stature, leadership, and patriotism continues to serve and in this critical position. i am pleased and proud to be his teammate. this past week has seen many reflections on those terrible events 10 years ago. the have centered on the impact of the attacks andas he did thir statements, we remember the people who perished in the sacrifices made by their families and loved ones they left behind. for example, friday we remembered by name as many as we could name each and every of the 116 community members who were lost on 9/11 and in the decades since. the attacks on 9/11 or the work about qaeda. that organization is not what it was a decade ago.

the releaptless pressure we exerted on al-qaeda forced it to change, weakened its central character and capabilities, and caused it to seek other modes of operation. we vigorously tacked its leadership, striving to keep it off balance and cut those off who would direct activities. we worked to deny al-qaeda a sense of security, to complicate and disrupt its flow of resources and undermind its ability to plan. most notably, of course, as you eluded, we have sent bin laden to the fate he so richly deserved. these accomplishments are substantial d real, and they stand a testimony to the dedication and skill of many intelligence officers and our operation elements. most notably, of course, the operation forces and their extraordinary capabilities. the nation is safer because of

their work and because of the many actions taken by the broad range of federal state and local elements concerned with our security. we've seen ten years of determined effort by all in the fight and the men and women of the intelligenceommunity stood with our partners every day to ensure success. we have great reason to take pride, but it would be an error to conclude that we have reason to gloat, reason to soften our focus, or reason to relax our efforts. the stark fact is we remain threatened, and the information conveyed over the weekend is an exemplar of that. as terrorists still wish to do us harm, destroy our institutions, and ki americans without conscious. in seeking to counterterrorism in all its forms, the success of the intelligence community, i'm convinced has been and will

continue to be rooted in three critical factors. the most important is the dedication and skill of our people. the past ten years, we've developed an exceptional work force equipped with uque capabilities. it'll be imperative to preserve andnhance the expertise, remarkab talents, and high levels of income tense in the intelligence community. the other factors determining the success of the community and countering terrorism is the activities and the expansion of responsible information sharing. the intelligence mmunity has made substantial progss integrating efforts since 9/11. we've taken steps to improve our counterterrorism posture including sharing of more counterterrorism information. for example, like the rest of the community, a central intelligence agency has pleased emphasis on the prevention of another attack on the heland and the defeat of terrorists

abroad. cia has a highly integrated partnership of analysts and operator who team with u.s. forces, other agencies, and foreign partners to preempt terrorists abroad. of course, director petrae will speak in more detail about the cia. the fbi transformed from the concern of law enforcement to an intelligen driven organization effectively cooperating with intelligence community partners and state and local officials to identify and prevent terrorist threats to the homeland. this transformation includes the fbi led and inner agency joint task forces now based in 104 cities nationwide as chairman feinstein mentioned. the national security agency has continued to devote significant resources against high priority threats. as terrorists operational security practices have become

increasingly sophisticated, nsa is adapting to address use of the latest technologies while taking great care to protect the vil lib ireties of americans. the department of homeland security established a component and strengthened ties to state, local, and tribal authorities to ensure they can identify vulnerabilities and respond to threats. the defense intelligence agency established the joint task force combating terrorism to better protecthe force protection requirements of the department of defense and the war fighting combat and commands. the national geospace intelligence agency worked to embed analystsnd capabilities with its counterterrorism mission partners in the field and in the national community. i want particularly to note the role of the national counterterrorm center, serving as the center for integration of all counterterrorism intelligence except intelligence

pertaining exclusively to domestic terrorism. 234 this role, they bring intelligence and homeland security elements together daily to exchange information and integrate actions as was done in the current that stream. all other intelligence community components are contributing to this comprehensive mission as well according to their unique capabilities. the treasury department's intelligence professionals, for for example, work closely with partners to identify terrorist financing sources and disresult them through -- disrupt them through official designations. there's reporting from overseas. there is, of course, no better exame of the importance and the power of intelligence integration than the operation against bin laden. as president obama stated at the time, the success of that mission, "marks the most significant achievement to date inur nation's effort to defeat al-qaeda." such success was the direct result of the persistent

collection and exhaustive analysis of all available information by intelligence community partners across a number of agencies and, of course, the superb operation conducted by the u.s. navy seals. the progress achieved was made possiblby the support of the congress and by the work and interest of the intelligence and oversight committees. over the past ten years, the congress through legislation and oversight has worked to ensure the inlligence community elements function effectively and efficiently and have the tools we need. the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, for example, in addition to establishing the office of the director of national intelligence to lead the community provided a foundation to improve information sharing and the integration of intelligence activities. the congress has also taken action to strengthen capilities mo notablin the patriot act and amendments to the foreign act which will continue to be essential tools

for the intelligence community. terrorism, the intelligence community is called on to provide critical support to protect the nation in many other contexts. proproliferation, regional crisis, reports from cyber, threats to spac and counterintelligence to name a few. i cite these not to detract from today's hearing, but put in to perspective what the intelligence community is called upon to do. to build on the progress made since the attacks of 9/11, i offer two suggestions. first -- the first is i think there's room to improve the management of the national intelligence program providing the resources for the communities' capalities. specifically, managing this program is a coherent whole improves transparency and accountability. the second area will continue to seek improvement in intelligence

integration and information sharing. sensible security and responsible sharing are the watch words here. before closing, i emphasize we in the intelligence community recognize that in all of our work, we must exemplify america's values, carry out the missions in a manner that stains the trust of the american people. the nature our work and the trust placedn us demand we have the highest respect for the rue of law and the protection of civil liberties and privacy. finally, i believe the work of the intelligence community over the past ten years has criminal intented greatly -- contributed greatly to the safety of americans, but as you eluded, the very nature of terrorism makes it impossible to guarantee that every planned attack will be avoided and every plot disrupted. we know that the character and the resilience of the united states as a people will prevail despite efforts of those who wish to instill fear in us and

alter our way of life. th nation rose to every challenge i history, and we'll do so with this one. all of us are committed to protecting americans and defeating the scourge of terrorism. i assure you we will be relentless in that cause. thank you for your attention and for the opportunity to appear today, and i'll now turn to director petraeus. >> thank you, director clapper. welcome, you look good in the suit. i make one suggestion, when i put my army uniform aside six months later, it didn't fit. i don't know what that's about, but that's the only caution give you, sir, director petraeus. >> well, thank you very much, chairman, vice chairman, ranking member, members of both committees, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this joint session of our intelligence oversight committees, and on balf of my agency and, indeed, of my predecessor, thank you for the strong bipartisan backing and

effective oversight in significant part because of your support, the intelligence agency is better able to protect our country and ouritizs from al-qaeda and other terrorist groups. simply put,s agency is a stronger, more agile institution efore 9/11 because of your assistance over the last decade that's critical in making that possible. i'd also like to recognize the enormous contributions of leon panetta, my predecessor. he's a principled, passionate leader overseeing the accomplishments of the great tasks in the agency, and now secretary panetta will be a close partner for the agency in the new role at the department of defense. i wanted to note as well i'm committed to continue along the bath director panetta embarked with other members. this has been strengthened over the years, and i will endeavor as emphasized in the confirmation hearings d

meetings with you since then to strengthen it further. it's a pleasure to be here with the director of national intelligence, good friend of years, jim clappr. he's a true intelligence professional and a great sur vaunt. we worked closely over the years in a number of posts, and i look forward to foe a better effective intelligence community i welcome the opportunity to present the central intelligence agency's view the threat a decade later after t attacks. one week into the job, but over a decade in the fight against terror, i have expected to find the agency to be a true national asset comprised the selfless, committed, highly intelligent americans demonstrating impressive knowledge, skill, i think newty, and initiative. i'm proud to lead the agency and

represent the outstanding work force. i note humbly in the eight days as director in the testimony i'm giving this morning represents the analysis of the outstanding work force. as a bottom line up front, the cia assesses that ten years after the 9/11 attacks, the united states continues to face a serious threat from al-qaeda and its worldwide network of affiliates and sympathizers. of significance, though, heavy losses toenior leadship appeared to create an important window of vulnerability for the core al-qaeda organiztion in afghanistan and pakistan. this requir a sustained focused effort. moreover, as al-qaeda's core is weakened, the initiative is shifting somewhat to the affiliates and sympathizers outside south asia. our nation faces a serious threat from tse groups, particularly from those based in yemen, home to al-qaeda in the

arabian peninsula, and there's other affiliates presenting threats as well. in my statement, i'll describe the pressure on the core al-qaeda organization, then discuss the danger that al-qaeda and the affiliates pose, and outline keys to further progress against this enemy including some of the steps we take with our partners throughout the u.s. government and with our friends overseas. forore than a decade, al-qaeda's senior leadership and core organization in pakistan and afghanistan have been capable of planning and executing dangerous plots targeting the west. today, as a result of sustained counterterrorism efforts, a substantial number with our partners in pakistan and afghanistan, the core part of al-qaeda's organization is much weaker and less capable than when it attacked us on 9/11. bin laden's death in may dealt a stunning blow tol-qaeda.

bin laden was, of course, an iconic figure, the group's only leader since its founding. we know now he was deeply involved in the end while directing the strategy, more deeply involved, in fact, than many assessed before we, able to exploit materials found with him. his long time deputy ayman al-zawahiri succeeded him in jew, but they find him last compelling a a leader. we thus assess he'llave more difficulty than bin laden had in maintaining the group's collective motivation in the face of continued pressure. the layer of top lieutenants under bin laden and ayman al-zawahiri, the group responsible for day-to-day management of alaeda in its operations sustained significant losses in recent years as well. these losses have been especially severe among terrorist plotters, commanders, traers, and bomb makers. recently, pakistan announced the

capture with u.s. assistance of unis who planned attacks against the interest of the united states and other countries. last month, al-qaeda lo its second in command, senior operational coordinator. that followed the death in june of senior operational commander, and the organization is struggling to find qualified replacements. these set backs have shaken al-qaeda's sense of security in pakistan's tribal areas driving the remaining leaders underground to various degrees and shifting a good bit of attention from terrorist plotting to security and survival. in fact, some mid level leaders and file members seek safe haven across the border in afghanistan or decide to leave south asia. some other senior leaders may assess it is riskier to move and remain in pakistan's tribal areas where trusted facilitators offer limited freedom of

movement, but where their security will still be threatened. the upshot is it's more difficult for al-qaeda to atrack jew hads wanting -- jihads wanting to travel to pakistan. this gives a window of opportunity for us and our allies. we must maintain the pressure and exploit this opportunity. even with its core leadership having sustained significant losses, hower, al-qaeda and its affiliates pose a real threat requiring energy, creativity, and dedication. al-qaeda's operatives are committed to attacks against u.s. citizens at home and overseas both in the wake of bin laden's death and continue the pursuit of their goals, forcing the united states and a number of our allies to retreat from the world stage. the leaders continue to believe

this would clear the way for overthrowing governments in the islamic world and the destruction of israel. moreover, despite being less able to coordinate large scale attacks, al-qaeda and the sympathizers comet to train and deploy operatives in small numbers for overseas plots. many 6 them have nationalities and backgrounds well suited for targeting the united states and europe. increasingly, in fact, we see signs of al-qaeda's efforts to carry out relatively small attacks that would nonetheless generate fear and create the need for costly security improvements. indeed, we should not forget that one of al-qaeda's goals 1 to force the u.s. and our allies to adopt additional expensive security safeguards that would further burden or economies. in short, though, we have made al progress in the campaign 20 disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-qaeda. need to recognize the need to be in this for the long haul. as i mentioned earlier, the

extremist initiati is to some degree smifting to al-qaeda's affiliates outside south asia. while linked, they have the structures, resource bases, and operational agendas operating aton mousily. working with our partners to cooperate against the affidavits is crucial to the success of our efforts to disresult, dismantle, and defeat the network. al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula emerged as the most dangerous regional note in the global jihad. since december 2009, the group attempted two attacks on the united states, one to blow up a u.s. airliner as it approached detroit in 2009, and an effort to send bombs hidden in computer printers on two cargo aircraft in 2010. they continue to plot strikes against the nation, u.s. interests worldwide, and our allies. since may, they launched an

offensive against the many government parts of southern yemen expelling many government forces from the region and increasing aqap's freedom of movement. political unrest in yemen helped ap co-op local tribe and extend its influence. despite this, counterterrorism cooperation with yemen has, in fact, improved in the past few months. that's very important as we clearly have to intensify the collaboration and deny aqap the safe haven it seeks to establish. state failure in the expansion of extremist networks over the past two decades have made southern somalia one of the world's most significant havens for terrorists. al-qaeda's affiliates there is large, well funded compared to most groups and they have attracted and trained thousands of fighters including scores of americans and others from western countries. the suicide bombings in uganda

last year demonstrated the group's ability to operate beyond somalia. sustained pressure on the relatively small fighters driving the terrorists' plotting and outreach to al-qaeda could persuade them to turn from global jihad. the top operative in east africa, were killed this year. his protege was killed two years early leaving them under pressure by afghan union troops. we have to continue the work to reduce capabilities. the aqim targeted western interests throughout northern and western africa while continuing to battle the security forces of nigeria.

they conducted a double suicide bombing. we with worng with the regional partners in france to counter aqim and those efforts helped to prevent a significant attack by aqim on western interests since late 2007. in nigeria, the latest group conducted a car bombing in late august against the u.n. building marking the first known leal operation against westerners. they stepped up efforts against the group in the lasteveral months. we work closely with the partners on this threat, and we'll seek to intensify our support. al-qaeda in iraq or aqi sustained significant losses since the surge in 2007, and it is much further than it was in 2007 from realizing its goal of overthrowing the government of baghdad or controlling some portion of iraq. nonetheless, aqi remaining

capable of carrying out attacks as it showed in mid-august, and they will remain capable of inflicting casualties in government forces and others throughout the next few years. they share the desire to expand global jihad which could lead them to attempt attacks outside iraq. the number of al-qaeda operatives in southeast asia has been significantly reduce over the last decade thanks to aggressi counterterrorism measures by regional governments. the group responsible for the bali attacks in 2002 and 2005 has, for example, suffered major losses and largely focused now on rebuilding. the terrorist leaders in utheast asia are now dead such as one who planned the july 2009 hotel bombings or in jail, and the spiritual leader of extremism in southeast asia.

the global campaign against al-qaeda and i felts requires offensive and defensive measures and need to sustained over a long period in order to be effective. we target terrorist leaders, for example, to deny them the resources and breathing space needed to plot operations against us and our allies. we cooperate with the foreign partners wherever possible and often better to have them carry out operations than for us to do it. nonetheless, we do agent unilaterally when we must. our officers work hard to interpret operatives before they attack like they did to avoid smuggling explosives into transatlantic flight in 2006. in a similar fashion, we worked closely with friendly services in the middle east to help stop aqap's printer bombs before they detonated. we owe the successes to trades

craft of the fusion of intelligence disciplines to tight integration with others, to sharing intelligence with foreign partner, d to the committees' support. we assess that the agency in its elements are better at each of the actions now than we were before 9/11, but al-qaeda and its affiliates are resilient. we must never underestimate our enemies, and we have to continue to refind our tactics, techniques, and procedures. intelligence collectors, analys, and experts forged closer relationships leading to w flows of vital information and more importantly new insights into how and where terrorists operate. that integration of analysis and operations each feeding the other has been at the heart of our most importt successes. in fact, our relationships with others in the intelligence community and with law enforcement agencies are closer and more cooperative than ever.

improvements in the watch listing program and other upper agen reporting meths allow us to quickly decimate actions with state and local agencies at the lower possible classification levels. we continue to work with the dni and national counterterrorism center to enhance this process and improve the application of community resources. the cia's close collaboration with the military and our intelligence community partners in taking down bin laden reflected advances our government made towards achieving a more unified counterterrorism effor. that was, indeed, as the dni noted, a success born of inner agency collaboration and cooperation. our counterterrorism cooperation with governmen in europe, the middle east south asia, and elsewhere around the world is also very strong. working with our allies and partners, we've disrupted dozens of plots and arrested key

operatives and facilitators. all of this must and will continue. indeed the intelligence community has to continue to be a learning organization, and the cia will do all that it can to contribute to that effort. in sum, the structures and processes put in place since the 9/11 attacks have made our government more capable and more effective in carrying out our critical counterterrorism mission and in protecting our fellow citizens. the key in the central intelligence agency has, of course, been its people. the swings who at our -- individus who at our head quarters, stations, and bases around the world have quietly, selflessly, and expertly defended americans from the constant threat of terrorism. they, our people, have been the key. in so doing, they and their families have made great sacrifices, and we can never thank them enough for that. it is my privilege to serve with

them, to b their director, and indeed to be their advocate. thank you very much. >> thank you, director petraeus, and for sharing the questions, senator feinstein. >> thank you veryuch, mr. chairman. director petraeus, i think your remarks were a ten. thank you so much. i think you gave us an excellt and well-rounded view of what is happening. i wanted to talk to you about afghanistan. we were out in the waiting room, and we were speaking of the bombing that just took place at our embassy in kabul, and whether it was taliban or chairman haqqani. the question that raises in my mind because 2014 suspect too

far away is what would be the implications for the security of the west if the taliban with its connections to haqqani were to return to rule afghanistan, and in particular, what would it mean for women? >> well, thanks very much, madam chairman, and first of all, as i mentioned to you in the waiting room, i taked to ambassador moments ago, and he was my great diplomatic partner in baghdad during the surge. he reported that all emerged embassy members aring thed for, no injuries to any embassy members. there were four afghan citizens who were injured when an rpg hit the old chancery building and three of those very lightly -- one small girl -- they were all

waiting for visas, needed to go to the hospital across the road in the compound. apparently, the situation is a handful of individuals, five or o, perhaps wearing suicide vests were able to move into a building that's under construction several hundred meters from the embassy and then to launch small arms and rpg's into the area of the embassy. at least one of those, as i said, hiing, but, again, no damage -- no injuries to any of our embassy officials. .. with respect to the situation

you mentioned, were the taliban to take over afghanistan, and to do so with the haqqani network or perhaps some of the other movements -- i think what we would see would be a return to what we saw before. we have seen this before. arenow that women's rights tremendously limited under such a regime. the fact is that under the taliban, there were very few girls in school at all, if any. hool at all if any they were in hidden schools at great risk to them and to their teachers and there were less than a mlion students all told in school. there are now over 8 million, the education minister estimated 8.2 or 8.3 overall and some

percent of those are girls. i don't think that would continue to be the case were the taliban to return. beyond that of course the central issue for the western security in the whole reason that we were engaged in in this effort is to ensure afghanistan is never again a sanctuary for al qaeda or other transnational extremists as it was when the taliban did control the bulk of afhanistan prior to 9/11 and when the attacks were planned on the afghan soil. and again, the prospect remains real in any concern and is why we are working so hard to enable our afghan partners to be able to secure and govern themselves so that we can continue the orderly process of transitioning security tasks to them and i might note on that account that even in kabul although there have been sensational attacks periodically generally the frequency of those has been reduced and in fact it is afghan forces who are completely in

charge of security in the capitol and in talking about the entire province, not just the last one district the province of kabul as well as the municipality, and indeed it is afghan forces who are in the lead for even the night raids and the targeted operations which we often enable but do not do for them and in fact it is the afghan forces who are this afternoon now this evening in afghanistan clearing the building from which the small arms and our pg attack took place. there are very good afghan forces that have demonrated the ability to do this and they are indeed again doing it right now. my time is up. i would note the clocks are set for five minute rounds and i would hope we would keep them so everybody has an opportunity. chairman rogers? >> thank you, madame chair. appreciate the opportunity to read to of your predecessors,

admiral mcconnell and blair recommended a complement of the authorities and admiral villere was suggesting that some of the authorities moved to the white house. two-part question you also rer to some bureaucratic impediments that remain among them the 16 members that prevent you from being as effective as you would like to be. can you talk about both of those cases here today? >> i'm not sure i understood the first part of your question about the previous director said. >> he said some of the authority has moved to the white house and that has been a bit of an impediment to functn properly in the role of overseeing the intelligence agency. >> i haveot focused of us to be the case. if you are specifically referring to the potion that john brennan occupies, i think that he performs a crucial function in the white house and

for the president as a residence coordinator for counter terrorism and intelligence and law enforcement, and john is a great colleague, somebody i've known and worked with for many years and so i have not found that to be th case. john if anyone is i think very sensitive and the differential to the authorities and responsibilities of the director of national intelligence are. i think the observation has been in the last 13 plus months that i've been in this job that this is 18 operation, there is intense interest and support for th white house particularly in the national security staff and national security adviser the cia is an interpol part of that and i'm confident that is going to continue. so i have not found that to be

