cent -- policy center and its about one hour and 40 minutes. >> it is great to see some many folks here that i know have toiled diligently over the decade since 9/11 inside and outside of government to reshape our national security institutions. the challenges of improving our agencies are not just theoretical. you have been in those battles and trade we're fortunate to be

joined by seven of the 10 9/11 commissioners. their investigation, report and recommendations are an example of the bipartisan collaboration our country desperately needs some much more of in other areas. the commission is unparalleled in a number of changes adopted as a result of its recommendations. they worked closely with victims' families and politicians in both parties and with their staff to pass landmark legislation in 2004. this restructured our homeland and intelligence agencies. the most significant transformation since world war two. this morning, they will summarize the report card by the new york city prepared as group. they were advised by several national security experts and former government officials. the entire list of advisers can be found on the inside cover of the report card.

if the have trouble seeing the chart, on page 10 is the full charge and report card. in addition to those advisers, the group consulted with current administration officials in preparation. i like to recognize the indelible assistant of mike who is a senior staff member for the 9/11 commission. we will in turn to moderated discussion with the 911 commissioners to get their bought on what has been achieved and what remains to be done. we are pleased that and compton of abc is the news has been here to moderate the program. we hope to wrap up around 11:45. it is my honor to introduce governor cane and mr. hamilton need no introduction. together, they were the cochairs of the 9/11 commission and co- chair the national security prepared this group. welcome them now. [applause]

>> this is a very special occasion for us. this is the first time in a long time so many of us on the commission have been together and we established not only a good working relationship, but a pretty darn good friendship. it is special to have you all back. thank you again for an amazing job. september 11th was that day when violent islamic extremists hijacked four of our commercial planes and turned them into weapons, killing nearly 3000 people and the world changed. these attacks exacted a devastating toll on many, many families. our government, the private- sector and our daily lives are

now very different since that day. indeed, it is difficult to comprehend all the ways our nation has changed. the most visible reminder of those changes are the airport screening protocols, being asked to report suspicious activity in public places, drone strikes that kill terrorist operatives are front-page news every few days. the less notorious changes occurred within the federal government and they are even more dramatic. we have seen the largest reorganization of the intelligence community since 1947. the intelligence budget itself has doubled. the terrorist threat has changed as well. today, unlike 2001, we must be concerned about americans. they play preeminent roles in al qaeda's global network. for example, in minneapolis, minn., muslim american youths are being recruited in a small

labour pretty -- smaller communities to fight al qaeda @ -- to fight with al qaeda in somalia. we have seen extremists recruited through internet forums. a major who killed 14 soldiers at fort hood in texas was radicalized online trade the self radicalization is very different. it's almost impossible for federal officials to detect. after a 20-month investigation in july of 2004, the commission made 41 recommendations, are charged by congress to try to improve this nation's security. they were endorsed by both presidential candidates at the time and almost every single member of congress. now, as we reach the 10th anniversary of those attacks, it's appropriate to reflect and take stock of where we are in trying to reform national security. what do we have yet to achieve?

today, we release a report assessing a recommendation and the good news is a lot of progress has been made in a good many recommendations, among these, the transformation of the intelligence community. breaking down the barriers so move terrible and costly in information sharing. legal policy and cultural barriers between agencies created serious impediments that prevented disruption of the 9/11 attacks. when a lot of recommendations, number of specific recommendations to improve information sharing across different parts of government. information sharing with them the federal government and on federal, state and local authorities and with allies. it is not perfect, but it is a lot better that was before 9/11. those changes are among the things that facilitated the

capture of osama bin laden. today, we highlight nine unfinished commission recommendations that demonstrate we are not as secure yet as we can or as we should be. we urge immediate action to complete their implementation. first of all, let's talk about unity of effort. this is critical on the disaster scene. everyone has to work together and someone has to be in charge. a well coordinated response will save a number of lives. our nation was not prepared for the size and complexity of the challenge of 9/11 and neither was it prepared for hurricane katrina. we will find out how well they have responded to this latest hurricane on the east coast. while training under uniform command structure has taken place, many metropolitan areas where multiple agencies who respond to a disaster still have

not solve the simple problem of who is in charge. our concern is the failure to resolve the basic building blocks of established roles and responsibilities when we're getting catastrophic disaster planning can result in confusion at the scene and can cost lives in the future as it has cost lives in the past. second, radio and opera ability. if -- radio in opera ability. if we're going deaf first responders, have to be built talk to each other. this was one of our prime recommendations and still has not been implemented. this recommendation has stalled in part because of a political fight over allocating radius spectrum directly to public safety for a nationwide interoperable network. efforts to receive its -- to