an issue. on a diluted in my testimony to one area that i think could be improved which is how to manage the national intelligence program as an integral whole as opposed to the fragmented manner in which it is now managed. so that's one area. >> can you give an example of how you might do that? >> right now the national service program is spread across six cabinet departments. 90% is an the department of the defense program, and the other five cabinet departments are reflected if i were king which i'm not and i would hasten the this is neither not speaking on behalf of the administraon and certainly not on behalf of the congress because this would require me to get in into an

area that is more hazardous than terrorism which is congressional jurisdiction, but i think that if it were managed as a unitary whole it would promote accountability come crème transparency, efficiency, agility and all those kind of things. i have not found -- >> you're suggesting the military intelligence program and the national intelligence program be merged in some way? >> i'm not suggesting that at all. military intelligence program is entirely separate. i ws the person executive for the intelligence program for over three years. i do not believe that that should be a part of the national intelligence program particularly as the share of that 90% are those intelligence resources that have betted on each one of the services to include tactical intelligence resources that are organic to the tactical operations. i believe that should continue to be the province of the secretary defense. the arrangement that we made,

this was undersecretary gates and then myself and my prior capacity was to designate the under secretary defense for intelligence who was the management for the military intelligence program as the director of the defense as a dni position. he's dual headed that way. so, increasingly we are working together o ensure coherence and cooperation and coordination between those programs. we recently completed a two yearlong effort to rationalize the rules of the roafor what should be in the nit and as we approach the impending budget cuts, we hav already begun to work closely together so that we are attentive to the dependencies so if we cut the one program we haven't done unintended harm to the other. but i do not think that it should be built in but i do think the mechanisms that we

have developed for the appropriate oversight and insight into the military intelligence permanent conversely my successor at the u.s. dis and site to the national intelligence program. the other part of your question, i have to see that in my 13 plus months now in this job, and it feels like it's, i have not noted very much pushback from the intelligence community particularly on the thing i'm pushing on integration and collaboration. >> thank you very much, chairman gers. vice chairman chambliss? >> gentlemen, there are still several important provisions in the foreign intelligence surveillance act and the u.s. a patriot act subject to sunset even the director has testified about the need for the permanent

authorities and there's absolutely no evidence that a abuse of these authorities i'm concerned each time we debate of these the intelligence community tells us that they can, "live with the suggested changes yet i never hear anyone say those changes will hlp you do your job better. first of all, how do you short-term extensions affect the ability to operate and second, when you are asked if you can live with certain changes will you commit to getting us the full story about how the changes may harm your collection to devotees as well? director clapper? >> thank you. it's disruptive i think wen we are constantly on the cusp of having these very important tools expire on us. so particularly when we are dealing with commercial segments to help us do this it is

disruptive and unsettling to them and in terms of their long-term commitment to committing to cooperate with us. and so i think from that standpoint, it's not healthy to have these constant short-term extensions. having said that though it is extremely important to us that obviously we must have the support of the congress representing the american people. and obviously the issue here that is of concern is civil liberties and privacy, and i assure you have been personal witness to this in the last 13 or so months that we go to extraordinary lengths to the repetitive checks and balances

over the actual execution and administration of these authorities, which we all understand have the potential for rendering the civil liberties and pivacy. as to the specifics of what we can live with i guess i would like to perhaps offline we can discuss what those provisions as you understand them are and then i could perhaps give you a more explicit answer on a case by case basis. >> certainly. >> and vice chairman, obviously these are domestic issues but nonetheless concern to us because we work with partners who employed the authorities that fees' provide to them as we all work together as we did for example this past weekend with the credible but still unconfirmed threat. at the bottom line is the short term extensions meet the long

term planning and program more difficult than the long term extensions. it's pretty simple and straightforward. beyond that i will commit to providing the full story again as there is something specific we would welcome the opportunity to provide reaction to that. >> you've both expressed concerns about the rising recidivism rate among the gitmo detainee's which is tighter than the last released figure of 25%. yet the administration is sticking with its policy to close guantanamo and refused to send the newly captured terrorists. does it really makes sense to ferc was the option of bringing the terrorist when the prohibitions on bringing the gitmo detainee's to the united states and on transferring detainee's to yemen make it impossible to close gitmo any time in the near future and what can the intelligence community be doing to stop the recidivism rate from going up? >> as you know, the

administration policy and the executive order by president oba signed almost immediately after taking office was to close guantanamo not the least of which is the symbol guantanamo has become so that the administration policy. i think what we try to do or the administration tried to do is to treat each case on a case by case basis depending on the circumstances to capture the importance of it and was there evidence for the prosecution, etc.. in the answer, this is really not in intelligence issue. i think our concern is and the determination from these detainee's regardless whether they are incarcerated and regardless whetherthey are

attended throop through a military commission or the civil courts system. so our interest, my interest and whether the art mirandized or not is getting the intelligence from them. rather than where they are incarcerated. you are right about the recidivism rate on the order of the 27%. there are i think some 161 that have been 599 detainee's tht have been repatriated from guantanamo, some 61 of them either confirmed or suspected to be recidivists. i should point out many of them have been taken off the battlefield through the kinetic encounters if you will. so that is a concern as to what the intelligence community can do to stem what of recidist rate since one is one too many is to ensure that in the

interagency deliberations that are conducted to make judgments about whether or not to repatriate some one and whether to ensure that we have provided the maximum information on the potential threat posed by such repatriations. >> i would second of the director's comment on gitmo but i will note as well as the centcom commander even before the administration too office based on my sense of the situation in the area of responsibility dhaka called for the, quote, response of the support for the responsible closure of gitmo as you will in previous days that is proving difficult to do that over time i

know to the executive and legislative branches are seeking to come to grips with and with respect to their recidivism rate careful analysis has to be done on this attrition and the country to which etainee's might be returned and i can assure you the agency will provide a very forthright assessment of the situations and of the ability of the country to carry out the responsibilities to safely inhumanely keep these indivials behind bars if that's the requirement or to oversee thr cduct if they happen to be released for some reason. >> vice-chairman? >> director clapper, i'm going to give you to issues to stay within the five minutes and my first will be about space. the national security depends on the performance in space. we are the most powerful country in the world because in my opinion one of the main issues

we have control 40 period of time and space deals with a lot of issues. unconcerned our nation lacks overreaching plans for space and launch. the problem associated with the cancellation of the consolation program have rivaled through the industry especially the industrial base and the good news is the corporate sector has responded with competitive ideas. you've heard and i've said many times our current capabilities also extremely reliable are too expensive. i ve big concerns about the program. one of the largest u.s. commercial satellite operators had a conversation they are not using u.s. services and the reason the sanibel of the increased cost secondly the program is not maintained a reliable schedule i know personally the program i followed for years that's important to the security of the country it took them one year

after it was ready to go to the launch and that is acceptable. the -- we need to stimulate the commercial industry and ensure there are no barriers to competition. the same major u.s. manufacturer , they used the launch program facilities with france, russia and india, not in the unitestates because of the schedule. so the first issue is when we are dealing with russia where we have to launch another country especially russia and i believe a lot of the countries including china going to the moon what are we going to ensure we have no barrierto the competition. the cost of the launch and the system itself. the second thing i'm going to throw out and then i will stop coming people last in the intelligence committee we all know when the committee that we hear things all over the ball rolled what keeps you up at

night. the areas that concern me most of the weapons of mass destruction and where we are to protect the country from cyber attacks. basically in my opinion people have a catastrophic cyberattack. the same thing happened in south tree with north korea attacking the system. we need to do more and it needs to start at the top and i feel need what a person, the cyber sar we have an individual right now who's not doing a bad job, doesn't have the authority of the power were the stuff it's imrtant we create a whole system that includes education to the public on y cyberattack sar important and serious. nsa is doing their job and they're as good as anybody in the world with general like alexandre so that's the second, where do you feel we are with respect to cyber, what would you recommend in your role to make sure that we are stronger and we have a etter system to protect from cyberattack triet >> jury uickly, congressman,

first, i agree about the importanceof space and protecting and preserving and advancing the industrial base, having the alternative source of the launch is critical and as soon as we can get a second or an alternative launch capability we are confident that we can certify i am all for that from the intelligence perspective. is it ever crucial particularly as we look to some of the other threats that we confront the nation states the extensive denied areas to us. with respect to the second concern on the cyber, you and i have many discussions about what keeps me but might the things we don't know and certainly the

nexus the nexus of the wmd and terrorism is a huge concern. with respect to cyber i think the responsible the into the intelligence committee is to provide the threats to whomever needs it and of course the key among that but not exclusively is the national security agency as you alluded to the homeland security is an important role to play as the interlocutor with the civilian infrastructure engaging them, helping to educate themand involving them in solutions and again i belie the intelligence committee responsibili is to ensure the data to include moving to a conversation i had before that was meeting with the chairman feinstein making as much of this available to an unclassified basis as we possibly can. >> thank you very much.

i think that mr. conaway and mr. conrad - we are alternating sides so the next one would be senator blunt, and then we will go to member schakowsky petraeus connect thank you chairman. i'm glad to be back in the room with my colleagues i've served with on the house and many of them on the house intelligence committee for my comments for the record, director corporate director petraeus i'm going to ay that i think there's been a real progress that to me at least has appeared in the last year to be significant in terms of coordinating the committee. i will say that i wondered a number of times over the handful of years between the time that we created the dni coming and you are taking this position the year-ago whether this was a systemho is going to work or

not but it does seem to me that after lots of effort has come together and i listened carefully to the chairman rogs questions and comments about how we can make that happen, and even more significant ways certainly the coordination shows what can happen when the intelligence community and the defense department work together. the efforts of the national geospatial intelligence agency ich has a big presence and the special forces have worked together and this community is becoming what we all hoped it would become to whenever the job was created one of the things i want to ask about d i think i will ask and have an answer on this leader you, director clapper, is one of the things that the intelligence reform and

terrorism act did was a lot of dni procurement authority for all terprise architecture i.t. and it's a complicated issue but one line very interested and and if you can briefly respond to thatnd in more detail later are we looking at a unified location somewhere that would be a backup location outside of washington i know that was on the process for a long time but seems to be waning right now, and just a quick answer there and then i have one or two other questions. >> senator, thank you very much, and i appreciate the mention of the nba and the honor of serving as this director for five years and the campus about to open up almost completely the next couple of weeks important

contingent remains and the tw locations in missouri. as we approach, i will just add a word on i.t.. as we approach the inevitability of the budget cuts in the intelligence community, i think this is the area othe greatest potential for the efficiencies and a reduction in the amount of the funding that we now spend on i.t.. and so, we are very deeply engaged the approach to the more unitary achitecture across the intelligence community. and frankly, it's sething that we talked about as in nevada for years but now weare running out of money so we must be in syn mode. i think that is serving as the stimulus if he will to do some more creative thinking. and i think that this would do wonders in terms of saving efficiency and promoting integration. estimate i do,oo and let'so

to the topic and since you brought it up since we are talking about the budget cuts everywhere, i would like you and the director petraeus to very quickly discuss how that's going to impact you and how you would prioritize those things and maybe you just gave part of the answer, mr. clapper, on the trying to do things that produce a better results with less money. but some of the things we can't do with less money and i would be pleased for both of you to respond to that topic. >> let me start and then i'm sure dr. petraeus will have some commentary, too. i was around in the early 90's to serve as the director of the defense intelligence agency when we were to reach a peace dividend. and so that caused us to go on a seven year down slope in the intelligence resources. and of course which came to a screeching halt on 9/11 and then we went on a sudden up slope so

now we are on a cycle of reduction. the first comment i would make, and this gets to the why the dni. in the last ten years whether it was the bci or the dni, we had to do is presided over handing out more money and more people every year. and that in your period basically encompassed the entire existence of the office of the director of national intelligence. now we are in a different mode, and i view this as a litmus test for this office to preside over these inevitable cuts that we are going to have to make but profit from the experience of the early 90's and not do some of the things we did then. everything we do in intelligence first of all is not of equal marriage. some things are mre valuable than others particularly as we look to the future. i think it's important to protect that most valuable

resource we have, which is our people. we must continue some way of hiring every year which we didn't do in many cases during that hiatus. we must try to sustain healthy r&d for the future, and i think we have to be rather cold hearted and objective about the contribution of the systems so that's kind of the approach we are going to take and this has to be a corporate but i'm reasonably confident that we can come through this without a great de of harm and i don't want to be under the mistaken impression the we are going to stand capabilities we have today because we are not. >> leggitt r. dee also pleased

to see you here today in this job. >> thanks very much, senator. first to pile on if you will your comment about the coordination, the coordination is better within the agency itself an its better within the greater intelligence community. it is better within the government for its large with the military and law enforcement agencies, and i think frankly that there is even a better approach interms of sharing and supporting your efforts to provide the oversight is also an important functi as well in all of this. with respect to the budget cuts the key is protecting the core capabilities to read in the center intelligence agency, we are working very hard to stay absolutely riveted on te counter terrorist fight but also to balance that and not lose sight of the global coverage mission. we have been able to reestablish a number of the different stages and bases in the coverage

mission and we have to evaluate very carefully the future in that regard. we have as the director mentioned had ten years of steady increases. now we have to tighten our belts. there are areas that we've identified which wethink that we can achieve some efficiency and savings and so forth. but as the dni said, we cannot return to this kind of period that we had during the peace dividend days whre we were not hiring or we were cutting, we have to protect our most important resources, our people. we need to continue to hire throughout this time as well so that there is a continued addition to the workforce and the use is continue to be brought in as it has been over the last ten years and we have to continue to invest and make our work meaningful and importance of the best and brightest not only seek to join the agency but also to stay with it. thanks. >> think you very much, senator.

so everyone will know, we are going to go in order of a rifle. it's too confusing the other way. so next will be conaway followed by schakowsky, shift, lobiondo and thompson. mr. conaway? >> thanks for coming this morning playing off of your comment about the two spheres of emphasis on the testimony you talked about the management of the intelligence community. part and parcel of all of that is senator blunt started down this a little bit is the management systems, information systems and internal controls day in and day out to give decisionmakers accurate and daa this is gathered as efficiently as we can general clapper, what is the expectation that he communicated to the 15 agencies

yet to be able to obtain audited fincial statements and by the way on the financial statements your office will not cross the border, give your toughts on that and general petraeus, if you would a little early in the tenure but you have to give me your thoughts and hopefully commitment that are included among your top priorities and communicated to your team is the report of getting this system in place to talk about being audited, but that is just a catch phrase it'sreally about the day in and day of work that has to be done for the data at the right time to read >> welcome a first of all, sir, right now, our stated objective i think is to be a fully audited by 2016. what would really help us though woulde we need legislation on the treasury fund balance provision which enables intelligence components to deal directly with the treasury, and

then and thereby making us less reliant on the surgeon systems that are not audible nd the is language right now in the house apprriations committee bill that would preclude that and their fear is that somehow that is a part of my conspiracy or plot to separate and they are separate and distinct endeavors with regards to how it is managed if we are going to achieve what ability and do it in a way that is expeditious and quickly is to have the treasury fund enacted into law. >> is early in my time on this topic but my understanding is what i've been briefed on as we are doing reasonably well and on the right trajectory and you certainly have my commitment to getting the systems in place.

>> i appreciate that. you know, on the department of defense side a well when leon panetta left to the department of defense which still maintain the same kind of emphasis over there that we have here, so i appreciate both of your commitment to do that can you help us understand as you shrink resources and resources are less available that the resources needed to make this happen and the follow on to general clapper to break the tie among those who love the legacy systems and or they would prefer a different architecture system, so can you put a team in place that does that, somebody has to break the tie you have that authority to say it goes this way, right, wrong or different? >> i do, sir. so far nobody is questioning it so i act like i do. but i believe we have assembled thright group and prime among them is the cia and the nsa to

lead the effort to come up with a more integrated enterprise architecture for across-the-board in the intelligence community. i think that the potentl for the savings here are huge. i would just pylon and say that the agency perspective there is no question that the dni is in the lead on this that he has put together a good team and the cia has provided the isasi deputy director who's quite good in this area would be part of that effort toork together as a team. >> finishing up, one my early hearings as the team brought over the charts these were like 10-foot tall charts of paper that have countries around the world listed in a variety of initiatives across there and they have it all very colored nicely within the lines so as to come up with w it would be spent across the deal.

that's the front end of it. can you tell us afterwards if that is what happened and they dropped their head and said we really can't do that, so my vision is one of the benefits of the system per say is not only on the front and we plan to spend in a variety of areas but after that is done we know that is actually what happned. so getting your commitment is appreciated. >> as a program manager twice, i can attest even at the program manager level it's a challenge to watch execution and a lot of it is because we simply don't have the tools iorder to watch how the money is actually being spent after it's been program, so that's another object if here and that's why i very much support. >> thank you mrs. schakowsky? >> i want to thank both of the chairman and the ranking member for this open hearing. i think that we can see all

pretty how useful these open hearings are particularly this 1i think it's good for our security and our democracy. i want to associate myself also with the chairman feinstein's comments and concerns that you raised about contractors, and at this moment i want to congratulate president obama for his leadership and the intelligence community for its careful work and our navy seals for heir goods and making sure that osama bin laden will never threaten our country again. here is the nature of my question. the president's new counterterrorism strategy stresses adherence to the u.s. core values such as respecting human rights balancing, security and transparency in upholding the rule of law. i'm going to ask a series of questions and hope to do that quickly so you can answer them. in view of the u.s. engagement

in enhanced interrogation techniques, electronic surveillance of u.s. persons and similar practices did the u.s. violate its core values in the aftermath of 9/11? the "los angeles times" recently published an article entitled the key september 11th legacy, more domest surveillance, the artie reports concerns by both public and private sector of servers that the approach of using electronic surveillance in the u.s. to find patterns that lead to evidence of terrorism is the opposite of the legal tradition to start with the suspect before conducting such surveillance. do you agree that one of legacy of 9/11 as the increase of the domestic surveillance and ten years later doyou believe that this level of surveillance in the u.s. is just a fight? the media recently reported that the cia and new york police department have worked closely together, so closely together in monitoring muslim american neighborhoods for terrorism activities a lur the line the

to domestic and foreign spying without commenting specifically on the new york situation do you believe the domestic activity by thfederal intelligence agencies particularly the ci has crossed the line and finally do you believe that the intelligence community relies too heavily on the counterterrorism cooperation of foreign nations that violates american values and principles? thank you if drector petraeus will have a comment as well. i appreciate your perspective. i guess i wouldn't characterize it quite as you have that this is an egregious violation of american values it would seem some of things that are done in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and i think that in itself is a very important fact to remember what was the atmosphere and the conditions then that led to

certain of these actions? i do not believe that there is, quote, too much domestic surveillance. you have remember that the lion's share of the world's internet is carried through transmitted through this country we go to extraordinary lengths whether it is he patriot act or whatever to oversee to ensure there are not violations of american civil liberties for privacy i care deeply about these values and these privacies and my own celebrities something i take very seriously. as far i asked general petraeus to speak to ths, the cia involvement in the new york city police department there has been held given their and there has been an embedded analyst, not

everyone from the cia who was out on the streets collecting and it's my personal view that's not a good optic to have the cia involv in any city level police department but the cia is going to address that. the acting director before director petraeus arrived ask for the ig investigation to look into the specifically the propriety of that. >> first all if i could start with the contractors because we are working very hard in fact to look at that as indeed one of the areas we are going to achieve the contractors sit alongside of our officers and that they are not just as we say blue badgers represented by the gold stars on the wall on the entry to the cia headquarters but also contractors who have

given as abraham lincoln in the last measure for the country. you will recall congresswoman because we've had discussions about this before that in fact i published a memo titled living our values as the commander in iraq i have done subsequent actions lsewhere the same year we published the counterinsurgency field manual less known was that we also oversaw the development and publication of the army field manual that lays out what is acceptable and interrogation techniques no one has overseen detainees at least in recent decades that i have commanding both in afghanistan and iraq and in central command. we believe in that field manual. we believe that it is appropriate and that it is in line with the geneva convention and also the techniques that

work. my thought on that. i would second, however with the dni set the context in the immediate wake of my 11th for what it's worth my sense is that it's now time to take the rear view mirror of the bus to look forward to practice what we have learned works and what we believe is right an move on in this regard. with respect to the cia support for the nypd indeed there is an adviser who is and tries to ensure that there is a sharing of information as that is the central and advisable noting that we are very sensitive to the civil liberties and privacy and indeed that there is an ig investigation that is requested by the acting director and for

the position of thedirector but will continue to follow on just to ensure that we are doing the right thing if you well in that particular case. >> thank you, madam chairman. we tend to focus oftentimes on iraq, afghanistan and where we spent the last ten years trip to petraeus and clpper however it seems oftentimes in the media we fail to pay attention to the problems that are very close to home. be from california we are facing ever-growing challenges with the violence at the border especially with criminal gang activity. you only been on the job of weeks i will hold you accountable for this but i would like to get both of your thoughts as to the ever escalating violence that we are watching across strictly across

the border from last if there's anything this cmmitteehould be doing to ensure our borders are safe and that nothing bad happens, which i think the more unrest there is at the border the more likely to miss shift can occur by not just the mexican drug cartels but possibly would invite folks from other parts of the world to participate in thmistress and i would like to get your thoughts on that. >> first, you alluded to -- let me start here but you a limited to something that is a great and a growing concern to all of us in the intelligence community and particularly in the ct domain if you will, which is of the homegrown variety of the extremists fed by and motivated

by engaging on line with al qaeda and other extremist forms. the reason that is such a critical challenge for us is the home grown very often doesn't use signatures if you will, beatles signatures that are detectable like the classical intelligence means that also i think and endorsement of the need for the involvement for the state and local officials notably state and local police officials i have one of my few remaining advisory groups as a meland defense and law enforcement group which consists of a number of a very distinguished law enforcement officils from all over the country, and i will be in chicago next month to speak to part of these international associations of the chiefs of

police for the 15 major metropolitan areas, and it is in my send year as an initiative i need to push harder which is an outreach to the state and local. the other issue that you raise which is of great concern is what we are doing with mexico as partners there are a number of intelligence initiatives working with the mexican government which would probably be best discussed in the closed session. but believe me, we are as concerned as they are about the effect on the national security of both of the country's. >> director petraeus? >> if i could augment that a bit. really what your question speaks to, congressman, is the issue again of the global coverage. again, rightly we should be absolutely riveted on the counter terrorist mission. we must continue to prosecute that very aggressively. it's the most immediate threat if you will but while we are

doing that we can't be like little kids and a soccer game and play magnate paul with that and lose sight of the rest of the field and this is part of the rest of the field and that is the part that is coming enormous concern and the proximity of the country and of course we are talking not just about mexico with other countries in central and south amerca where some of this emanates from the first place. there is a good whole of government approach in ths regard not just the intelligence community but in deed other elements of the interagency and certainly the military for the northern command and southern command recently to become reasonably familiar but this isn't an area that is going to get much more in deed over time as an overseas travel convinces the will be high on the list of the places to visit given the serious concern that mexico has in addition to the concerns that we have.

>> i just want to reflect similar comments that you've heard from other folks here o the panel but thank you both for your service to the country and congratulations, director petraeus on your role. i yield back madame chair. >> mr. schiff? >> thank you madam chair and gentlemen both for your extraordinary lifetime of service graful to you. general petraeus, the 9/11 commission recommended that the lead responsibility for the paramilitary conducted operations whether covert or clandestine should transfer from the intelligence community to the defse department. that hasn't happened. i would be interested to know and you are in a unique position to comment on this whether you think that should happen and clearly there are some pros and cons to that. is that something you push for in your prior occupation of our current occupation or do you think that the recommendations

of the commission also sound of the time has been overtaken by events and improved cooperation between the cia and the defense department from and general clapper, let me try to get this question in if we have time. the air of a spring that it has been the most significant development since the war in afghanistan. the military efforts there and in pakistan have done more to provide a military body to the command and control of al qaeda than anything else, but the end of spring has been a body blow to the philosophical and all ideological underpinnings of al qaeda how will our intelligence approach change in light of this really phenomenal opportunity to undermine the whole reason for being for al qaeda indy 500 i'm very familiar with the issue of the title tenet title l we have

the forces that carry it out in theounter terrorist operations and then also having provided title ten forces to the title 50 to the agency to conduct the title 50 operations on a number of occasions. i'm very clear on which is which at any given time i was very comfortable with the gegraphic combatant commanders the central command in addition to when i was the commander in the war in iraq and afghanistan with the respective roles of the agency and of conventional regular soft wheat and the so-called special mission units that were under my operational control in those different situations. i think it's worth noting the special operations commander, the most recent one testified he didn't think there was a need for all of these operations to be under the military.

when i've been in charge of these different operations again in iraq and afghanistan and more broadly in central command there's more than enough work to go around and we have a very good cooperation and coordination and that has improved substantially on their way that the courses with this i think but there have been others as well model of which have been publicized whi is appropriate given the title 50 operations that are covert. so again, i really quite comfortable with of the way that this has evolved since the recommendations were made to assure that level and i can assure you with secretary leon panetta and admiral craven with of the new jsoc commander and where i am with other commissions to the to positions

this is going to be very much a team effort and the coordination of cooperation has been the essential to some of the past successes and would be augmented and improved in the months and years ahead. >> i would simply add to that that i think that there is a great strength in having both capability resident in both places simply to give the president the commander chief as many in his quiver as possible with the arnove spurring we have done a lot of introspection on that. i have some pretty direct guidance from the president on that as a matter of fact, and i thinkthat what it has shown as you mentioned it has served as messy as it is marginalized the al qaeda missiles come al qaeda is in the position of trying to catch the train after it's already left the station was up

in the nineveh spring isn't consistent with al qaeda as has been advocated how will it change us? i think what it is reinforced something we knew it is the importance of being attention to the social media and what a barometer that can be for the sentiment for the people in the street it is not the panacea but yet is another and the intelligence arsenal to understand what's going on but will not enable us to predi future events. there is a certain amount of i like to point out at least i think it's a good thing to remember the distinction between the mysteries of secrets and they're kind of noble and mysteries are not and too often people will hold us in the intelligence community to the same standard for the defining both and we cannot.

>> mr. lobiondo? >> mr. thompson? >> thank you madame share and general. >> excuse me, i made a mistake. senator udall next. >> madame chair, i am happy to yield to the congressman lobiondo if my time remains intact. >> for mr. thompn out of deference to my former colleaes. if i could follow up, congressman. >> you have been gracious. cynics before senator udall. general, thank you both for being here today and for your service o our country. i'd like to know, general clapper, how we are doing in regard to the guidelines that you have set forth in regard to the gao of the government

accountability office working with the intelligence community when that's appropriate. as you know, when this committee and congress has taken a very keen interest in making sure that we have this corporation, you had some experience with this in regard to the reform efforts on the security clearance issue i'd like to know how we are doing in that regard what sort of progress we are making and since you issue the guidelines were we stand. >> we do have some intense but i think professional discussions with the general accounting office and i think that we did a ride out what i believe is a good compromise document which is fairly general as those thgs tend to be what at least

in my mind is let's try this out and develop a body of law and see if we have issues we can't work out. and to this point, we have not had any issues. i had a lot of experience with the general accounting office, the investigations and studies in the previous incarnations. most notably, as you elude it to in the clearance reform and where i believe the gao performed a very useful service by keeping after last and keeping us honest sustaining the amendment and the pressure to bring about clarence reform which is still ongoing. there is a case we have made huge head ways and progress but there's more to be done. so in answer to your question, i would -- since the direive is only about two months old, i would suggest we watch how this

unfolds and see what comes up in the way of the studies and investigations the gao wants to do, and i've pledged to them privately and i will publicly that we will cooperate to the maximum extent possible. >> thank you. director petraeus and colleagues that outlined them and i think that you did also. we have tremendous tactical intelligence success in this fight against terrorism. i am interested in the strategic intelligence successes and whether or not we are devoting enough resources and we have the information that we need to strategically go after to this issue, and do we kno -- and we have the resources and diverting the resources necessary for the motivations and the goals of the

folks who are trying to do less harm and if not what do we need to be doing differently and how do we need to redistribute those resources in order to get to that? i think that's a very important part of the overall fight against terorism. .. the fact is that there still is an attraction out there among some elements of global society to what osama bin laden

we have put a lot of effort into that in the intelligence community. we think we have reasonable understanding that some of these are greater problems of society, lack of rule of law, but of education, opportunity, jobs, and so forth, and they require government responses. there is a new initiative that you will have seen announced in the past few days by the state department in this broader area of information that has potential, but again, this is not just something that can be handled with public affairs efforts. it requires in many cases real or forms within society so

extremists are discredit hear it is important to note that dni noted a moment ago that the arab spring resulted in changes to the regimes and it came about because of the people, because a popular movements, not because of the violence and extremism that osama bin laden said was necessary to change the regime. in that sense, that aired live has been discredited, but indeed, there are other elements of the narrative that still, with some individuals, find -- they are found to ring true, and that is a big problem and one we have to continue, not only to study, but try to figure out you help governments of these countries to address the root causes of the problems. mr. thompson. senator udall?

>> thank you, chairman. two comments, and then a couple questions i have. i've been in and out of the hearing this morning but i want to acknowledge the tremendous work that went into assuring that the events all over the country on sunday came off without a hitch, and i think that's a tribute to the intelligence communication that's been expanded since the terrible events of ten years ago. at the same time, i think we all acknowledge that we have to be right every time. our enemies only have to be right one time. secondly, general petraeus, great to see you here in your new role. you and i had conversations about enhanced integration. >> right. >> i don't want to continue that conversation today, 3wu i want to go -- but i want to go on the record i'm a strong opponent of investigation, and i base that on constituentsnd others. if --

it undercuts our capacity to do so. >> let me respond then because that's pretty impoant they are imp kateed that i'm for i.t., and i'm not. i've been clear, again, earlier, it was on my watch that we dwoched the army field manual based under executive order governs how interrogations are conducted. i've overseen them, we adhere to the manual and before we had that as division commander, we said we'll follow the geneva convention period, and not go beyond that, beyond that, the army manuals work. there's no implication and our values direction to the troopers as variety dimes as ale, and also, of course, the agency

doesn't do interrogations at this point anyway. >> that's fair. your point is sterling in this regard, you've been a leader, and i thank you for that. >> thank you. >> let me ask a simple questions, ten years passed since the years of 9/11, do you believe al die da exists n years from now as well as other violent grou as well. general clapper, turning to you to kick it off. >> i don't believe al-qaeda ten years from now will necessarily exist in the form today or what it was ten years ago, but what i do see is the so-called franchises we talked about i think will probably be a threat to us so the aqaps, aqis, aqim's

erst, there could be other chapters of those. ihink we achieved dramatic successes in taking down and damaging core al-qaeda, but the whole notion of franchises or variance thereof will be with us for some time. >> i would agree with that. i moreover say extremist groups at large will exist, not all of them necessarily motivated by something rooted in misreading of the islamic faith, but perhaps some as they are now. not all is extremist groups or are islamic extremist groups. there's a variety of others if you look at the designation of the state department. there will be, unfortunately, movements out there motivated by a variety of different bjectives that will carry out extremist activities. >> i think that speaks to congressman thompson's point with the strategic view as well and superempowered small

groups. >> exactly. >> let me jump around with the time i have remaining. the country has the privacy and civil liberties oversight board as you two know, and i know most agencies, if not all, have their own privacy officers. can you describe the interagency process where civil liberty concerns are reviewed by the board i mentioned and brought to your attention and that the others. general clapper, i don't know if that's more directed towards you given general petraeus' 8th day on the job. >> and counting. >> and counting. >> i would first, closer to home, something i am very familiar with is the function of the civil liberties and privacy officer by law is required as a part of the office of director of national intelligence. that function i have learned in my tenure as dni is extremely

important, and i attempt to engage alex joel, who's known to many on both committees, who is a superb intelligence officer, but very, very mindful of the importance of civil liberties and privacy. i endeavor toengage him as much as i possibly can along with the general council assigned to as a part of my office in the very, very important endeavors. we have many overseers in addition in this respect. nobly the president's intelligence advisory board, oversight board, and, of course, you all here provide, i think, very detailed and multilayered -- which is important -- oversight over the protection of civil liberties

and privacy. one of the functions of this office is to do outreach with the constituent groups, aclund groups like that. it's very important to maintain an open and complete dialogue with such organizations. we don't always necessary all agree, but we dialogue and try to be as transz parent on these -- transparent on these things as we possibly can to anyone in a legitimate position of oversight. >> thank you for that, and i count on you to continue to be really focused in this, and i'll end with this note. franklin said famously a society exchanging essential liberties for short term security deserves neither. easy to say, challenge to implement. this is really, really crucial, and i'm counting on you two gentlemen to help us keep faith withranklin. thank you. >> thank you. senator wyden?

>> thank you, madam chair and chair rogers as well for this important session today. yes mep, i want to ask a couple questions about intelligence reform. let me start with you director petraeus because you've had a chance to look at intelligence reform both as a senior military officer and now in your current capacity as cia directer. my question, i think, to start, director petraeus, have there been instances where you have said thank god there is a director of national intelligence or thank god there's a national counterterrorism center? can you give us a couple examples since you've had both of these experiences where you looked at specific up stances and said this is a place where intell reform has made a big difference. >> well, in fact, this past weekend, in fact, as we were working through to confirm various threat streams and as i

mentioned earlier, this -- there was a credible threat, and it was an important one, not just becausef 9/11, but because of all the pieces that seemed to be coming together. it started with information gathered by agency individuals, and, indeed, we've very quickly, the ctc, the counterterrorism center within the cia which also has interagency reps, but began piecing all this together and opened up very quickly the dialogue with the nctc, and that's how, indeed, you get it into the law enforcement agencies and share it throughout the rest of the interagencies. i didn't -- i can't honestly say that i blurted out loud thank god, but i was appreciative of the role of nctc and the olson and his team and what they did in cooperation with the cictc

and variety of other elements, fbi and others in seeking to get to the bottom of this to follow leads, to take various actions to alert law enforceme at the local state and national level, so i think that's a very, you know, topical example of that. beyond that, if i could go all the way back to where i was on 9/11, i happened to be in bosnia at the time. i was a one star general as the assistant chief of operations for the nato command there, but i was dual hatted as deputy commander of a special unit engaged in the war criminal hunt, and we had at that time, the largest special mission deployment in the world, and in the wake of 9/11, we started doing counterterrorist operations. it turned out bosnia was a conduit into europe for extremists coming from pakistan, and, indeed, that there were

residual elements and ngo's and others facilitating this activity. we developed very good coordination there. we literally established a joint interagency force for counterterrorism and found the information left that that entered a stove pipe. there was an fbi stoveipe, a cia stove pipe, and then dia, nga, and all of the other military intelligence agencies remitted there as well -- represented there as well. what was very good coordination at ttical level broke down as it went back to washington. since that time, i think in part, in large part because of intelligence reform, the establishment of the dni position, and, indeed, aggressive oversight by these two committees, those stove pipes have been broken down. there are still some out there, some even within my agency itself, and we're working to do that. we talk about -- this is not

just the need to share. you have to share responsibly, so that we don't have exposure of material to individuals who don't have it a need to know in that case, but it needs to be accessible to those who do have a need to know and have a deed to share and to share responsibly. it's still not there, but it's been improved. >> those are good examples. maybe i can get you in the second question i wanted to ask. director clapper, you were very visible advocate for intelligence reform. you mentioned positive examples. maybe as i wrap up, can you give me a sense of what the big challenges are that remain to be tackled in intelligence reform, and if you and director petraeus because i think it almost picks up where director petraeus left off. give me a sense of what the big charges are in your view remains with intelligence reform. >> well, we are going to have a

big challenge here in managing the cuts to intelligence funding, so how we do that and still attend to the intelligence community will be a huge challenge. my own personal agenda, if you will, now is to focus much more on the domestic realm. we've made a lot of progress in opening up the cooperation and flow of information both to state, local, tribal, and private sectors, and the other way. there needs to be more focus on that and one of the things i'm going to focus on is the intelligence enterprise as it applies to domestic arena. they will be working closely with the department of homeland security, but this is an area where i need to place more

emphasis. that whole realm if you will is not as mature beuse we have not been doing it as long. that's a profound change occurring over the last 10 years. i was around before that, and, as you well know, sure, there's a fire wall between foreign and domestic, and now we have to figure out -- we're working on ways to break that fire wall down and ensure that appropriate legitimate information is shared sensibly and responsibly with our domestic partners. >> thank you. madam chair? >>f i can pile on quickly because i think the big challenge in my view is to make the existing structure processes, organizations, and systems work and work well. work effectively, quickly, and smoothly, and that can only be done by working together. everybody has to work as a team. we have to make way together. team work is not optional in this importantrea. >> thank you. congressman roon ey?

>> [iudible] >> excuse me. congressman? >> thank you, both, director clapper and director petraeus. director petraeus on your new role in the cia. you'll do a great job, every place you've been, you flourish. we appreciate all you've done over the last decade for this country and look forward to watching you progress in the next few weeks and months. i do have a question about our foreign lang capabilities, and, you kno one of the united states greatest weaknesses is collecting intelligence around the world because we have a small group of inteigence officials with enough foreign language capability and specific

areas of expertise to access denied areas and blend in like locals, we just don't have enough people who have that expertise, but congress has supported programs like ncep, the boren psychological lores and -- scholars and fellows, and my question is what has the intelligence community learned about penetrating terrorist groups over the past decade? have we made sufficient strides in develops foreign language capability, and have we seen any improvement in our ability to collect intelligence as a result? >> well, i think the short answer is, yes, we have. i think there have been tremendous strides made in penetration in general. i think, though, that details on that probably best left to closed session, but there have

been many successes, many new techniques that did not exist ten years ago that we have developed and refined. language will continue to be a challenge for us. the cia is -- obviously, director petraeus will want to speak to that, has been leader there. director panetta set a pretty high bar for language training and the requirements for progression within the agency. across the board, and this applies as well to the military. it has been a challenge developing native level fluenty among americans with these exotic langs we find in the middle east that we must find

proefficiency in. it was easier for us to raise and have a kodre of linguists in russian and east european languages which comes to our people much more naturally than do the middle east languages. this is going to be a challenge. it's something we're working at, and we'll continue to do so, but we're probably not where we want to be. >> director petraeus? >> well, foreign language capabilities are critical. they are the point of the realm for some of our operators and offers in the field needless to say. director panetta established ambitious goals by 2015. the agency is generally on project ri to achieve those with recruiting and so forth. we do need to do more. i'll provide for the record what the goals are and how we're doing in terms of meeting them and what kind of slope we're

on. there's improvement, but, again, we need to do more. diversity in the work force in terms of recruits a absolutely essential. we are working to have people who can, again, operate in countries, cultures, languages that are very different from our own and to do successfully, and so that's another important component of this. as the dni mentioned, there have been important improvements in terms of penetration of various groups, and, again,appy to provide that in a closed session as well. >> okay. thank you, both, very much. i yield back. >> thank you very much. congressman heck? >> thank you for beingere and for your service of selflessness to our nation. we heard about information sharing. this morning, and area of prime concern is working as emergency planner at the state and local level and working the joint interagency piece.