achieve unity has to be accelerated. when firemen cannot talk to policeman and cannot talk rescue workers are medical personnel, people die. they died because of that on 9/11. they died because of that in katrina and will die in the future unless this problem is not solved. congressional reform we often say congress implement all of the report except the report concerning themselves. when we issue our poor, we felt the strengthening congressional oversight was very difficult. we know it is difficult, but it still has not been done. it has to be done. congress should immediately consolidate jurisdiction over the department of homeland's security within the house and senate homeland's security committees. this would avoid what exists now with almost 100 committees and subcommittees the secretary

reports to. that is confusion, it is not oversight. it makes it dysfunctional and a means the homeland's security department spends so much time preparing and testifying that they are not spending enough time protecting us, which is their prime job. we also recommended a joint bicameral intelligence committee in each body with combined authorizing and appropriating authority. the basic issue here is the intelligence committee do not control purse. as you know, agencies will listen to congressional committees that control the purse. currently, the house and senate appropriations committee's fund them through defense subcommittee's and a defense department budget. at a minimum, separate intelligence subcommittees' should be established to fund the intelligence community. i would now like to introduce my cochair, lee hamilton, an

extraordinary individual who has done so much for this country over seven years. it was my pleasure to work with him. we would not have the report we have were it not for lee hamilton. [applause] >> good morning and thank you for coming. i recognize there are many in the audience today have contributed hugely to homeland's security and national security of the united states. just one quick snapshot about tom keane. on the very first meeting we had after he was named chairman, and i was named vice chairman, he came up to me and said we are going to make every single decision jointly. i had come out of congress, where the chairman has all the power and their ranking member has none.

what an extraordinary overture he made at the outset. that was one of the principal reasons the commission was able to reach a bipartisan agreement. his leadership was superb. civil liberties and the executive power -- we recommended in 2004 privacy and civil liberties oversight boards should be established to address and monitor privacy and liberty concerns across the government. five democrats and five republicans on the commission felt strongly about this recommendation. since 911, the executive branch received expanded authority to collect information and conduct surveillance. even if these powers are being employed in a careful way, respectful of civil liberties, the history of the abuse of such power should give us pause and make us commit to making sure mechanisms are in place to

protect our liberty. a robust and visible board can help to reassure americans that security programs are designed and executed with the preservation of our core values in mind. although legislation was enacted to establish this board, it has been dormant for more than three years. today, only two of the board's five members have been nominated by the presidents and neither has been confirmed by congress. the remaining three should be appointed and confirmed immediately. seconds, the director of national intelligence, the establishment of the director of national intelligence and national counter-terrorism center to coordinate the activities of the intelligence community represented major progress in intelligence reform. in the last six years, they have increased income -- increased information sharing, improved coordination among agencies,

sharpened collection priorities, brought additional expertise into the analysis of intelligence and further integrated the fbi into the overall intelligence effort. it is still not clear they are the driving force for intelligence integration we had envisioned. there have been four in six years. there is ambiguity about their authority over budget and personnel. further clarity about their role as needed. that can be done through legislation or with a repeated declaration from the repaired -- from the president that they are the unequivocal leader of the intelligence community. third, biometric entry exit systems. in 2004, we recommended the federal government establish a comprehensive biometric system to track for an nationals who enter and leave the country. the department of homeland's

security has deployed a system that checks all individuals to arrive at u.s. borders. they ensure they are who they say they are and help prevent known terrorists from entering the country. but the exit portion of the system has not been completed. we do not know with any certainty who has left the country or remains here on an expired visas. such a capability would have helped law-enforcement searching for two of the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas. next, standardized secure ids. 18 of 19 hijackers obtained 30 state issued identification cards among them that enable them to more easily board planes on that dreadful morning. due to the ease with which fraud was used to obtain a legitimate

ids to help them in bed and assimilate into the united states for the purpose of carrying out a terrorist act, the commission recommended the federal government set standards for the issues of birth certificates and sources of identification like driver's licenses. in 2008, detailed regulations were issued, setting standards and benchmarks for driver's licenses. however, the state's compliance with regulations for more secure drivers' licenses has been delayed now until 2013 by dhs. this delay creates the vulnerabilities and makes us less safe. no further delay should be authorized. instead, the deadline should be accelerated. transportation security -- with significant federal funding, they have deployed large numbers

of enhanced screening equipment using passenger checkpoint, explosive detective dick -- explosive detection, and unfortunately the explosive detection technology lacks reliability and lags in its capability to automatically identify concealed weapons and explosives. the next generation whole body scanning machines are not effective. they raise privacy and health concerns that we have not fully addressed. our conclusion is despite 10 years of working on the problem, the detection system still falls short in critical ways with respect to detection. we must improve the way we set technology requirements, work with the private sector to develop equipment and tested in the field. next, the standards for