director clapper in the opinion piece, you talked about changing the ic culture of one to need to know to a responsibility to cher. wiehle theyive proved, there's the growth of fusion centers and local high profile failures includin the kris mall day bombings, and it's clear the information did not get outside the cylinder of excellence. now, we're teen years post-9/11. wh more is needed to achieve that seamless information sharing that we try to attain in the intelligence community, and in light of the persistence of difficulties in information sharing, how do you say the odni is seen as value added at not just another layer of bureaucracy? >> well, excellent question, sir, and very relevant and

pertinent, and it's the center of what i worry about in this job. i think, though, in the minds of many, there is -- it is thoh it was a simple formula to be applied so that on a matt of automa tisty we can collect automatically without due regard the messages. there's a -- classic balance we have to achieve with sharing on one hand -- responsible sharing, and then security on the other. i think -- and this is a case of developing kind of a body of law here and practice, and i think we're getting better and better at it. the fusion centers, which i think are a great step forward, something that didn't exist ten

years ago, and there are now some 72 of them, and very candidly, some are much better than others. i visited some that i think are extremely capable. there is a federal an nexus to ensure that preparely designated information is shared quickly with state and local officials, and, again, as i mentioned earlier as something i want to work on the second year of my tenure is improving that domestic intelligence enterprise. i've had that request made by many state and local officials at iernational chiefs association and others that said we need this, and so i'm going to take that on, and in that see what we can do to improve, but i don't -- on sharing, butno

silver bullet. it's just something we have to work at. obviously, wikileaks exposure and revelations there, there's been a wakeup call on in the minds of many on too much sharing, too much desemination of information of people w don't need it, and so we're instituting corrections there particularly in terms of auditing and monitoring what people are downloading and all this sort of thing, and this is 5 part of the balance effort between the two, but i assure you if this was a simple proposition of a mathematical formula, we would have applied it a long time ago, but it's much more complex than that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, first of all, i want to welcome general petraeus, now director petraeus,

and thank you for your great service, and both of you i've had a chance to work with directly over the years. now, one of the -- one of the hard things in intelligence is sometimes we have the information, but we don't act upon it, or it doesn't get to the right people. this may have been asked. i apologize if it has already, but i'd like to go to this question. while the nctc improved counterterrorism coordination, there have been recent high profile failures. for example, various segments of the intelligence communities such as the fbi, the department of defense, people at walter reed knew about nidal malik hasan before he opened on a base in fort hood in november. similar failures existed with the attempted attack by umar farouk abdulmutallab that would be the underwear bomber before he boarded a plane in detroit on

december 25th, 2009. the information known about these individuals did not get to the right people to prevent the attacks, and how do we improve that? i mean, i know -- i don't expect us to be perfection, but if -- the's always frustrating -- like 9/11, we had information about these people being trained. it came to the fi, the fbi did not act upon it. can you tell me what you're trying -- you know, director clapper, what you're ying to do to make sure when we have the information it gets to the counterterrorism centernd somebody acting on it. >> well, sir, there's the old saw that you learn in intelligence school early on. you know, there's just two conditions in life, intelligence failure or operatial policy success. i would say that in the intelligence community like the adversaries has to be, and i beeve is, a learning

organization, and so in the case of the christmas bomber, for exale, the intelligence coittee did an outstanding pice of critique for us which, you know, lessons learned from that experience, and what we need to do to improve. one of the things that has been done to hopefully preclude a similar experience has been the availabilit of more information that could possibly shed light on potential terrorist travel, so travel records, immigration records, these kind of things that were not previously freely available to the nctc n are, and so we have -- thanks to former director mike leiter who led enhancements, whereby the

analysts can spend less time, you know, listening and lining up material and can spend more time on analysis, so we've tried to go to school on -- as we always do -- on how to improve from a potential problem, and clearly, you know, luck plays 5 part here, so we need to learn from those experiences. i can tell you we'll endeavor to continue to be a learning organization, and not only try to profit from past experience, but to use that to anticipate what are other scenarios we might have to take on. >> general petraeus? >> well, chairman, it's great to see you again. i think this comes down to integration, sharing, and comes down to actually ensuring the information gets to the right people as best organizations k and, of course, the ctc at the central intelligence agency where you have this integration

of operators and animal cysts which is hugely important, and the various fusion centers out there, the advent of increasingly larger data bases with applications also helps, but i think at the end of the day it comes down to people, and it comes down to people like the leader of our ctc, r example, who has been at this for a number of years, the lders on the di and then national service side in that center, for example, who have been doing this for years, one of whom has turned down three promotions over the years and was critical on piecing all the -- connecting all the dots that led to the success of the intelligence that was provided for the raid, and at the end of the day, that's why we have to take care of the people even in con -- fiscally constrained times, continue to investment them, continue to attract the best and

brightest, and provide meaningful jobs and activities for them. >> the two greatest attacks on the united states, pearl harbor and 9/11. we had information in both cases, so i think that this is an ongoing challenge is to make sure that people act upon the information. i don't mind having this exercise we went through this weekend. i think that's totally appropriate. if we have good information that's relatively good, we have to act on it, and i'd rather do that four or five times and prevent things from happening than not act when we know what the consequences can be. thank you. >> thank you. >> may i ask one more question? >> of course, mr. chairman. >> thank you. you know one of the major problems here has been your

predecessors, mr. clapper, only served for a very short time, and finally i think you and leon panetta were able to work out a relationship. i think this is very important that the dni, the role for the dni be accepted, you know, the relationship with the white house, director petraeus, you're going to play a role in this that we've got to make this relationship work, and i think 's fundamental to the entire intelligence community, and i just urge you both to put aside petty, you know, politics or organizational competition and make this relationship work. it's very important for the country in my judgment. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me take that just very briefly if i could, chairman dicks. >> of course. >> the bottom line is first of all, director clapper and i have known each other for years and years in a variety of positions

for each of us, worked together closely, cooperatively, and smoothly. secondly, before my confirmation hearing, i went out, sat with the dni, and we talked tough some of the issues that emerged friction appointments with previous individuals in positio, and i watched this at various times, first as a central command commander at principles committee meetings and so forth, and then, of course, from afar in afghanistan, and we talked through those, and i like this think on both sides there's pragmatic approaches to this. as i mentioned in response to an earlier question here today, i think the time has come now, the focus should be on making what intelligence reform has brought about in terms of organizations, processes, and various elements work, and the only way to do that, again, is to work together and for everyone to cooperate in this very important endeavor in which we're engaged. >> thank you very much, mr. dicks. on that note, i'd like to thank

our two witnesses. i think it's been an excellent hearing. i'd like to thank the members and turn it back to the chairman. >> thank you very much, senator feinstein. thanks to everyone in the senate and house, vice chairs on both sides, i think it's important that we do this occasionally again to let the public understand what is a difficult and -- because of its classifications, so thank you for taking the time to have that public dialogue, and we appreciate it, and we also look forward to a robust dialogue in closed session, and, again, to both of you, thank you, and thank you for yur service, and with that, the committee >> in that election with moral scandal and political corruption, james blaine s&p

1884, but he changed political history. he is featured in the c-span.org weekly series, "the contenders." tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. learn about the program. >> our new student cam competition is underway. the deadline for submissions is in january. you can get all be information now at studentcam.org. >> watch a video of the candidates and track campaign contributions with c-span's website for the campaign 2012. it has facebook updates from the campaign, candidate biographies, and the latest polling data, and

links to c-span media partners in the early primary states. on cspan.org/campaign2012. >> a debate on deficit reduction and infrastructure spending. the debate is mediated by major garrett. this event is just over two hours.

>> i want to take a minute to welcome our viewers doing this on nationaljournal.com . i would like you to take a moment to silence your cell phones. our moderator will be monitoring your questions through out the day. there are also index cards inside your folders. there should be two index cards. we will be collecting those four questions. i need that like this would not be possible without the generaos support of our underwriters. here today with thank you welcome ebay remarks from our underwriters, we have william millar, president of the

american transportation association. >> constance, thank you very much. thank you on behalf of the american road and transportation builders association. we want to thank governor rendell and mr. norquist for being with us today as well as the panel that will be commenting after the initial portion of our presentation. i am not surprised to see such a large crowd here today. infrastructure investment is an issue that is central to our nation's will be. many of you know that the long term bill was delayed again. a short-term extension of six months was passed by the congress yesterday. it is an important issue for us. it is appropriate that this

morning's panel is called "a battle for -- a battle for the future. most of you experienced in adequate transportation investments on your way in today. maybe you had an experience with things that need additional funding. investments in infrastructure transportation and our income -- our economic recovery are integrally linked. it will help for a growing and healthy economy for decades to come. our aging and deteriorated bridges, roads, rails and public transportation services must be brought up to a state of good repair. they must be expanded to meet the needs of the 100 million more americans who will be here by the year 2014.

the nation needs more surface transportation investment, not less. this is why we believe the time was must enact a long term, well funded surface transportation bill as soon as possible. in the financing of surface transportation, it is essential. two conditional -- congressional each party -- chartered commissions both called for immediate increases in the federal-tax while recognizing that we had to work through long-term effective financing mechanism that would be needed to fund surface transportation. in these days of economic peril and trial, we must not lose try -- lose sight of the impact this

legislation could have on jobs. economists tell us that forever $1 billion investmened in public transportation, it creates 36,000 jobs. this is a significant number. cutting the program will reduce u.s. jobs, mostly private sector u.s. jobs. failure to act boldly now when it is so cheap to do so will result in more crumbling roads, bridges, transit systems across the country that will not support a growing, vibrant, and competitive economy we must have. these decisions will cost more in the future. remember the old fram oil filter commercial. you can pay me now, or you can pay me later. thank you. it is a pleasure to sponsor today's defense. >> thank you, bill.

i want to give you a quick run down. major garrett is the congressional correspondent for national journal. he reported from fox news for the chief -- as the chief white house correspondent. he has worked with cnn and u.s. news and world report. >> good morning, everyone. it is a tremendous audience. welcome to our c-span audience. welcome to our live streaming audience. we will have what i hope will be a lively debate and discussion.

i do not want grover or governor rendell to wait for me. i want them to feel free to engage each other directly. at 9:15, i will take questions that you have written down. it will be either from twitter or facebook. without further ado, i will not spend my time or your time introducing these two gentlemen. you know why they are here. governor rendell has been in the arena. grover norquist has defined a portion of the political arena. ed rendell knows what is like to lose an election. he has dealt with tax issues.

grover is incredibly well known, not only here in washington, but nationally on the tax issue. i will put a broad question to the two of you. i will ask the question differently to both. governor, isn't big enough? does it do enough on infrastructure -- is its big enough? -- is it big enough? does it do enough on infrastructure? the president called you out. some of you -- he said, some of you have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. that does not directly relate to you. >> let me begin by thanking the

national journal for being here. i am honored as a private citizen to be here with someone i described as the most powerful person in washington, d.c. 2176 people -- 236 people have signed the taxpayer protection pledge. 41 senators have signed it. grover has a majority in the house and can block any legislation in the senate. one of the most embarrassing moments in the history of our country is when many republicans asked for his permission to reauthorize the gas tax. he has done a great job advocating for his position. he has become incredibly impact will. we have elected officials who have to get an alert -- a permission slip from a private citizen.

it is embarrassing. it's flat out embarrassing. >> that should encourage direct engagement. >> maybe grover will say nice things about me. to answer your question, the problem with the infrastructure being part of stimulus bills is, it works. in pennsylvania, we received $1 billion in highway and bridge money. we tried it carefully. our secretary for policy track it. we tracked the jobs created on the construction site and we tracked the dow created in manufacturing plants. every vendor on each job, we ask how many people you hired and how many people you needed to hire.

we produced 25,300 jobs. it does produce jobs. when you do it for a year or 18 months, those are temporary jobs. it is better than nothing. the economy needs a shot in the arm. they are well paying jobs. they spend money with the money they earn. construction and manufacturing are the two sectors of our economy that infrastructure helps most and the two most challenging parts of our economy because of the recession. we believe it only works to the bottom line is the american economy if we did it for a 10 year period. if we did $200 billion in additional infrastructure spending -- a lot coming from user fees -- and the

congressional budget office said that $185 billion of additional infrastructure spending would be economically justified and would have a benefit that would exceed the cost -- if we did that, it would produce 36,000 jobs for everyone dollars billion in its infrastructure spending. most experts are a little bit more conservative at 25,000. if we did that, we would produce 5 million new jobs. if we committed to do it for 10 years, those 5 million jobs would be there not for 12 months or 18 months, but for each and every year of a tin ear -- 10 year periiod. -- period. our economy would take off again. the problem with the president also stimulus proposal is that

it is too short term. we need to make a long-term investment. every economy that has had success has been best in its own economy. we should, too. >> grover? >> what happens with road construction and why i think the folks who advocate other kinds of government spending have misused the road building industry and the road using public in playing this game where they say, we have shovel ready rose and you get $800 billion in other things. -- roads and you get $800 billion in other things. he could not have passed is sufficient roads if you came in from west virginia. they may have spent the money getting pay raises to people who

do not build roads, but work for the government. that is what they did do. when they keep doing that and people come back and say, let's build roads, taxpayers look at you and say, we have played this game before and we are not calling for it. to the first point, if the government takes a dollar from someone who earned it and gives it to someone who is politically connected, are there more dollars in the room? if obama, harry reid, and nancy pelosi put three buckets of water in the lake and take three but it out and they walk over to the other side of the lake and put the three but it's back into the lake and say the project is to stimulate the lake to great depths and you laugh. in a room full of taxpayers, everybody laughs. they say, you know what we are going to do this.

we are going to do this 800 billion times. then be lake will be stimulated to great depths. there are more people who are unemployed before we started stimulus one and stimulus two. it is the old story about the definition of insanity. keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. i went to college and they taught me dickensian multiplier. i thought it was one number -- the indian multiplier. -- keynesian multiplier. i thought it was one number. if they take the money to you and give it to the city of philadelphia, it only increases

the economy by $1.36. on the dollar i took to used to giving it to somebody else. increasing infrastructure increases. i take a dollar from you and i give it to a guy and it increases gdp by 1.5 economic dollars. the original effort was a promise of four. they were going to have more government spending and borrowing does not take out of gdp the way they measure it. that was a multiplier of four for the first $800 billion project. the governor was kind enough to say, you and the taxpayer protection pledge have tremendous power. no, the taxpayers in the united

states wields tremendous power. 236 members of congress plus the timor have made a commitment to the taxpayers, not to me. nobody has to check with me. that makes for a good sound bite, but it is not true. it plays to the state and the nation that they will not raise their taxes. we put this together to help enact the tax reform act of 1986. revenue-neutral tax changes. you want to raise one tax, cut another. you want to raise the gas tax and cut so that it is revenue neutral. you can have more roads. 10%, 9.9% corporate income tax in pennsylvania. i had to leave the state when i was coaching months old looking for work. -- two months old to look for

work. you want to cut the income tax, the corporate income tax -- as long as it is revenue neutral, it is not a problem. the first question is, if the government takes a dollar from someone and gives it to someone else, have you created jobs? we tried this during the hoover recession. it turned into the great depression. with all the tools obama has put forward, he has not had the tax increases he wanted to. hoover took taxes up to 75% and then 90%. people point to this as the model of what we ought to do more of.

i suggest it might not be. can the government create jobs? no. you are just moving. i take a dollar from someone who is working and give it to a guy who is not working. i have done two things. i have told everybody knew was thinking of working on saturday that there is a cost to that and they may come and mug you for it. it discourages work. and i told the guy over here that if you wait long enough, there may be money or a job or some sort of benefits. you are subsidizing voting for a living and not working and encouraging the same. and you are discouraging savings, investment, and work. it is not just that you took $800 billion and moved there from here to here. you have damage to economic growth and created disincentives

to economic growth. there is an important conversation to have about how you build roads. the money goes into the pension plans for the mvta employees up in boston. i am old enough to remember when barney frank was in the legislature and was a leader in pointed out the massive waste in the subway system and all of the things people decided to discover 30 years later as problems in the way mass transit is operating. the government unions drive costs up and when you tell them you are taking money for roads, they know you are not. they know where the money is really going to go. you have a huge lead if you are going to try -- if you are trying to tell them that if you give us a dollar, we will spend it on roads. they do not believe it because they were not born yesterday and

they have seen what the virginia government -- virginia democratic governors have done to them. >> governor? >> the original stimulus was not a hundred dollars billion in spending. 40% was tax cuts. let's be clear about that. >> a refundable tax cut is spending. >> the pennsylvania corporate income tax is stated at 9.9%. our effective rate is 4% because 70% of our corporations paid zero. you can look it up. you can go to harrisburg and look it up. 70% paid zero. number 3, taxpayers do favor spending money on infrastructure. in the 2010 election, the single

most conservative, anti spending election in my lifetime, 64% of transportation referendums called for borrowing and taxation passed. when people believe they are getting what they are paying for, when it is transparent and they know what they are getting, they want us to invest in infrastructure. lastly, actual jobs. i can tell you. rover is talking theory. -- grover is talking theory. we spend $1 billion on roads and bridges. we tracked the building on the sites. we said to them, did you hire people? did you bring people back? we got 25,000 jobs for that $1 billion. good, well paying jobs.

>> i do want to make the case that obama has used the tax code to create a refundable tax credits, which means he writes a check to people. i want to be clear. conservatives talk about tax expenditures. teddy kennedy's phrase from the late '70s. the government did not take it down from you, but gave you a dollar. i reject that notion. -- did not take a dollar from you, but gave you a dollar. i reject that notion. infrastructure is french for, we are not building roads. we will build museums. we will pay the pensions for the unionized workers and the subway systems. why do you call the infrastructure if you mean roads and bridges. writes the laws that say roads and bridges. joined with the conservatives

and republicans in congress who say, let's reform the gas tax so that you are taxing people to use roads and build roads and it does not get site and off to iphonned of ms -- s two subway systems try to look like china and europe. we are not like poland where everybody lives in tall buildings and one subleases the works. that is not we are structured. that is not the way we live. that is not the way the russians want to live. it is depressing of the there. they have one strand of the subway line. you know where everybody is at all times. that may be the purpose of structuring it that way. differentiate between what people have turned --

the of the question is, why are we paying for -- that law needs to go. when people say, we need to raise taxes to pay for roads, i say get rid of the bill that was explicitly put in to keep black workers from working in the construction industry. that was the conversation on the floor of the congress when they passed it. let's get rid of that law. it was put in for racist intent. it maintains that intent. i told someone, get rid of davis bacon and you can have all of the roads you want. he said, the what all of the

roads to be built by hispanics? davis bacon raises the cost. it is not zero. let's get rid of it. >> back in 1982, president reagan proposed to raise the gas tax by 5%. president reagan said it would create 320,000 jobs. we were in the midst of a recession. it was the first time the gas tax had been raised since 1959. let me put this question to you from a policy perspective. if reagan was for it as a way to maintain the best and for stricter system in the world, why it is not a double-why isn't it a good idea now? why wasn't the tax on gasoline now?y isn't it a good idea

why wasn't the tax on gasoline built into the system? inefficiency given by any efficiency in road and bridge construction and the explicit indictment that was put on the table that there was a competent racket in the distribution of the infrastructure funds for those close to whomever is in power. >> reagan endorsed the place that i developed in 1986. he campaigned for people on that basis. people say, he raised taxes from time to time. george washington lost the battle of new york. he was not in favor of losing battles. you don't always win. reagan got jammed and was working with the modern democratic party and the old republican party. the senate was an advocate of

higher taxes. it was not his call. he told me the 1982 tax increase was the biggest mistake of his presidency. i am not concerned that if reagan came back and said, here is what we were doing, he would say, the thing to do is to raise taxes. the challenge we have is when people say, how about raising taxes to pay for -- my question is, have you gotten rid of davis bacon or the money diverted off of imaginary stuff like light rail or all of the various subsystems. it is not to the subway systems, is to be labor unions and the pension and benefits and pay that you can so they can kick back to the politicians. if you got the side funds -- siphons off, my argument is stop

siphonning it off. we cannot have a composition about money when it gets taken off. he can pass some things on the ballot. as the onion pointed out, 94.5% of the american people supported mass transit for other people. they do not write it, but at what other people too. >> what about the inflation adjustment for existing tax policy? why is that a tax? increase? >> anything that raises revenue is a tax increase. >> governor, please respond. >> grover is never constrained

by the facts in what he says. he -- he said the tax increase was the biggest mistake he made. he raised taxes 11 times in his presidency. look it up. number two. he says no one rides it. there were 168 million trips taken by americans on mass transit. in one month, 868 million trips. consider what your roads would be like if 1.1 million people who use regional rail and mass transit's -- highway -- transit were on mass transit. to get around congestion is one of the most valuable things we

can do for quality of life and the environment. it is important and needed. third, he is wrong about mass transit forms. mass transit -- mass transit cannot be used for operating funds. it is only used for capital needs. it cannot go into the operating budget. it cannot be used for any of that stuff. that was in the past. that abuse has been curbed. i do agree with rover. incumbent upon all of us to get the inefficiencies out of the system. we should have more flexibility. we should have more transparency. we should get rid of earmarked. i agree a lot -- with a lot of

what he has said in the past. it is important that we stick to the facts. he charged political spending. first of all, understand that in almost every state in the union, we are required to bid transportation projects. the bid has to go to the lowest responsible bidder. the government has no say in picking that. it is the low bidder that wins. it is illegal to require that the lowest bidder the union. it goes to the lowest bidder. i do not know what he is talking about about politicians picking transportation and bring its products. davis bacon is not the 20% or 30% cost and cancer that people say. it probably re is a scot- --

cost enhancer that people say. i am always amazed by people who say we should reduce costs by lowering the wages of working people. grover said that hispanics do it. there are white people and african-americans who will take a job at a lower wage. why are we always tried to write down what working people make and are not interested in the incredible profits that are businesses are making. their tax burden is lower than it has been in decades.

we are always interested in driving down the wages of working people. it is astonishing to me. >> are originally, the compensation was how you get economic growth. spend money on government projects, infrastructure projects in particular or something else. you had me down as a deficit reducer, which is not exactly my argument. perhaps i will give you my argument and the argument of paul ryan and the moderate republican party and the guys who run the house now and will be running the senate in a year- and-a-half. we have two metrics of how we are doing it. one is economic growth. spending is a percentage of gdp. government spending is a percentage of gdp. we want the government to spend a smaller percentage of people's lives and be in a

smaller percentage of people's lives and have a smaller percentage of control over people also live and the way they live with their families and communities. we want to have lower marginal tax rates. we should move to full expensing, something the president has supported for one year. that is a nice trip, move

investment one year before you run for office. should not be the 1000 pages of depreciation cold. -- code. let's go to get rid of deductions and credits. let's take the trial lawyers out and have them built roads. kind of deade that weight on the economy. taking a dollar from somebody and spending it over here does not create economic growth. if you decide you want a road, my argument for someone to build roads, you walk in a room and you have on sacred character standing around behind you who raised the costs--of unsavory characters standing behind you who rates the costs to build the

road. it makes you a less credible advocate to say to a taxpayer i say, give me a dollar to build the road an. >> the eis's take forever. if we are going to stimulate the economy by infrastructure, we have to find a way to shorten those studies without hurting the environment. we can do it in a shorter period of time. let me correct a couple of things that he said. again, he is unencumbered by the facts. corporate taxes in america. let's talk about the effective tax rate. 38% of american corporations pay zero corporate income taxes.

tax rate, after you factor out deductions, is 13.3%. there is something called the oecd. their effective tax rate is 16%. u.s. corporations pay less than foreign corporations do. they pay less. . is in favor of reducing the tax rate to something that is a more viable rate. the lower marginal tax rate will produce job growth. it is not supported by the facts. in the last 60 years, the highest kind of job growth have been when we have had it five best years -- when we had a 70%

marginal tax rate. in the last 13 years, only one of them has been in the top 20 years of job growth. when bill clinton was president, we grew 3.8%. since bill clinton has left, we have had a lower marginal tax rate, significantly lower. job growth has been 4%. those are the facts. it is not supported. this business that, if you raise taxes on job creators you are going to kill the economy. we can debate whether bill clinton also tax increase did anything to stimulate the

economy or not. but it did not kill job creation. it was the best time of job creation after the clinton tax increase in the last 50 years. the republicans wailed that it was going to kill the economy and we would have a major recession. how did you like that recession? as i recall, it was peace and prosperity. >> you are not allowed to say, let me correct you, and then be defined the term. i said the marginal tax rate was 35%. >> but that is what they pay. they do not pay 35%. be honest. they do not pay 35%. if they do, they should find their accountant. >> i am at assuming you

understand the difference between a marginal tax rate and an average tax rate. when a country aren't an extra dollar and they take 35%, that a is the-- when a company earns an extra dollar and they take 35% -- >> how lucky 38% who paid zero? so many loopholes that they paid zero. >> 38% of companies. they show no income. >> it is because of the deductions, the loopholes, the credits. >> they showed no taxable income. they make -- it is a debating tactic that says you say something that isn't true.

you try to shift the conversation. you are talking to a room full of guys who pay corporate income taxes. they would know that 35% is the top rates. that is not an on imported number. even the democrat in congress -- un important number -- un important number. democratic party does not understand the marginal tax rate. i am talking about the dis incentives. >> people want to know what general electric paid at a time when they made $13 billion in profits. >> i object to somebody who said i misspoke when i said something that is accurate.

it is not speaking what i say something that you do not wish me to. >> i want to talk about a philosophical approach to infrastructure spending. do you think $8 for roads and bridges -- >> >> i run a taxpayer group. you are anti-government like cancer doctors are a anti-cell. we need the government to keep the canadians on their side of the border. we need roads and bridges and a

judicial system and stuff like that. the question is, to what extent has the government got all but the banks. those of you who build the roads need to understand that when a politician -- you run into this with prisons, education, and roads at different times. the only way to find them is to raise taxes. that politician has just looked you in the iowa who tells you -- and told you that his -- looked you in the eye and told you that his lowest priority is you. you are the least interesting

and valuable project in the world today. he has insulted you. he has thought, i have just recruited a sucker. the roads may or may not get billed out of this process. this game gets played. i work in all 50 states. i deal with the federal government. you hear this again and again. he gave me $1. i will build that prison. or we will spend on education. we will spend it on the department of education. that is not the same thing as education. the department of roads is not the same thing as roads. the department of defense and the pentagon is not the same thing as defense. we cannot cut defense. we cannot cut pentagon spending. is that what you are saying? let's be careful and not run on labels. let us understand that when

somebody tells you if you help them raise taxes, he can get you money, he has told you there is nothing else in the budget less important -- he cannot buy them. he would ratify the taxpayers. you are not going to get through the taxpayers to get it. we can take those resources to build roads. building roads is a generally constructive thing that the government can do. >> governor, you have raised taxes and cut spending and dealt ith real life boat tours -- voters with your job on the line. >> we cut because the operation of the pennsylvania government by over $2 billion per year.

i believe he is right. the first responsibility to the taxpayer is to maximize the efficiency of the dollars we do get from the taxpayers. we are going to have to continue to invest. that means raising revenue and prudent borrowing. only through investment do businesses grow and only through investment can we grow as a country. infrastructure is a whole lot more than roads and bridges. infrastructure is a broadband system that is capable of getting small businesses anywhere in america to be able to compete in the global marketplace. we do not have that. we are ranked 15th in the world in our broadband system. if we do not do something to build out our electrical grid, our economic competitiveness and

quality of life is going to go through the toilet. in the world economic forum, which rates in our economic structure back in the world as early as 2005, has not placed us 15. in the air transport infrastructure, we are behind countries like panama and malaysia. infrastructure so important to our economy, we are 18. that is embarrassing. this country used to be the greatest country in the world. with the greatest country in the world because we met out which challenges. we did not worry about what it is going to cost. we worried about how it would benefit our people. when we decided to build the erie canal, there wasn't someone in the back saying, we cannot afford it. we cannot afford not to build the erie canal. if we stop investing in making our infrastructure a first class infrastructure, it is pay me now

or pay me later. the army corps of engineers asked for a small amount of money to build the levees before katrina. we did not give it to them. we have made 1000 times more in federal dollars because we did not do it. governor christie just said that the dunes in new jersey that were paid for by the taxpayers helped when the hurricane hit and helped with sand beach erosion. he said he would have spent 10 times the money in replacing the beaches. you spend money to build the infrastructure, to approve the quality of our lives, to increase our economic competitiveness. stop doing it, and america is destined to become a second-rate power. i do not want to see that.

grover does not want to see that. let's get going. >> that was during a time when you had beethe hire act. there was a net increase in government spending on infrastructure. that suggests there is too much -- too much inefficiency in the system. >> because of the recession, state and local money went down. the overall spending on infrastructure is reduced. the surface transportation committee, the congress also on the committee says we are spending $82 billion on our transportation infrastructure. they recommended that we spent

$220 billion. we will take some questions from the audience. >> i have some from those who have been on twitter. if you want to practice a bit participate that way, the hastag is #njdebate. >> it is fairly obvious that if you have changes in the tax code that are not tax increase, a change in the tax code to get the government more money, is a tax increase. it is a change in the tax code to raise cash for the government, it is a tax increase. you would have more luck working with taxpayers to reduce other

government spending and to redirect that ford rhodes and necessary infrastructure and you will carrying on your back the environmentalists, and the labor union pensions and the guys who make how much picking up tolls on the pennsylvania turnpike. you carry all of that on your back. that is why people don't think that when it came to them to talk about is what you are really there to be thin or discussed. fight for roads and help us who want to reduce unnecessary spending or reform spending and reform the pension structures they have in the state and local governments that are bankrupting state and local government. you cannot maintain the pay as you go intense and keep that

going and build roads. why do you say, we have not been spending on roads in the last 20 years. take a look at the city and federal budget. you can see the money that might have gone to roads has been sent to other places. all the politicians tell you their friends voted to do that. they are not your friends. rs used you'd like a human shields to get cash to spend in other places. >> governor, someone writes in. they want to know, as a politician, but would you raise the gas tax and would you campaigned on that and?

? >> this is not the time to raise the gas tax. the u.s. chamber of commerce has endorsed increasing the gas tax. the afl-cio has endorsed raising the gas tax. we need to raise the gas tax. it has not been raised since 1993. think about your salary in 1993. only half of it went to the trust fund. you could not exist on that

salary. 61% of americans thought americans thought that the gas tax went up every year. it showed. we should increase it by phasing in by 10 cents and then once that is done it should be ticketed to increase by inflation each and every year. that is the only way we can keep pace. do people hate paying taxes? sure, people hate paying taxes. i raised the second highest tax increase in the history of the commonwealth of pennsylvania, and unlike prior governor's to raise taxes, i did it in your one of my first term. three years later i got reelected by 21% in a purple state. because people knew for that

investment we gave them concrete beneficial changes. we gave them better roads, safer bridges. we gave them a better education system. we give them economic growth. today pennsylvania stands at a rate of 7.4% in unemployment cannot and it happened because we invested in our own growth. if you are structuring your plan on structuring a gasoline tax, that will not happen. you could work in coalition with us to want to reduce taxes to come up with a package that would shift resources from other things to roads and buildings, but not as a net tax increase.

you can have a conversation about it. the chamber of commerce has a lot of people working for it to make a living off of certain government programs, so they represent the entire business community, including government contracts. they are not in touch with the modern tax payer movement, nor oddly enough is the afl-cio. >> we have three technical questions that i will merge get it. -- together. how would both of you think or view separating the money that goes currently to the highway trust fund and siphon that off or with that in a separate category only for a separate mass transit fund? when you think about the model in indiana, leasing a state highway, and for both of you, do you think hired direct user fees are a more economically direct

an efficient way of funding either extension or maintenance of roads and bridges? >> separating out roads from public transportation is an important first and getting more transparency and accuracy and honesty in budgeting. government accounting, that is helpful. i am an advocate of phasing out most if not all of the federal gasoline tax and allowing states to take those resources and spend them, because you have a hard time telling people who will spend it on roads if they see a guy doing state money, siphon off the subways and the bike paths and what not. they do not know what they can believe and what happened to the dollar they thought they were paying for roads. to the extent you can turn those cards face up and say this is what we're spending on road and

public transit, subway system, and states you will never visit, and here is what you're doing and here's leisured -- not in your neighborhood. it is very helpful. >> direct user fees meaning tolls leasing in indiana made sense. there was an effort in pennsylvania. my argument is you could have had $20 billion dollars or restrictions would have been helpful. you have to talk about the politicians about their view of the importance of having their cousins hired by certain government programs.

go fight them and get your $20 billion for roads. do not mugged the taxpayers because we are not going to lose this fight. but the politicians who are defending their cousins and aunts and uncles and keep shops going on the massachusetts turnpike. that is a huge step forward. you got to fight someone and that means politicians, not the taxpayers. >> user fees? >> kohl's on new roads, lanes, bridges, no problems. always a good idea. >> i agree with chronic over on leasing, state assets, whether transportation or other forms of infrastructure. we tried to do it in the

pennsylvania turnpike. we got i high bid of $12.8 billion. the legislature to turn it down because they control the turnpike commission. the control that jobs, the white collar patronage, they did not want to give up. the pennsylvania state would not have that $12 billion back right now. he is right. tool, i am -- tolls, i am all for tolls. i would widen it and say we need to open up tollings on roads that are not for some reason. the people who are against it, democrats, say, why would people pay twice for something? they pay when we build the first time. when you buy a car for $45,000,

your life's savings, people new car, you pay for it wants about but you pay every year to maintain it. you would not stop putting money into the car. if you did it would break down and would not work anymore. that is essentially what is happening. we should lift the restriction on tolling. the governor or legislature wanted to take on that decision and explain it to the taxpayers, that is their target of. in terms of separating transit from the trust fund, transit, because -- is not so exclusively in big cities as people like grover would suggest. in pennsylvania, we have 39 mass transit systems and some of them are in counties with less than 10,000 people, and they are bus lines that are the only way that working people can get to work who do not own cars. there is still a lot of

americans who did not own cars, and we think of mass transit as of was, but it is more than subways and rail lines. it is buses as well. if you separate it out and becomes a step child and would lose any chance this has to get significant funding. i would be against doing it. in terms of going to the states, if you did that gas tax money away so the states could do it on their own, tell me, what governor or what legislature in today's atmosphere is going to impose an 18.2 cent per gallon state tax on gasoline? i do not know if grover is aware of this, but we need to have -- most of the transportation money that comes comes in blocks the states. there are things called mpo's fit with thed they

vdot representatives in each state, and they make determinations on what priorities they want to spend the transportations on in their districts. there is state control and better than that, there is regional and local control on how those federal dollars gets spent. >> they come back with restrictions. they are minor and of fgood firt steps. we need roads, more roads, good roads, bridges, and let me suggest that you do not have a problem with tax payers, you have a problem with free riders. the governor just talk about mass transit. will set buses aside, because they can clearly be done privately. >> absolutely not.

you cannot have a bus system in a county, a small county, without being subsidized. you need to make a profit. there is no profit in mississippi to run a train system. >> the challenge you have is that people in the past have gone to voters and said, if you raise taxes, if you give us this, we will build roads, and then roads were not appeared sometimes because of the environmentalists held things up. the first conversation obama had said who said we were wrong to cut through red tape and we can build these roads right away and will not let the environmentalists run everything, and the democrats said not a chance. their constituency word the environmentalists. they said no. until you get those guys out of the room, making it impossible

to build roads that are reasonable, you are proud to have a hard time convincing people that you understood road spirit until you said to the let'swent to the substaways, talk about fun separately under their own steam. if it is a good idea, there will be lots of support for that. when you take roads and you entangle if in other spending programs or you allow governor warner or tim kaine to raise taxes in the name of roads and spend it on everything else, then you wonder why taxpayers to not trust you when you come back for the 57th time, their view, is no. strip that stuff out. break the unholy alliances that the road builders had built with

other spending interests and environmentalists and other guys who put all these rules and restrictions on how you build roads and what you can do, and then you have a different project . let's argue with those whistled government programs and have roads built rather than the other. i think we win that faster and better at the state level, but i and cheerfully willing to work with you guys at the federal level, but did not walk into our room carrying on your back little interest of a dozen other eight groups and wonder why it slows you down. >> thank you very much for your time. thank you, audience. thank you for your questions. please stay here for our second panel, which will continue this conversation. we thank you for your attention. this has been a good time.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we are going to get started with the second portion.

i am going to ask you to take your seats and get started. thank you. i've got introduced our moderator for the second portion of our program. our moderator is mr. johnson. he covers a wide range of domestic policy issues. prior to working at "nj," he worked at "national journal daily." >> can you all hear me? after that rousing debate now we are going to talk about details.

i cover transportation for national journal and had been involved through the ins and outs in congress to the last year, which got interested in the summer. with a wideroup o variety of perspectives on the transportation debates, so i will give you a brief opener and we will talk. a reminder, we are taking questions. i believe you have cards that our folks are collecting, and they are given to me. we are tweeting this. many of you have questions this week. and if we are friendly, i will call on you. let's talk about who we have here.

on my right he is jim coon. he is the chief of staff of the house committee for transportation and infrastructure committee. i have seen -- he has seen a lot. we also have -- he has worked for the air transport association and the boeing co. paid one of the things i asked the panelists to talk about is how the the beat -- how the debate is affecting them. next to him is tom jensen, the vice president for transportation policy at ups. that puts him right in the middle of a variety of transportation issues including commercial fleet matters, ocean shipping, rail and. in his prior career he worked on the hill for a former

representative from connecticut. next, ronald kirby, the director of transportation planning for the metropolitan washington council of governments which represents local governments and it is the premier organization for the washington region. they are involved in long-range projects, and ron directed the constitution program at the urban institute at one point. when i asked him how this debate would go, he sent this e-mail where he says his customers are the people of the metropolitan region and unfortunately by customers are not very happy with the plans and programs which currently available for tackling growing traffic congestion. any one of you try to drive into they will probably understand that. last, we have john savage eye, president of the small business legislative council.

-- last, we have john satagaj. he is at the office of advocacy of small business for the small business association. the thing i would say at the out this is we are in a brave new world in congress, and some might call it a discontented new world. the public is having difficulty with how lawmakers are behaving, and one of the things that has come out of that is new budget guidelines from house republicans. depending on your point of view, somebody say that as a welcome change. a lot of people would agree with that, but it has been causing consternation in the transportation world because there is a reauthorization more than two years overdue. i was talking to someone a couple of weeks ago expressing the frustration and surprised

that for the first time ever i believe we have the constituency groups all on the same page, labour, business, the research arm of analysts all saying that we want to get something done with reauthorizing infrastructure investment, and we are still having trouble on capitol hill. we know the house and senate are working, and jim can tell you the house has outlined bills. the only problem a lot of people have with it is it cuts spending by that is going to be a problem going forward. the senate has a two-year bill which is attempting to accommodate the budgetary constraints, and that also is causing a few people, including a person who works for it, to be worried. good news is from my perspective, much of this is the

members on capitol hill seemed to be in a deal-making mode. the evidence last night, that the senate passed a short-term extension reauthorizing both the surface transportation mechanism, the gas tax, and the faa. that is a difference from what we are seeing earlier this year. we have six months now to come up with a longer-term deal, and from my perspective i think the real disagreements are going to be about how much money and how long it will be. are a lot of other details that sender cockburn has brought up a few, including b fiveike paths. this has become a question as to how much the top line and you can swallow. i am asking panelists here to

tell us what we can do, how do we solve that? jim, give us a quick overview of where you think the debate can go, where you are, and then if the rest of you down the line, i would like to hear specific ideas about how you think we can get the whole enchilada at this time it, the investment in infrastructure systems, how they can be improved. >> thank you. i'm glad to be here this morning. fawn did a great job outlining where we are headed, going. we have six months at least now that the senate has passed an extension. unfortunately we have been good at passing extensions for a number of years, both on the surface side and more so on the aviation side, where we have had 22 extensions. nothing to be proud of, but

nonetheless a lot better than shutting programs down. the only terminology that i would change with respect to what was mentioned as people talk about cutting spending, and i think our view was that we were trying to stop the bar away -- borrowing that has been going on for years. the gas tax has brought in $35 billion a year, and we are spending $50 billion a year. what we are trying to do -- there is no doubt german micah, -- chairman micah is committed to a viable transportation program.

the committee travelled around the country in january to almost every state and had listening sessions at hearings, on a bipartisan basis. when the chairman came back, he put basically a draft bill together that would -- that inc. what he heard around the country. it was really instead of a washington out, it was a coming back to washington is what we tried to put together, and some of the themes we heard were that the project delivery process takes complete too long. that was one of the main things we heard almost in every location. average it takes about 15 years for a major construction project to get completed in this country from conception to completion. that is just totally

unacceptable. there is a lot of common ground i think to find ways to reduce that process, and i think that will save a lot of money over the years. there is a growing and even from the republican leadership in the house, i think that boat -- the folks believe we should have a viable program, but we should do without continuing to borrow money, and we're looking at every option, along with the leadership, across the swath of committees in both the house and senate to come up with revenues that will meet the needs we have out there. that is very encouraging. i do not think folks in the house nor the senate really want to wait six months to get to a long-term bill, so we are going to work as hard as we can over the next few months to find revenue that we need to meet the demands that we have.

that is very encouraging. more so than where we were a few months ago, and i hope we can get there. it is going to be a difficult tasks. obviously, increasing the gas tax is off the table. it is not the time to do that right now. there are options out there, and if we can make them work, we are going to do that. there is a lot of things we can do in addition to the financing, or forming some programs, giving states more flexibility, and getting us to where we need to go. we have always, at least the is a multiview modal type of legislation with water, and we have before us that we need to dredge to meet demands. we have bottlenecks are around the country.

so we want -- rail, everything we can do to keep things going to make this work. the president even had some suggestions in his jobs bill that we could probably incorporate into what we have. there is not a lot of support for a national infrastructure bank. i think we are looking right now at how we can leverage more at the state level. 33 states around the country have infrastructure banks. if we can make that work, we prefer to do it that way and get the bureaucracy and the decision making out of washington and down to the states where those people have their own individual needs. they're looking at that. there is light at the end of the tunnel here and we're working hard to make it happen.