terrorist detention -- within days of his inauguration, president obama signed a series of orders on the treatment of detainees. barring the cia from using methods not already authorized in the u.s. army field manual. by bringing the united states into compliance with the geneva conventions and internationally customary law on the treatment of prisoners, the executive orders have substantially fulfilled our recommendations. however, for too long, our nation's political leadership has delayed resolving the admittedly very difficult problem of reconciling the rule of law with the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists. some of them would no doubt attempt to do the nation and individuals in the nation grievous harm. congress and the president must decide on a comprehensive approach on how to handle these

detainee's grounded in principles of fairness and respect for due process and protecting the american people. as tom suggested a bomb to go, we have done much since the attacks 10 years ago and we are safer than we were on that date. but all of us agree, there is much more to do. political leadership from both parties and all levels of government should renew their focus on completing the implementation of the 9/11 recommendations. now, i have the pleasure of introducing today is a moderator for our panel discussion, well- known to all of you, and compton of abc news. you may not know that on september 11th, she was the only broadcast reporter allowed to remain aboard air force one during the dramatic hours when president bush was unable to return to washington for hours.

her career has allowed her to cover capitol hill, presidential campaigns, and the white house. she is now covering her sixth u.s. president. she is the president of the white house correspondents association. we turned over to you and welcome you. thank you for coming. [applause] >> these panel members are well known to most of you, starting closest to the podium -- fred fielding, who i have known for 30 years as a presidential lawyer. he knows the pressures and risks the president faces inside the oval office. he has at set something of an olympic record on membership on commissions like this. i don't know how he practices law. slade gorton -- during that decade leading up to the 9/11

attacks was at the united states senator and quit the senate intelligence committee over frustration during the gulf war in frustration -- i believe he called it a waste time. more on that later. i have heard it said mr. secretary, that the secretary of the navy is the best job in washington. a former navy secretary told me that. it is the ceo of more than a million employees and $95 billion in budget. in fact, he has deep roots in business and defense as well as a figure who plans experience inside and outside of washington. tim roemer, as a number of the house intelligence committee saw and telling -- saw september 11th developed from capitol hill. as the most recent ambassador to india, he has seen what it's like to watch and help and

allied respond to the incredibly savage terrorist attacks in mumbai. seated next to me, jim thompson, few public figures blend together as many diverse threads of experience. 14 years as governor of illinois, homestake, the longest illinois governor ever. but he is also chairman of the president's intelligence oversight board during the zero -- during the early '90s. your chairs have given the country and the government a report card. i'm going to ask you in alphabetical order, if there is one element they have not touched on that or you feel has made a critical difference or, if it were enacted or employed would make a dramatic difference for the next 10 years? >> we did not put it out as a

venue where people could choose what they wanted. by the same token, listening to the chair and vice chair, it's obvious to me the most frustrating recommendation we made was one we knew was going to be frustrating when we made it. that was the reformation of congress. congress had to reform itself. i say that with sincerity. we knew the potential was this would not succeed, but we also knew if we did not ask, it would never happen. we wanted to make the issue in the forefront and it's not just that they have not made that joint committee -- it is that they are maintaining the status quo. the status quo follows the budget, and the status quo perpetuates old habits we have found or faulty. the other problem you have is

that it interferes with the ability of -- the ability to become autonomous and break away from the traditional budgeting that goes with the rest of the intelligence community. if i had to pick out one, that is the most frustrating. >> i think want to emphasize the positive come as this did -- as the chairman did it the beginning. it has been 10 years since 9/11 and there has been one successful terrorist attack in the united states and that was not due to a failure of intelligence. all lot of things have been done right by two administrations. if i had one failure i put above any of the rest, it's the failure to give the director of national intelligence true control over the entire intelligence committee. budgetary control, more control

over personnel. one major improvement, one way to see to it everyone is singing off the same page of the hymn book, it's to enhance the authority of them. >> i would like to emphasize the positive and negative because i think there is much to be proud of as americans, to see how many of the right things were implemented. we are definitely safer and i would use of new york city as an example of leadership that took everything we said seriously and began to implement nearly all that and did it effectively. i happen to think because of them following our recommendations, new york city is the most secure city in the world. that's a major plus.

i totally agree with slade. the way it was implemented was not what we intended. we intended to create a leaner leader of the intelligence community that could tear down the stovepipes and eliminate the bureaucracy that made our intelligence community so dysfunctional in the past. the positive effects of our recommendations has been it has frustrated people, as good talent as we have anywhere in this country into the intelligence community. on the other hand, it has vastly increased the bureaucratic bloat that has made our intelligence much less than it should be. >> and there have been four in six years.