>> that is good news for all of us. i can hear applause. tom, will you talk about what you would like to see, what you're hoping for? >> i am not sure, because we have issues. we have issues that are linked to the service transportation network, ports, aviation, and it all matters. it does not matter independently, but it matters from an integrated freight transportation system, and we do not do that in this country. the outline of the problems, as everybody knows, that is easy. it is the solutions that art of all. if you leave the building and you see a little brown truck. ec we have about 90,000 vehicles in the united states

and of about 15 million packages a day and we have many people in the united states who rely on mass transit to get to work. we think building roads is important. without new revenue, we got issues. think about this. whether an overnight letter, freight, some huge industrial component that is on an ocean vessel, we do not own that thing, it starts with a shipper and it comes to me. those folks want there widgets. to the extent that we cannot move the volume or the freight to the pipeline, we become redundant. we add additional vehicles. we increase gashouse emissions and our environment gets worse. we contribute to the ingestion to the roads. you can take every ups legal today on the road and he or she is late five minutes, and annualize that.

that costs ups about $100 million. even a company our size who pays their fair taxes, that is real money, and more than that is redundancies and inefficiencies. we believe it is good to say that is about economic competitiveness. we're worried about the economies around the world and how they are interrelated. i wish i had a magic bullet or the sound bite answer, but it is a number of things, but we need to focus on the revenue. if it cannot be done in the gas tax, we understand. there are a lot of things that are good stuff, streamlining programs, delivering projects quicker. we talked about this, but if we do not get more revenue, it is pay me now, pay me later. and we firmly believe that, and it is easier to do some of that now when things might be

cheaper than down the road. we still believe in the gas tax, warts and all. we also need to consider more productivity. there are still probably freight lanes where we can move larger vehicles safely and efficiently at lower cost that will help get other vehicles offer road. moving forward a challenge for jim and the smart, dedicated folks on the hill who want this the happen is to get there on the money side. kicking the can and punted, we're not favoring that whatsoever because that situation will get worse. that is coming from -- we drove 3 billion miles last year. that is little brown trucks. that is coming from this user. we care about all mode street to the extent we can move in that direction and make it a more entered-modal approach but we recognize that is difficult, and

down the road, the gas tax will become antiquated and there might be a vehicle miles traveled or some other mechanism. we're not there yet. we have to figure out an offset, which is the only way to get certain things done, then so be it, but we are here to try to move in that direction because the solution is revenue, not building less, not maintaining. we see it and operate all over the world so we see we have a very good comparison point, and we're struggling here and it is a frustrating situation. >> my understanding is that max baucus is on the hunt for offsets in the senate. to the said you are talking about it is unlikely, at least this year. we will see. i feel we are going to continue on this thing with iran. and if you can touch about on how state and local governments are involved in the private sector since this is something

that is a topic of great interest. >> i am the staff to the metropolitan planning organization, and our board is made of officials, state department of transportation, metro pictures we get together and we are looking at highway and transit operations and maintenance and new capacity for the entire metro area. i want to focus on what is the federal role here as opposed to all the other players, state, local, private. when we look at our total budget expenditures, the federal government is about 20% of the total. the rest is state and local, transit fairs, 7% or 8% is private full tolls or developer

fees. there is a blend of funding sources, and the federal government is only 20%. why do we need the federal government? what is this particular role? we need to focus on in the next six months or a year, i think we have the opportunity to rethink and reformulate and refocus the federal role and restructure the federal programs so that it does delivered the things that the federal government is most responsible for, and that is one of our biggest challenges. the program has grown up over time. everybody is saying we need to consolidate these categories. it is more than that. it needs began in a way where we can say this money is being spent to achieve this federal purpose, and that is why the federal government is involved. i think if we can get that structured done, we will be in a stronger position than to argue

for more revenue. the structure comes first. i suggest there are four basic categories of federal involvement, and if we organize it a federal program around these, and it is not to be issued for more we are now, it will be much easier to refrain the program, get it funded, and administered it cou. if we have a major safety incident, a bridge in minnesota, an incident on the metro rail system, the first place to go is the federal government to help us out. therefore, the federal government has an interest in being involved proactively in making sure those things did not happen. i think the mobil formula for grants are not to that in that regard if they focus on safety, transit agencies and so forth,

as we have now. i think they can be very effective. what i want to do as i go to these categories is giving examples of programs we have in this region that of the very important to us that we have not been able to get out of the existing transportation structure. we've got outside that structure for special federal funding. in the case of david good repair, -- in the case of good repair, we have put $1.5 billion of federal funding, matched 50% of our states, to restore our metro rail system to a state of good repair. that was a separate piece of legislation. is not in the federal program. we needed that to get on top of that problem which was a very serious problem in this region and for everybody who comes to this region from around the country. that is an objective that needs to be worked in to the basic federal program for all transit agencies. many of them have the same problem.

the second category is high value new investments, and we need a multi modal approach this. the tiffany, tiger programs. there is a critical federal role here for major facilities. the example i give you in this region is the woodrow wilson bridge. we rebuilt that a number of years ago. a cut through three states if you what it considered d.c. a state. it carries a lot traffic, but it carries a lot of through traffic. it is a critical lane in the entire northeast corridor network, a clear case of a federal role. we ended up with 100% federal funding with a bridge. we were able to pull that off and get it rebuilt. you will see a very is nice structure out there now, and i was involved from the beginning

in the thinking about that all the way through, so i can give you a lot of stories about what it took to get that done. those are the two major categories permit a third category is metropolitan mobility, and i think we need to focus on metropolitan areas and the federal program. we need to put them into a metropolitan package about formula application by population. it could go directly to the major metropolitan areas, administer it to the states, the way the transit program is right now. what's the objective here? promote consistency between transportation investment and state and local plant growth and economic development. that has to be done on the metropolitan level. it needs state and local governments working together. state do not to land use.

local governments to land use. you got to get a working together to get that link each, and that is a lot of what we focus on at the metropolitan planning organization. another category says promote efficient system management and operations. we've been working very hard since 9/11 to put in place a stronger incident management program in this region that is run by the three states and metro. we have a new organization watching the system regionally, identifying problem areas and alerting the agencies to coordinate and alert the public. similarly we could not find that out of the existing program. at that time it was called and but we got that. getting that basic money was a real struggle and one of our

state officials, when we went to him, as tell you how great it is, he said he did not have to tell me how great it is. the problem is it is new and we did not have a category for new. where are we going to find the money? it was a matter of rattling around the old program categories and try to draw money out for something that everybody agreed was important. that is the struggle we faced with the current structure and why we need to restructure the final area is the research demonstration. this is an important role for the federal government. one area that we have benefited from is the value pricing program. they have looked at pricing of our railway system, so that we are not actually eager to get , but we are of though

looking at that. we have major toll facilities under construction and some in operation in this region. that is where a lot of our new interchurch and will be funded, and we have had help in looking at the new technology available. i remember mentioning the idea of tolling the beltway, and i was dragged up on the evening news and commentators said where are you going to put the toll booths? the level of understanding was that people did not to understand the fact that we are now building toll roads and the capital beltway and there will not be in the toll booths. the technology has enabled us to do things we could not do. she people cannot imagine 10 or 15 years ago, and i see that as an important federal role.

>> this illustrates the depth of the issues that even one region can impose on members of congress. i want to mention john because we've heard from the big company, but now maybe we can -- >> that was a very good lead in the. i group is made up small businesses that constructor and we bring a-- perspective from all of those and. you talk to any small business in america and nine out of 10 will use two words -- permanent certainty. those are things they always talk about when it comes the government policy. in the world of the infrastructure, six years is as close as we can get a permanent.

long term we authorization of the idea for us that we need to do for us. certainly it is -- let's get there, use the money for us. if you talk to any small business, what is going to be best is not short-term stuff. it is the long term, because i want to know if i am an employer or at employee i want to know i am going to have a job now for three months but i'm gonna have a job for two years or three years. then i am glad that the confidence to bring this economy back. whether construction, small business, or user small business, you and your employees, that is what you want. what to know that there are are to be jobs there. and the certainty and the permanence of those things tick.

a florist and ran away in your mind, what with a forced think about, and i guarantee what would come to your mind is delivery. they got to deliver in their local community, get the boot k to a location. that is their concern. in that region i want my trucks to get around, and while you see a lot of trucks, there are a lot of other vehicles that are the small business vehicles on those roads and we have to deal with them, too, and they're feeling is i have to get by all those other trucks. you think of delivery. it is on the forest and i need to worry about of the house, because guess what -- most of the domestic flowers are grown in california. they're not grown right out side in the back yard.

most of the flowers come in to the miami airport and are trucked around the world. -- around the nation that likes his life. i am a florist in iowa, and i got to not only worry about threats, i got to worry about airports, i need to get those things done picking you cannot just look at every level part. it is integrated both from the structures and we got to deal with it as a national issue. we want to deal with it as a national issue. one last point -- she used the word dealmaking. it has become a pejorative. this is my 34th year. i can guarantee you from the better off part of two decades, i found compromises foundwin-

wins for everybody. where are the solutions that will work, that work for labor, whether i agree with liver positions are not? what are the ones that worked for the environmentalists. and once at work for me as small business? i want small government, but the reality is i have a national problem, and we got to get back to the point where we allow our legislators, our president, cut him some slack. let him find a solution. he is going to work it out with the senate if he given some room to work out. we need to get back to that. [applause] >> one clarification from your remarks that i -- am i to assume from what you are saying about certainty and long term that your members, the people you

represent, would be willing to pay more if they knew it was certain in the long term? >> we are on to -- the issue has been addressed that you are growing that the pay for it. if we go beyond the gas tax, we know we got to get there. we know this has to be a priority. we have to sort out those priorities, and that was a good point made in the debate before. was diis a priority, and how doe need to fund it? >> i have my own questions, and we have other questions that are fairly specific. the one thing i was hoping jim would have something to say something about this, also ron, one of the things that john

micah has been pushing is public-private partnerships, and the thing is with more investment, the government does not need to be spending as much, which is helpful in a situation where the government does not have a lot of money. if you can talk about what you can think about where you think that can be streamlined, and also is that something -- it sounds like a lot of kinds of issues you're talking about in the house bill are not particularly the things that will in flames somebody over in the senate. i'm curious, ron, what your experience is, what one mistake is when they think about public- private partnerships, and one success story. >> we want to try to create an atmosphere to allow private sector financing of some of these projects.

a lot of times people will suggest that public-private partnerships is tolling, and that is partially true. there are other modes of transportation were public- private partnerships make sense, in the rail sector and other places. obviously there are funds available out there. the private center tells us they have money they are willing to invest we just have to make the terms of the agreement worth it for them. again, it is a process where we try to find every avenue of resources to finance strong multi-modal transportation systems. we're looking at that and we think it is a good idea. >> is a multi-modal keep to that? >> there is an opportunity in northeast mode to get private

sector dollars in there. it only helps the situation. >> ron, do you have examples? but the mistake potential is that the partnerships can do a lot more than they can and they are not going to do with basic maintenance and operation. it is not a way of getting the government out of major parts of the system. there are important areas where these can be powerful and we have public-private partners of beltway. if you go once stationed north on that red line here, uc and new metro station. that was an image of of of of abandoned warehousing. they came to the district, the federal government and said if you build a new metro station, we will pay one-third of the cost because of the land value

benefit. it was one of those rare cases where everybody said it was the best thing and that all the bowls everybody had. the district of about one third and then the the federal funding for about a third. the ratio ended up different at the end, but that project, from the time conceived until it was open, less than five years. it was not controversial. the funding plan was critical. if we may in this day -- if we make a mistake, we cannot get enough of a contribution from the private sector. they tend to be pretty good negotiators. everybody is just collided with the outcome, and this eric but if you work up first street to north avenue -- the new york avenue has been transformed. >> the issue came up in the

debate about whether this is a good or a bad deal, and governor rendell said if pennsylvania would like to have the $12 billion back. where would it go? would it go to chicago, the chicago skyway where did that money go. back into the road? indiana, toll road, great success. ask the people in indiana. where did that money go? it went into other transportation projects. the investors have changed over in indiana, tolls are going to the roof, and if you ask users, it is a different story. if the money is dedicated, it works. if it bleeds off to other purposes, that is another story, because it reflects our perspective of user financed, user-pay systems. >> i wrote about this earlier

and one of the things i believed that was from your staff that we were talking about the problem in public-private partnerships is you have very big investors who are dealing with local governments who are not sophisticated. when of the things that chairman is trying to do on his that is come up with ways that the government can help equalize that balance. the only other point i would make and this is coming from afta, the only -- there are only 24 states accused these partnerships, and 65% of those charges occurred only in eight states. it works in some places and not in others read moving on to a more political question, the earlier debate, grover norquist was targeting waste and fraud and abuse, and a questioner

wants to know our transportation investments being held hostage to that broader argument about how government is wasting our money? >> that is a little deep there, i think. i think there is a perception out there that the highway program over the years has gotten away from its core purpose. while some would argue out there that, for an example, bike paths or sidewalks or that of thing, that it's a lot of play. there are some who believe that we should not find those. there are those who believe that we should. the question is, should we, and

to what extent? and who is going to make the decision? it comes back to my earlier comment about reforming the programs and getting it back to where it needs to be an focusing on things we need to do so we have a national program, but at the same time, not have a one size fits all type of deal. >> let me rephrase this question. as the overall conversation -- the role about -- is the question about the role of government in general? does that help your policy making? the you feel like it is totally separate? >> i am not so much focus on waste as i am on process and targeting the dollars to the things that we really need.

some people call waste. some people call it -- and that the eight years ago or at least up until this past year, earmarks, and some people call that waist. other members collect their bread and butter. it is all in the eye of the beholder. the bottom line with bike paths is create a program, to get it back to its original intent, and that is to maintain the interstate system and maintain bridges and roads around the country. that is what we are focused on. >> anybody else? not going to touch it. there is a couple of -- we will continue on the broader issues in congress, the question about the progress of the transportation bill. doesn't depend on the results of the super committee?

this is for jim. >> the super committee has an enormous task in front of them. they need to find $1.40 trillion over a 10-year period, which is a herculean task. i obviously, from my vantage point, believe me need to move a long-term six-year bill sooner rather than later. that is our goal and what we're working toward. >> at least from the main folks who are negotiating the transportation bill in congress, they did not seem to think that the super committee is on to get in the way of the conversations you have. >> they cannot take money out of chester station. we need money. they cannot cut us any further. the question is, where are we going to find the money?

bmi lucky you. a question i have, and this is mainly for our business folks on the panel, but i have noticed over the last year or so that i have spent time covering this, every now and then you will get a group that talks about traffic congestion, which is something we all experience and are all frustrated by trade i am curious as to why that argument does not seem to be making as much headway on capitol hill in terms of pushing people to move forward. is that because it is something we all experience and did not believe the government can fix it, or it takes too long or that is there some other reason, or maybe just people need to get together more and talk about traffic congestion? maybe i just ate traffic.

>> from the small business users standpoint, by definition, we are diverse st. you can focus on the public official side, you know how to deliver the message. small businesses are all over the place. it is not like traffic congestion is my problem for me today. it's hard for me to relate it and combine it with other people. i put somebody on the road at 4:00 a.m. so they can get through this the nation said they can be traffic -- so they can beat the traffic. my problem at that point, and it is hard to connect all those that the same kind of attention to that. that is my theory. he did not tie it together as you do with construction in the

public sector. >> if you work to support this project that that would make your -- >> to get small businesses or associations of small businesses together, the ceo's together, and you start and say traffic congestion, then you will have one and our discussion. in my industry this is our problem. you realize you all have the same problem, whether a florist, air conditioning contractor, or a manufacturer drive into the country, and we all have the same problem. it is only when that happens they begin to have -- we all got to get together. >> we have had a number of companies come to ups and say you guys are good at moving your stuff. we are interested in making products.

help us understand how we can move it better. we do all kind of consulting and that makes sense. they say what can we do about the situation? it has never been on the top of our list, and what am i suggesting? there are non-traditional stakeholders who care about this issue, and that matters because they will talk this their local officials print the usual , we know what your agenda is. it is the nontraditional stakeholders who need to get involved. we see more of that, and i suggest that that chairman and members of congress who folks know are in the positions related to policy, and that is critical moving forward. customers say help us navigate

how we can move the needle on this. if we do not build roads and put more people out there, it is more stuff through the pipeline, and we know what the answer is. we are slowing down. >> thank you. one question, jim, is best for you. newt gingrich and john boehner have said we should pay for increased transportation with revenue from new oil and gas drilling rights. you agree? you can decline. >> i agree with speaker boehner. >> could answer. >> and this is another question, that is -- baby boomers are -- is there an interest in addressing what will be the increased demand for accessible

transit services? this is directed to anybody. >> that is a growing need in our region. the fact it is a growing component of metro's budget, and we need a plan of suppliers and some real prudence and how we deliver those services. it is an important role in meeting those needs, and it is a very important the man. >> talk about nontraditional stakeholders. we are ready to wrap up, but i want everyone to have the last word about what you want, what you hope, what do you fear. let's go right down the line. >> what i hope and what the chairman hopes, the house leader should hopes, is that we can move a long-term transportation bill in the coming months.

i can assure you that their efforts -- there are efforts on going where we will not leave any stone unturned to try to find how to put resources to fund our programs. we are going to have significant reforms. we talked to the senate. the bottom line is if the will is there, the way is there. i am hopeful now, optimistic. it is going to be a tough challenge. but i think there is enough people looking at it now and hopefully we will get a bill soon. >> we think increasing the number of voices in the debate, it has got to become a larger, broader, more excitable group about let's rebuild america. let's do the right thing for our

economic competitiveness. if there is catastrophic failure summer, there will be action. that is a bad way to go, and not to offend everybody, but congress does two things well, nothing, and overreact. not to offend everybody. the overreaction would bring this to the forefront of the debate, but this has a ripple effects, to the rest of the country, and i know folks are trying and i know folks on the hill are trying, but to bring a broader group together to say this really matters for the country brewing -- moving forward, that is our concern. time does not help us because the problem exacerbates itself. >> what i feel is most important is we ought rhee articulate the purpose of the federal program in a way that we can go out and

explain to somebody in a convincing manner and also streamline the delivery system. and carriage about what is happening -- i am encouraged about what is happening in the house and senate. to many programs are too hard to use. we need more revenue. there are multiple ways of doing that. we need to look at -- gas tax is important, it would be nice to increase it, but there are a lot of beneficiaries of these investments that we can tap with some of these creative funding packages. land developers, tolling, the rail line we are building to dulles airport, more than half of it is coming from developers were going to develop around the station. that is the kind of package we are looking for. >> long-term certainty, get it

done, and do it together and get it done. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, all of you. >> i would like to thank the american public transportation association, the iraq can road and builders to secede, governor rendell, governor? and our audience. we hope to see you at another "national journal" yvette. -- event. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> james g. blaine lost in 1884, but he changed political history. he is one of the men featured in "theew weekly ceseries contenders." learn more about our programs

at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> tom donilon talk about the war's end iraq's and afghanistan. right now, a portion beginning with a question on the situation in libya. >> >> the libyan people will have to make a decision. i will set couple of things about that. i think it is important that he is captured and brought to justice. i think he has shown over the course of his life that he is

capable undertaking actions with very negative consequences, including killing americans. i think he would continue to be -- not a threat in terms of overturning the government, but in terms of undertaking harassment and trying to undermine the success of democratic government in libya. it is an important thing to capture him, although this is not slowing down the development of the libyan government. i think what the leadership of the transitional national council has said is that they would capture him and turn him over to the international criminal court to be tried there. >> yesterday, i think presidents are cozy and prime minister cameron were in libya saying they want to help the libyan government's. what kind of resources are we prepared to give to the new

government? the united states is prepared to help the new government, and we have helped the transitional national council in its efforts to get where it is today. we have been leading the effort and led the effort to recognize them. we have frozen under our laws here, as you know, some 30 billion plus dollars in libyan assets. we did that immediately at the front end and the united states under took an extraordinary sort of actions to free north of $30 billion of libyan assets. we have unfrozen about $1.5 billion today. that is an extraordinary resource with the libyan people. we also will support the reopening and reestablishment of the oil industry there, and

obviously we will be working with them through the united nations in terms of their getting a government together. it is a very big success for nato. the president saw a potential for real humanitarian catastrophe when gaddafi was threatening the town on the coast of libya. the president saw an opportunity there to act in concert with others to protect those people, and we did that. i think it was a well-designed approach where we decided that military action could be taken, could be successful. we set up a set of criteria that we would not have the united states boots on the ground. we wanted the participation of arab countries, not just

rhetorically, but in real ways. we wanted to see a burden sharing commensurate with interest. the president worked through the leaders of nato and other countries a division of labor that worked. no other country in the world to take down a country in a couple of days and then turn the ongoing operations over to nato. it has been a very successful operation with nato. we have talked about burden sharing for a long time. we were actually able to implement it here. >> by that logic, why not do the same with syria? >> there are a set of criteria that we need to work through with respect to military action, including a set of allies and partners we would work with, but it also needs to be effective.

>> you don't expect anything soon by us in terms of syria? >> what i expect us to do it in the case of syria is that we have organized an effort around the world to isolate and really squeezed assad regina. he took a choice to oppression. he had other choices in front of him. he has lost even neighbors that had close relations with him. turkey had invested 10 years trying to form a positive relations with syria, and assad as demonstrated his commitment to repression. he slaughtered people during the holy month of ramadan. he rejected the efforts to push him for reform picture he was in the european union last week

putting together sanction and succeeded in making himself a pariah. i think at the end of the day, you cannot put a time frame on it, but at the end of the day ,the assad regime will not be governing in syria. >> the president of egypt is now being put on trial in egypt. should the night state government support those trials? >> that is an issue for the people of egypt to undertake in accord with their calls. bixby having regrets about the way each of those was handled by the united states? some thought we were pressing him to leave. some thought we could tolerate it for a while. are you happy with the message that came out from the administration? >> i think consistent with the set of principles we have laid out with the arab world since

the beginning of the year. i don't regret the way the united states handled it. i do regret that president mubarak did not take action sooner to be responsive to what was going on in tahrir square and around egypt. there were a series of mistakes there that turned out to be tragic. one last thing on the arab spring. it is ongoing. has varied from country to country, as we have been discussing. it is indicative of broader trends of bad government,

letting people down. communication is now possible in and out of countries. >> a reminder, all of that event this evening at 8:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span2. >> on this constitution day, a reminder that our new studentcam competition is underway. the topic, the constitution and you. the deadline for submission is in january, but you can get all the details now at studentcam.org big >> the first thing, you see the boom and hear the flash and the next thing you hear is them crying out in pain. if i have lost anything special, shoot me. >> sunday, ivan dandor, with the

film "survive, recover, lived." >> today president obama signed into law a bill that speech that the u.s. patent process by granting patents to people who filed first, versus the current first to invent system, which always require a link to review. the president also talked about his jobs bill and called on congress to pass the plan. this was the first signing ceremony in nine months for the president, the last one being the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal in december of last year. this is 25 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you so much, everybody. please have a seat. i am thrilled to be here at thomas jefferson high school of science and technology. thank you so much for the wonderful welcome. i want to thank rebecca for the unbelievable introduction. give rebecca a big hand. [applause] in addition to rebecca, on stage we have some very important people. before we do, i want to thank your wonderful principal. stand-up. [applause] the people who are responsible for making some great progress on reforming our patent laws

here, the pat leahy of vermont, and lamar smith, republican from texas. in addition we have representative jim moran and others who are all here. [applause] maggie is our acting secretary of commerce -- becky blank is the acting secretary of commerce. and we have some extraordinary business leaders here.

jessica matthews, ellen coleman, ceo of dupont, and the ceo of eli lilly. we have another of standing ticket, your class -- another outstanding student, your classmate. this is one of the best high schools in the country. [cheers and applause] as you can see, it is filled with some pretty impressive students. i have to say when i was a freshman in high school, none of my work was patent worthy. we had an exhibit of some of the

project that you guys are doing, and the first high school student satellite, a wheelchair controlled by brain waves, robots -- there is one thing, i don't know exactly how to describe it, but it is measuring toxicity in the oceans. unbelievable stuff. to the students here, i could not be more impressed by what you guys are doing. i am hoping that i will learn something just by being close to you, through osmosis i will soak in.the en i already feel smarter. [laughter] 1 president who would have loved this school is the person that

this code named after, thomas jefferson. he was a pretty good inventor himself -- the person this school was named after. he was the first president to oversee this country's patent process. that is why we are here today. when thomas jefferson filed his patent, his application was approved in just seven weeks. these days, that process is taking an average of three years. over the last decade, patton applications have nearly tripled, and because the pattern office does not have the resources to deal with them, right now there are about 700,000 applications that have not even been opened yet. these are jobs and businesses of the future just waiting to be created. the ceo's who are represented here today, all of them are running companies that were based on creativity and

invention and the ability to commercialize good ideas. somewhere in that stack of applications could be the next technological breakthrough, the next miracle drug, the next idea that will launch the next portion 500 company. somewhere in this country, may be in this room, maybe the next thomas edison or steve jobs, just waiting for a chance to turn their idea into a new, thriving business. so we cannot afford to drag our feet any longer. not at a time when we should be doing everything we can to create good middle-class jobs to put americans back to work. we have always succeeded because we have been the most dynamic, innovative economy in the world. that has to be encouraged and continued. we have to do everything we can to encourage the

entrepreneurial spirit wherever we find it. we should be helping american companies compete and sell their products all of the world. we should be making it easier and faster to turn new ideas into new jobs and new businesses. we should not cut down any barriers that stand in the way. -- we should knock down any barriers that stand in the way. we have a lot of competition out there. if we make it too hard for people with good ideas to attract investments, a country like china are going to beat us to it. that is why i ask congress to sign a bill that cuts away the red tape that slows down our adventures and on to burners. today, i am happy to have that big opportunity to pass a bill that will put a dent in a huge stack a patent applications

waiting for review. it will help small business owners turn their ideas into products three times faster than the candidate, and it will improve patent quality and give them the opportunity to attract more business and hire more workers. i want to thank all the members of congress for helping get this done. i want to thank those who led the process in a bipartisan way in the house and in the senate. i have to take this opportunity while i have some members of congress here to say i have another bill that i want them to get past to help the economy right away. it is called the american jobs act. [applause] these things are connected. this change in our patent laws

was part of our agenda for making us competitive for the long term. we have also got a short-term economic crisis, a set of challenges we have to deal with right now. what the american jobs at does is puts more people back to work and puts more money into the pockets of working americans. everything in the proposal has been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. everything in id will be paid for, and you can read the plan for yourself during all the free time that you have here at thomas jefferson, on whitehouse.gov. i want congress to pass this jobs bill right away. we are surrounded today by outstanding teachers, men and women who prepare our young people to compete in the global economy. if congress passes this jobs bill, we can get thousands of

teachers all across the country who have been laid off because of difficulties at the state and local level with their budgets. we can get them back to work and back in the classroom. this jobs bill will put unemployed construction workers back to work rebuilding our schools and roads and bridges. it will give tax credits to companies that hire our veterans, because if you serve our country, you should not have to worry about finding a job when you get home. it connects the long-term unemployed to temporary work to keep their skills sharp fall they are looking for a job. it gives thousands of young people the hope of a job and will cut taxes for every middle- class family and small business owner in america. if you are a small business owner who hires more workers and raises its hours, you get an extra tax credit. we will pay for it by following the same rules that every family follows. spend money on the things you need and cut back on things you do not.

we will make sure everyone pays their fair share, including those of us who have been incredibly blessed in this country. as i have said, we cannot stop there. we have to look further down the road and build an economy that lasts into the future. that will depend on the talents of young people like you. an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs that pay well and offer families a sense of security. we live in a world that is changing so rapidly, companies like the ones represented here today can set up shop anywhere with an internet connection. if we want start ups here and if we want established companies like dupont or eli lilly to continue, to make products and higher here, we have to be able to compete with any other country around the world. this patent bill will encourage that innovation, but there are other steps we can take.

my administration is announcing a new center that will help companies reduce the time and cost of developing life-saving drugs. when scientists and researchers at the national institutes of health discover a new cure our break for, we will make it easier for start up companies to sell those products to the people who need them. we have more than 100 universities and companies to agree they will work together to bring more inventions to market as fast as possible. we are also developing a strategy to create jobs in biotechnology, which has tremendous promise for help, clean energy, and the environment. to help this country compete for new jobs it and businesses, we also need to invest in basic research and technology. so the great ideas of the future will be born in our labs and in classrooms like these. you guys have such an unbelievable headstart already, but as you go to mit and cal

tech and wherever else you are going to go, what you will find is that the further you get along in your pursuit, the more you will be relying on research grants. governments have always played a critical role in financing the basic research that leads to all sorts of the inventions. we are going to have to make sure we are continuing to invest in basic research so you can do the work you are capable of and still pay the rent, which is important, as you will find out. we need to continue to provide incentives and support to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing takes root knot in china or europe but right here in the united states. it is not enough to invent things here. our workers should also be building the products that are stamped with brie proud words, "made in america." [applause]

and if we want companies to hire our workers, we need to make sure we give every american the skills and education they need to compete. we have to have more schools like thomas jefferson, and it has to start even before kindergarten, preschool. and before high-school kid the reason that you guys are doing so well is you had a foundation very early on in math and science and language arts, that allowed you to succeed even at a very young age. we have to make sure that opportunity is available for all kids. [applause] including this little guy right

here. [applause] that is why we are boosting science and technology and engineering and math education all across the country. that is why we are working with businesses to train more engineers and revitalize our community colleges so they can provide our workers with new skills and training. finally, that is why we are making sure that all our children can afford to fulfill their dream of a college education, that they can afford to go to school, and that pell grants and student loans ensure that they do not come out of college with massive debt. [applause] this is the economy we need to build, one where innovation is in courage, education is a national mission, and new jobs

and businesses take root right here in america. that is the long-term project. we still have a short-term agenda, and that is putting people to work right now. we have to do everything we can to get this economy going faster in the short term. that is why i am asking members of congress to meet their responsibility, send me the american jobs that right away. there are folks in washington who may be fine waiting until the next election to settle our differences and move forward, but the next election is 14 months away. the american people cannot wait that long. there are a lot of people out there who are living paycheck to paycheck, even day today. they are working hard and making tough choices. they are meeting their responsibilities, but they need us to do the same. i need everyone who is listening here and across the country, tell congress to pass the american jobs at.

we should be able to come together to put people back to work. and to all the students of thomas jefferson, i could not be prouder of you. i expect that among you are going to be incredible scientists and engineers and business leaders. you guys are going to transform the world, and i am just looking forward to taking advantage of the incredible science and technology that you develop in the years to come. you guys are our future, and whenever i see what young people like you are doing, i know that america's future is going to be great. thank you so much, everybody. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> if you have never seen this before, i have to sign my name with all these pens. that way, everybody gets a pen. all these folks worked so hard

to get the bill passed. you don't always distributed properly. all right, guys, congratulations. ♪

♪

♪ ♪

>> the united nations security council today unanimously approved a new mission in libya and un-freezing the assets of two major oil companies. president obama next meeting will meet with the libyan leader, the head of the new trends national council. he will also meet with the president of brazil and the prime minister of turkey on tuesday. wednesday, president obama will

address the general assembly. he is expected to talk about american foreign policy, libya, middle east peace process, and other issues. look for coverage on the c-span networks. >> in any election marred by a moral scandal and political corruption, james g. blaine los t, but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men mentioned in c-span's new political series. live from augusta, maine, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. learn more act c-span.org -- at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> a reminder that our new student competition is under way. open to middle and high school students. that the thousand dollars in prizes. the deadline for submissions is in january, but you can get all the details now at

studentcam.org. >> you see the flash, and the next thing you hear is you hear them cry out in pain. the second thing is i hear them, "if i have lost anything special, should meet." >> sunday, the director of a 30- minute documentary about his friend, marine corporal rod jones, who was severely wounded in afghanistan. the film follows rob's journey from coping with the loss of his legs through his rehabilitation. -- "q &a." "unand >> president abbas announced he did to the palestine has a legitimate right to statehood and that negotiations with israel have failed. courtesy of al jazeera english

and palestine's the tv, this is 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. in the name of allah, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of the palestinian people, inside the territory and outside the palestinian territories, i am conveying my appreciation before going to the united nations to convey to the international organization and to tell them about the culture and the background that we are living in generation after generation under the occupation and in the refugee camps where

they are deprived of their country and their nation. they have their rights violated every day in front of the world, before the world. the world established the united nations and these agencies to protect the people's rights and self-determination and to prevent the occupation by force. the tragedy of our people is that hundreds of recommendations are issued by the general security council, but these resolutions are in vain. we go to the united nations to ask and to demand full legal rights, which is the full membership of the palestinian state in these organizations.

we convey with us and carry with us the pain of our people to achieve these goals and to put an end to the torture. we enjoy our right -- we enjoyed our freedom and independence within the palestinian state on the fourth of june, 1967 with jerusalem as the capital of our nation. our efforts -- our continuous efforts so as to reach through negotiations to end occupation and lead to the establishment of an independent palestinian state is now reaching that marker. because of the policy of the israeli government that is committing negotiations on the base of our international legal

resolutions and agreement signed with the pmo. it is a policy of settlements and the jewish approach to jerusalem will never lead to the solution of the two countries based on the 1967 borders. i am going to the united nations with a big hole to have and the gain this membership of our state, and this will never hand or touches a plo -- hint or touch the plo being legal soldiers, and israel will be there until we have our full and comprehensive independence. if you are a lone state, the palestinian people, but we will be there until we have full

independence, and to have -- the issue of solving all the problems and issues on top of which is the issue of refugees. of course, as you know, the plo is the higher and supreme power of the palestinian people. the palestinian national authority is part of the plo and is established with support of the plo. that is why everyone who wants to talk about the plo and how we lose the plo -- i think he does not know and it is not a proper point. i to will be there not until we reach a solution but until the

implementation of this solution. the issue that we need to be implemented, the issue of refugees. [applause] sisters and brothers, along the last year, we have exhibited our readiness to take part in serious negotiations and responded to the international mediation and efforts, but we received nothing from the israeli government except wasting time and imposing facts on the ground and turning into a negotiation for the sake of negotiation. during the last two years, we have expressed and exerted a lot of effort to establish the institutions of our country as the infrastructure of our country. international agencies have witnessed the success of our

efforts and how we deserve independence. that is why one reported this month has praised the jobs and efforts and the efforts made, especially in security, justice, and economic development and revenues and offering services to the palestinians. they considered the achievement real progress that goes beyond the level of the opposition in the middle east and north africa and elsewhere. this is one of the most important reasons that make us ready to talk about september

and the efforts of of september appear first, obama himself said he needs to see a palestinian state next september with full membership. second, the quartet said it is a must to start negotiations in september and to end in september. we have said that we are committing ourselves to establish palestinian authority agencies with full capacity that could preserve a national and independent state. then we have the world bank reporter. a report from the arab agency. the world bank said that we have, which is better than the other. the formation of the palestinian state this year and the numbers who recognize goes beyond 100

countries. [applause] it is another indication that shows how the world is sympathizing with us and with the aspirations of the palestinian people and its right to an independent state. the majority of the world, 2/3 of the world recognized the palestinian state. the other 1/3 does not want to give us an embassy. we are the only people worldwide still under occupation. there's no island or area isolated or not. every part of the world has a seat of the united nations except the palestinian people. you ask why? a democratic state that

guarantees individual freedom, the collective freedoms, the commitment to the human rights and women's rights, and the transparency and the dominance of the low. we have everything. democracy, freedom, transparency. we have everything. that is why we do not think that anyone will say our people will not. still, we have one issue. still, we have one issue. we need to have a full membership within the borders of 1967 when the negotiations on the basis adopted by the world through which we can negotiate regarding the permanent

situation. jerusalem, refugees, borders, security, settlements, and our prisoners in israeli prisons. [applause] because they will be war prisoners of the state. they are not terrorists. they are not criminals. they will be considered war prisoners, and we always consider them at the top of our demands. but all these issues are the issues that will be tackled and will be discussed. that is why i am is saying a lot of my brothers and sisters saying it is a jump on the air. it is a lateral move. it is a laterals that.

we are talking to 193 countries, and you consider it and call it a unilateral set for a jump on air. ok. unilateral. that is why i say this is not right. we also have to understand we are not going there to bring independence. we are not maximizing. we are not minimizing. we will come back to negotiate the other issues, but we need to have a full membership in the united nations. [applause] but i hope not to maximize things, and we say that we are going back with independence. this is not the case. we need to pay attention. we need to be careful. those who say we are not going

to bring independence -- they are not right. that is why we need to deal with matters as they are. we need to work with and logic. we are going to the united nations to put the world before its responsibilities with an olive branch in our hand. the olive branch that is carried out by the late leader arafat 36 years ago. [applause] not, some people say, in order to isolate israel or to take the legal status of the country. no, we are not going to isolate israel or take its legal status.

israel is there. no one can take its legal status. it is a recognized country. no one can isolate, but we need to isolate the policies of israel. we need to take the legal status of occupation, not of israel. what we need is to put an end to the occupation and to take the legal status of the occupation because the occupation practices the pain that we suffer every day. these practices in storming and detention and destroying houses and increasing the settlement policies and the aggression of the sellers -- the settlers. they trained dogs. am i right?

they trained dogs to attack us. and they send paves -- pigs to stay in the land. they are facing us with three things. the settlers always attack us. the dogs that are well-trained -- be careful. dogs areand pigs to take the tr. what is this? of course the new intervention of the israeli side to face the citizens when they are going to the united nations. we need not to deprive ourselves of our legal rights because there is a lot of insecurity in the area. these aggression's reminded us

today of what happens in the massacre. before that, there have been massacres and other countries, but today, we all remember in 1982 the massacre where we lost thousands of palestinians. 63 years in massacres. it is time for us to feel rest and to feel honored. we need other nations support and supported by the will of our people, our people that offered a lot for these nations and a lot to live in a good way and to

go to the un at supported by the sacrifices of our martyrs. our martyrs. our martyrs. [applause] without those markers, we could never reached that point, and our prisoners. [applause] supported by our arab and islamic woes, the whole world would love peace. a lot of people deserve our support. people from africa, asia, everywhere. people who are supporting -- a lot of people are coming to say that we would recognize the palestinian state thousands of miles away from us. let me be frank with you. we are facing an important and historic mission.

we cannot minimize the obstacles. we need to be keepers of our objectives and goals through logic and effort. if we achieve success, we need to know that the next day the palestinian states' power struggle will continue and the next mission will be also difficult. at least we have got independence. we got the ignition of the world. they know that the land is occupied and it is not a disputed land. that is why they build and build. wherever they can reach, they will build. the more our soldiers go, then

we will build. this is our borders. our border is where we put our feet. where we put our feet is our border. no. 1967, settlement is not legal. negotiations after that, despite whatever the difficulties are, it is negotiation between two states. unoccupied one, and one occupied. i promise you that whatever is achieved will be given to our institutions so as to take the proper positions regarding these results. occupation is not the palestinian tragedy, it is part of the palestinian strategy with

the aid of regaining palestine. we need to go back to the geographic map with these negotiations. for our people here and outside, everywhere, we are here for our principles. i call upon everyone to commit themselves and to abide by the values of the struggle and the value of not giving anyone a reason to protect us. this is a legal structure -- a legal conflict to have a resolution that recognizes our state today and these days. we are facing an important

stage. our people will prove as our people proved previously that if we are anxious to overcome such a test, unified on the ground, supported by the political vows and to stress that we are a peaceful people and nation inside and outside. all of the movement should be peaceful. israeli intelligence said, "we have never heard the world -- never heard the word peaceful." i am now saying the word peaceful. we need to be moving in a peaceful way. we need to avoid as much as we can to be trapped into their positions. the positions they want us to be an. -- they want us to be in.

we need to go back. i hope, i urge every palestinian tomorrow is going somewhere, we need to be aware, to give them that chance. we will not -- we need a state. a state of the united nations. nothing more. any violation of the peaceful movement will hit us and will not go into our benefit. it will destroy our efforts and shed light on the negative points. i also want to say that the palestinian and dressed in the palestinian unity happened in 2007. we will continue, go on, exert

every possible effort to achieve the root reconfiguration that we consider a national aim and goal. when we are done, we will continue. if there are some differences, the unity of the palestinians and the unity of the land is the most powerful weapon we have. we need to say no to everyone who wants to say that the palestinians divisions are their main obstacle. we need to get rid of this division. at the end of my speech, i want to thank all of the arab countries and all the agencies that support us and countries that support us in our full membership in the united

nations. we are going to the security council. [applause] you cannot believe that. [applause] please sit down. i am sure you do not believe that. our decision that we said to everyone, "we are going to the security council." after my speech at the general assembly, i will hand in the request to the un secretary general to be given to the head of the security council.

our option is the security council. if there are any other options, we have no decisions until now. we have a lot of options, but decisions now. work and work hard and realize that. >> in an alexian marred by a moral scandal and political corruption, james g. blaine lost in 1884. he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured weekly new series "the contenders." learn more at c-span o.org.