>> which is a symptom, not because of the problem. the fact is they don't have the power that the title implies. the staff has grown to over 2000 people when we envision something less than 300. it is not unique to the intelligence community. it afflicts all agencies of the government. but intelligence and the need for agility and sharing, it remains a very dangerous problem. >> i'm an exuberant optimist. i come back home to america having served our country overseas for the last couple of years. i'm very optimistic about what we have done over the past 10 years, how we have prevented through reforms and changes and progress a catastrophic attack in this country. i was meeting with a very high- level indian officials the day after osama bin laden was

killed. this indian official said to me, this is precisely why the united states of america needs to be involved and active in the world, because you have the tenacity to keep going after people, the training of your joint operations to do it better than anyone else and the moral courage to do it the right way. with that, i think it shows the united states in successive that ministry since, the bush and administration and the obama administration has done things to degrade the al qaeda leadership that is helped put the united states at a stronger position. i would like to return some -- to something fred said. as a former senate staffer and member of congress, the single most important thing we need to see happen is congressional reform. why is that? congressional reform can drive

the and overseas of the changes that need to be made as for a strengthening the position on personnel issues. it can oversee communications issues and try to find a practical solution and to drive change in other areas. i hope we will talk today about global strategies and we said about pakistan and pakistan taking seriously some of the problems that it has in internal extremism to solve problems that generate outside of pakistan. i'm an eternal optimist and i'm happy to report that i agree with every single word said so far by my fellow members. why am i an optimist? because we're safer than we were 10 years ago. no major attack on our soil in a

decade. al qaeda has been content to attack elsewhere in the world. maybe it is just luck, but we are also better in many, many ways. but we are foolish in a number of ways. our chairman talked about earlier. the ability of first responders, police, fire, transportation, federal, state, local, to talk to each other when that something bad is happening, lives were lost on 9/11 because the police could not talk to the firemen. that should have been less in number one. then comes hurricane katrina. another demonstration that burst responders could not talk to each other to mitigate

suffering and death. now, irene -- they still cannot talk to each other. irene is unlike katrina, i regional catastrophe. running from north carolina, up to the canadian border. what is the answer to that? the answer seems simple. there is a block of radio frequency that can be given to first responders. why hasn't that been done? why has languished in congress for 10 years? unlike members of the 9/11 commission, senators and representatives have constituencies. as members, we had opinions and biases and answers, but we did not have to report or answer to anybody. legislators do. but this could still be solved. there are two answers.

one, give the bloc to first responders and have the federal government pay for the implementation. second, selling to the private sector. they will build towers and the government will save money and responders will have an override so that when disaster happens, they are the people who get to use the radio frequency. page-one. either one. get it done. 10 years. we still cannot talk to each other when disaster strikes. >> that was one of your issues. >> it certainly was. i choose the second door. there is a dispute going on in congress right now.

the private sector needs it. it's worth several billion dollars in an auction and may cost as much as $50 billion to implement. it is a fantasy to believe the money is going to come from congress. we are in the midst of the greatest fiscal challenge we have ever had. that kind of money is not going to be given to local and state governments to build out the d block as a publicly owned facility. if it is auctioned, it will do something for the deficit. the private sector will build the bell. third, there can be an override in times of emergency which will be available to the public sector. that is the proper answer. >> you have all mentioned hurricane katrina, hurricane irene. i was in nags head as the storm

came ashore and i was impressed all the local people i talk to when we were down there, watching it approach how coordinated the emergency officials were. i don't know if they could talk to each other, they could use cell phones, but do you think there are good legacies that come from your work and recommendations because the commission, while it was prompted by the terrorist attacks, there are all sorts of disasters that can confront you. >> that's why we talk about the importance of unity of command. when a disaster strike -- new york solved it finally. the police and fire fighting over who is in charge cannot continue. he says is the police. there are still some problems.

it is a big step forward. not all communities have done that yet. there isn't necessarily a unity of command so if disaster strikes we know who's in charge. someone has to be in charge. every community small and large -- >> look at the bp oil spill. when the governor of louisiana says will be needed berms and went out and built them themselves, how do you get locally elected officials who feel a tremendous responsibility to the voters they see in the face every day to agree there has to be a hierarchy and how benefits them? any thoughts? >> i think that points to one of the real benefits of the way the 9/11 commission was constructed and carried out its duties. the book we produced educated a broad swath not only of public

officials who at the state and local level, all of them have never met have read it and taken to heart. the public has a much higher awareness of that. in effect, you have decentralized the implementation of all this. in new york, they were not going to wait for the federal government to sort out the d band problem. they spent a huge amount of money with a defense contractor to come up with a high-tech frequency hopping solution so the police can talk to the firemen and talk to them in the subways and tunnels and so forth. that is better than trying to have done through a centralized bureaucracy and that awareness is around the country. >> one of the great things about the american people is we recall, each one of us, hearing stories about how the pentagon stories about how the pentagon