>> tomorrow, amy harder look at the obama stimulus program. then, kevin hackett and tracy lesky on combating the brown a stink bug. after that, thomas mcmillen looks as scandals with college athletes. plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets. live every weekday at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the best selling author of "a beautiful mind" talks about

economics and is interviewed. we will also continue our college series interviews as we talk with professors from george washington university about their latest books on the voter suppression, military intervention, and modern afghanistan. and michael moore recounts his life from starting his own newspaper in the fourth grade to winning and the academy award -- to winning the academy award. get the complete weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> next, a discussion on the role of independent voters in 2012 and which issues are important. we will also hear whether an independent political movement is viable in the united states. it is 45 minutes. host: joining us from our new york studio is john avlon. he is the senior political

columnist for the daily beast and newsweek. if we could start with a big issue in washington, the jobs proposal. the president is going around the country urging us to pass this bill now. speaker boehner spoke yesterday and said to reform the tax system now, no tax hikes at this point. what is your assessment? guest: we have two competing proposals. this was a policy speech and everything in it was a bipartisan proposal, supported by democrats and republicans. it is not precisely what independent and swing voters want to hear. they are frustrated with the partisanship of washington. they want to see washington working against of the economy can work again.

the way the speaker made his request mark. lowering loopholes, creating incentives. what is interesting is republicans have a question to confront. there is support among independent voters as one of the things -- will they oppose a tax cut? john boehner has put together a plan. i think that is great. i think there is a momentum in washington towards tax reform. when he says tax hikes are off the table, the real question is, is closing tax loopholes going to be considered a tax hike by this republican congress? traditionally, it has not been. especially if you were to lower rates like the gang of six proposed. that is one of the key issue that needs to be worked out, especially if the super

committee will have any affect. i think if we are going to get a broad plan, we need some tax reform and entitlement reform. those are the broad lines in this debate right now. it is not time for anybody to be drawing card lines in the sand. everything has got to be on the table in this debate if we are going to revive the economy. guest: host: how you rate the potential success of the debt commission? guest: we have had successful bipartisan commissions in the past. dealing with social security or firm -- social security reform in the 1980's, which helped keep the system secure and solvent. in the grace commission, the hoover commission. the gang of six and bowles-

simpson had support at the time but there were shot down. the super committee is headed by the senate. knops one single member of the gang of six came forward. the only member of the bowles- simpson both voted against it. that was a bad start. there are faults on the committee who are willing to make a deal, who are pragmatic. john kerry made some tried from some people. mitch mcconnell pointed to pat toomey, an impeccable fiscal conservative and less than a bad sign. you always want to vote for the worst. you should hope for the best but

prepare for the worst. the reality is congress decided to kick the can to the super committee. we need them to succeed. president obama and speaker bonner have encouraged them to open the door to tax and entitlement reform. we have delegated the job to the super committee. that is the reality of how by polarized people have gotten in washington. it takes political courage to reach across the aisle and his political environment. that is the responsibility of the super committee and not just the super committee, also john boehner and president obama to try to lead their sides of the aisle toward some kind of agreement to get the a economy moving today. host: john avlon is our guest. if you are watching c-span, you can see the numbers on the screen. we want to only hear from

independents. not democrats and republicans. the plurality of americans identify themselves as independents. if you live in the eastern time zone, called this number. john avlon is our guest. a recent poll came out. here we will show you the end result if we could. the light green line -- 52% of americans say that a third party is needed. the dark green line -- 40% say that the two-party system works. why do 52% of americans think that a third party is needed and what is the influence of independents at this point? guest: we are seeing a market

failure in the two-party system. when it functions well, it has been a stabilizing factor in american politics. it is not working well with nearly 40% of the american people are proactively rejecting the parties by declaring their independence. i am an independent. i think the problem is this -- the number of independent voters has increased dramatically at precisely the same time the parties have become more polarized, to the point where you can pull american attitudes on any issue but it is not a split the difference. if you look get independent voters, they are close to republicans on economic issues and democrats on social issues. i think the reason the parties have not been able to reach out to this rising tide of voters is that they are increasingly beholden to their special interests. the religious right on the

republican side. there is a market break down. the two-party system is put on notice. voters are frustrated with the system because of the dysfunction. they hate the hyper-partisanship in washington. people are putting partisanship ahead of patriotism. ahead ofsts nationalists. there have been two major occasions in our history where we have seen a third party emerged. they are saying the republican party in 19 -- in 1860 being one of them. with president lincoln leading them to the presidency. this disconnect needs to be addressed. the independents are the plurality. this is not a subtle shift. this is a profound shift as something everyone should pay attention to.

there are so many in washington who want to ignore the fact that the plurality of americans are rejecting the parties. that can only go on for so long. it is a matter of party leadership and a matter of feeling these divides. -- healing these divides. it is difficult to appeal to independent voters who understand the problem and are frustrated with how washington is conducting politics by putting parties over progress. this is one of the many challenges we face. this is the single most important trend in american politics today. it is not subtle or incidental. it should be a major wake-up call. washington is so invested in the politics of the past. for a rising generation, there is a multiplicity choice in every aspect of their lives. in politics is the last place they should be content with the choice between brand a and

brand b. politicians have not woken up to reality. at some point, it will have to gerrymander and open the process. that will be a dramatic change that i think will put politics more towards the center. host: in august, a poll was conducted and 44% of americans call themselves independent, 28% call themselves republicans, and 26% call themselves democrats. where does the tea party figure into this movement? guest: this is one of my favorite questions. a lot of people conflated the tea party with independent voters, because it was simple. one people -- one reason people mistook ball was happening with scott brown is because of the political stereotypes.

if you look at the facts, you get a different sense. massachusetts is one of 10 states were registered independents outnumber democrats or republicans. scott brown was able to connect with those independent voters and pull off a massive upset. that said, if you look at t partyers -- tea partiers, they were concerned with the debt. over the course of 2009, there were interviews with the populist conservatism which had been described in the past as a paranoid style in american politics. the thing about the party voters is that they are essentially conservative populists. unlike most independent voters, many to partyers would like to see it more republicanism in washington area that said, there are bridges that are shared with

tea partiers and republicans. as we have seen from michele bachmann and sarah palin and other folks who are leaders of the tea party movement, they are very popular and our social conservatives. a lot of the libertarian rhetoric that the party used to connect with independent voters has been relied by the fact that many of its leaders are social conservatives and conservative populist. there is some overlap. the independent movement -- you cannot have 44% of the american public being a monolith. you have republicans and democrats who are in the movement that overlap with the movement. overall, they have a conservative populist movement. that is different from the impulses behind the rise of independent voters over the last 20 years. host: what is note labels?

-- no labels? guest: it is an organization i founded last year. it is full of people from all parties who got together because we believe in one core idea -- hyper re-partisanship is hurting our country. it is stopping us from solving serious problems. among other leaders are mark mckinnon, many clinton administration all lummis -- clinton administration alums. people rallied to the idea because of the power of the idea. the recognition that hyper- partisanship was polarizing our country. the debt ceiling debate that we had, that incredibly dysfunctional debate brought our country to the brink of default and ended up leading to a

downgrade. it created a political and fiscal crisis. there is a sense of a problem within our politics right now. it is born of hyper- partisanship. that is the imprint behind the labors -- behind the labels. we are creating an on-line army to provide support to those in congress who want to reach across the aisle. that is the most dangerous place in politics right now. you try to reach across the aisle and your own base attacks you because of the current political environment. people think that cooperation is collaboration. other people do not want to help you because you have the wrong letter after your last name. was socially allows you to do is aggregate the disaggregated. to create a home for folks in the center who felt voiceless. that is an exciting thing. there are a number of groups

popping up right now around the same impulse. no labels as a specific mission -- to lead to more effective governance. there are other groups which allow people and social media to find other like-minded folks. another is trying to get on the ballot in 50 states and have an on-line primary in june of next year. that has fascinating implications, particularly the ballot line. the ceo of starbucks started a group called of poured spiral. -- upward spiral. he is saying this hyper- partisanship needs to stop. a lot of people have come to the same conclusions at the same time. that hyper-partisanship is the

problem and our politics. it is stopping us from following problems have a nation -- from solving problems as a nation. people across the world are seeing that america has failed to govern. we need to show that we can govern. thomas jefferson said that every difference of opinion is not a difference in principle. we need to remember that in our current policy debates. if we do that, we can move the country forward. host: first caller. from henderson, nevada. caller: good morning. the dilemma that the nation is currently in is because of what is going on with congress. in order to do something about the tax code, it is going to take anywhere from 36-60 months

to make a change. you have people out there who are homeless, going on degree -- going hungry, are trying to pay their bills. we are talking about the icing on the cake and not the ingredients. as far as the tax code, the partisans are going to be there because do you think all of the big companies are going to allow the tax code to change without putting up a fight? with what the supreme court's has passed, where do we go from here? guest: i think ralph made some great point. that focus on the icing and not the cake is exactly right. we are doing a bad job even in the media. we get caught in the story. we are not doing a good job of covering the governing. we have forgotten that the

campaign is a preamble to the main of bed, which is governing. you are right. we focus on the icing too much and not the cake. not the content. he is also right about the increase influences of lobbyists in washington. take a look over the past 10 years and you will take -- and you will get a good sense about what we have the problems we have got. president obama put out a jobs plan which republicans -- part of the republicans have supported in the past. we have got to do this. we do not want to be putting investing overseas, but it does make sense for our shareholders. let's lower the tax rate, but close loopholes that are creating incentives for people to move jobs overseas. let's create incentives to

promote hiring of workers. whenever you close loopholes, let's not forget this -- loopholes are earmarked in the tax code. they are put there by lobbyists. in the current political debate in congress, some tea party leaders have said that if you proposed tax hikes, that is a new standard. that is moving the goalposts. that is a real problem. it is not. you can close loopholes and raise revenue. how is that not a win-win? you can improve our competitiveness and raise revenue to deal with the debt. some politicians have hijacked the movement and are trying to call that a tax hike. guess who is behind that at the end of the day? lobbyists who want to keep your marks in the tax code. if you want to take your marks out of the tax code, let's take your marks out of everything. let's be consistent.

with a simple, fair, not more competitive tax code. host: we have a tweet. and another from @sherises2011. darren you are a independent from virginia. caller: i would disagree with the third party, he party, that they are too far right. i come from england for the reasons of opportunity.

i think the key party -- the tea party stands for people wanting a change. there needs to be a difference of opinion. guest: let me ask you a question. if you do that, because no question, trying to improve the economy and dealing with the deficit and debt is something that bridges tea party rhetoric and beliefs. what you make of the fact that the leaders are people like michelle bachmann who are not promoting these interests? caller: obviously, she is not the leader of the tea party, is cheap? -- is she? it is difficult to said who

would be the leader. guest: i think we do know who are the leaders of the tea party. there is a difference of rhetoric here. good people who joined the party in good faith because it was about bush was wrong and obama is wrong. we need to get this under control to deal with generational debt. that is a centrist message that resonates with independence. what we have seen is a lot of that rhetoric has faded or proved to be just about 1 inch deep. these folks are coming to the front which are near social conservatives. what i want to see from libertarian france is standing up from the social circuit -- social conservatives. let's be consistent about it. i would like to see that. what we know about people like sarah palin and michele bachmann is that their approval

has always been very low. that has always been their first priority even though bachmann has campaigned as a social conservative. host: we have another tweet. guest: the problem is not partisanship. the problem is hyper- partisanship. it is something new. it is not just competing to win an election. competition is healthy in every endeavor. it is demonizing people who disagree with you. once it is over, they are unwilling to work together. what many independents believe is that neither party has a monopoly on good ideas or good people. neither party has a monopoly on virtue or vice. the current environment tends to believe those things.

that their side is the side of the angel and the other is the side of the devil. that is how democracy breaks down. an unwillingness to work together. this has happened before in the history of democratic republics. do not take this rhetoric that people have always fought in politics and it has been worse before. it was worse before the civil war. let's learn from our history. divided government, over the last half century has produced the marshall plan, the highway act, all the achievements of the reagan era. even under clinton, we turned a deficit into a surplus. these are great achievements. there were plenty of philosophical differences, but at the end of the day, they would sit together and reason together. they wanted to define the common ground -- define the common ground that existed and agree. washington today is on willing to do those things. even if they want to do it

privately, they are afraid it will be punished by the hyper- partisans if they do. that becomes a crisis to our democracy, not the life blood of our democracy. host: independents only today. let's go to our next caller. caller: good morning. i want to have a minute or so. the gentlemen there has got my vote. he is doing good work. the real partisanship -- i did not start getting into listening to politics until i was in my '40's in the clinton years. i do lean conservative now.

my statement is about the political climate now in the last 20 years. all until clinton got elected in the 1990's, go back to the president's back all the way to the civil war. it all got started during that era and then came george bush and i am so sick of hearing how bush, he might have made a lot of mistakes, but the housing bobble started under clinton. when bush won the 2004 election, he was demonize from then to the end of his presidency. i agree that bush was trying to win wars. he was not a rogue trying to

steal money. the housing bubble was going by him. he sent word to congress to look out for it. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: we tend to divide our political eras by presidencies. that is why it makes sense to take a look at whether people leave their country better or worse when they come into office. he is right about something else. was situation the country is in when the guy inherit it. he also legitimized president bush. that is one of the size of hyper-partisanship we have seen. we have obama derangement syndrome on the right and bush derangement syndrome on the left. people are calling the president

a tyrant, trader, terrorist and. that rhetoric percolates on the extremes. it can also be disproportionately dominated by their extreme voices. that becomes a problem. the election in florida helped feed that ill will. that does not matter. at the end of the day, we have an obligation to disagree where we have principal disagreement. to delegitimize the president is dangerous. we have seen that from day one with obama, the sense that he is not legitimate. all that birth certificate nonsense was part of that. that he was not a legitimate president from day one. in this respect the office of the president. years ago, contrast rush that he's statement

hopes he failed with what john wayne said in 1960. he said, "i did not vote for him, but i hope he succeeds he get that is a forgotten sentiment as an american. the parties are deeply polarized. the american people are not. host: another tweet from @ darpaek. guest: let's nerd out on some history. we are heading for the anniversary of 1912 which was the famous teddy roosevelt third-party candidacy and. teddy roosevelt was representing the progressive wrote wing of

the republican party. howard taft represented the establishment, the more big money interests. roosevelt won that many of the primaries and the bull-moose party emerged. nixon was able to capture votes from democrats by appealing to progresses. when you have seen over the past century, in terms of the rise of independence, it is worth appreciating. in 1985, it was 15% of the electorate. now it is 40%. you have seen a spike in more parties being more ideological. you saw a major spike after watergate. understandable. washington d.c. this function. you see another spike around

1992 as prospero -- as ross perot's campaign briefly put him in the lead. fiscally conservative, socially libertarian. he is a deficit hawk but is pro- choice and is in favor of gays in the military even in 1992. there is a clear trend and it is rising. it is unmistakable and it has mainstream drivers beneath it. the reality is, back in the progressive era, they did not analyze politics in terms of left versus right. the talk about politics in a different way. they talked about radicals, reactionaries, and reformers. radicals wanted radical change. some cases they challenged whether america was a great country. they seemed unpatriotic at the time.

reactionaries' wanted no change. reformers wanted in moderate change. they wanted evolution, not revolution. teddy roosevelt was one of those folks. he believed that evolution is better than revolution. especially when socialism and communism was getting support in europe at the time. we are a much more ideological country than a lot in the past. that is a good thing. we do see this rise of independents. it is not subtle. it is a reaction to polarization in the parties. host: next call comes from washington d.c.. nancy, you are on the air. caller: i want to respond to the issue of whether there should be a third party. i am a registered independent, african-american female, 53-year

old. i support values of a democrat and republican parties. i agree that there is a lot of hyper-partisanship right now. so much so that it is affecting the american people to a fault. i think that is the reason why we are in this condition in terms of people being unemployed. i also believe that some of the congressmen who vote with their party, you are right, i think they are demonized. i think the country is missing a lot of fundamental point. we need to get back to looking at policies, issues, and determining for ourselves whether or not it is something good for the country.

looking at who is affected and making a determination from their instead of trying to force america to do what it is they want from a party perspective. guest: that last point is exactly right. the sense that parties are trying to force america to do what i want to do seems really out of touch, because it is. people get more tired of the pledges that people take to win the primaries. that is part of the problem. i will give a couple of solutions. open primaries and reduce reform. one person should not be able to hold up a bill in the united states senate. she is very representative of many independence. she is frustrated and angry.

that is why the president claimed the jobs bill as something that democrats and republicans have supported in the past. all of a sudden, we are confronted with a choice. they do not say -- they do not like when the president is going to pay for it. but can we find elements to work together on? if republicans are going to oppose tax cuts simply because they come from president obama, that becomes a real practical problem for the country, for the economy, and for them politically. people see through that. that is the way to get people to lose republicans right now. they are putting partisanship and winning politically over doing what is best for the economy. there is a massive breakdown because parties are not reaching together. they are approaching everything in terms of strong partisan litmus tests.

the essential function of congress is to reason together and find out where the common ground exists. host: we have another tweet from @drivermkr. guest: i appreciate what the caller is saying, but here is the point. one of the things that frustrates falls in the center is that there is a sense that this is a position without principle. it is without passion. that does not believe in anything in particular. not true. i argue with many democrats and republicans in this senate today.

what republicans be held back by the religious right that have a socialist conservative -- that have a social conservative agenda? i would argue that there are issues like gay rights and reproductive rights. there is more relativism and splitting the difference. i totally reject that. i like the vital center tradition. it is fiscally conservative and socially liberal and many cases. i think it is more philosophically consistent than the parties because that are dominated by their special interests. what i am proposing and what more people are coming to talk about is the folks who have no labels. the recognition that politicians are hijacking their politics and they are not philosophically consistent. there is room for philosophic consistency. but they are dominated by their

special interests. it is a radical idea for people to get their heads around. people are deeply divided into the far right and far left. it is just not true. you take a look at how people vote, you can see the country is purple. it reflects what you know in your everyday life. there is not a political litmus test in your neighborhood. washington is the only place that the party you belong to is the most important thing about you. the folks who work with people every day and find a reason to work together to solve problems, it is not hard for washington to work together in the same way. it used to. right now, political voting patterns in congress are the exact opposite. they are heading for extremes. that is not standing for something strong, that is being pushed to the extremes of being polarized in a way that does not represent the amount -- represent the majority of

american people. that is the problem. i challenge the person who is tweeting to respect the views of independence and centrists and that it is a principal process against the hyper- partisanship in our country. it parades' as a principal, but ask yourself this -- is a really a stand of conscience to vote in lockstep with the party? that looks more like conformity to me. that is the opposite of courage. that is cowardice. you know what takes courage? thinking for yourself, thinking independently. being able to reach across the aisle on areas of common ground. we have seen a lot of examples of this. two philosophically different people argued bush versus gore in the supreme court. it represents a rising tide of americans who are pragmatic in

their politics, not hyper- partisanship. host: bruce from new hampshire. caller: good morning. i would like to go back to the characterization of the tea party. it is a set of ideals, not individuals. you talked about people having ideas that are objectionable. he said ideas correctly when you talked about libertarian ideals. the tea party is about going back to living under the powers of the constitution. congress will pass a lot? -- congress will pass a law, etc. he characterized the tea party as being -- he blamed them for putting us almost to a default

and he blamed them for the downgrade. it is just the opposite. there were fighting against the policies that would lead to the downgrade. we had to cut $14 trillion to cut the downgrade. there were a couple of procedures to do that. we were supporting both of those. it is not that they caused it, they were fighting to prevent us from being downgraded. guest: i appreciate their position. let's talk about the most realistic proposal, which was the grand bargain that was being negotiated and by barack obama and john boehner. that was deeply opposed by many tea party activists, especially those in congress. if we did a cut, cap, and bond plan, that was basically no our

reach at all. a bipartisan proposals that were backed by people who were proud conservatives and strong liberals were rejected. here is the problem with our politics right now. there is one broad dynamic and then we'll talk about the tea party. and we are living in a time when people on the right think that obama is a socialist. those on the far left think he is a corporate sellout and wall street lackey. he cannot be both. that is the kind of schizophrenic debate we are having right now. people project their partisanship or radiological police and a way that we can stop having a conversation. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. the problem right now is the rise of partisan news sources. people are coming to these debates armed with their own facts. there was a bipartisan plan put for the could have reduced the

deficit and that was the grand bargain put forward by obama and boehner. that many ofget the leaders of the tea party, he is right about leaderless movement. many of us are trying to do that in the center among independent s. many of those like michele bachmann were opposing -- were not opposing raising the debt ceiling at all, which would have led to default. it was consistent across the board. let's not rewrite history. i understand that is what it felt like, but that was not the reality. the movement itself, here is the problem -- this movement began as a principal fiscal conservative protests against growing deficit and debt. people believe it was generational theft.

it became and use by the paranoid style in american politics that we have seen at different times in our past. particularly during economic downturns. the problem is if the democrats -- the democrats only see the obama syndrome and the republicans only see the other side. we need to start standing up to some of the folks who speak on their behalf, who peddle this kind of nonsense. they work against bipartisan plans to reduce the deficit and debt. if the tea party wants to reduce the debt, they should send this message to washington -- closing loopholes in tax code is not going to lead to tax hikes.

william buckley it stood up against the society in the early 1960's. that was an important time. they told him they could not play in the conservative movement because the was a communist. people are standing up to that in our own parties. we need to stop the cycle and precentor our politics. that is what is going to take. host: we want to acknowledge the last tweets. you mentioned your previous book. you have a new book out. guest: it is called "dealine

artists." it is about america's greatest newspaper columns. it was a book we wanted to read. opinion writing is pulled proliferating -- opinion writing is proliferating. when you look at the best writers of the past with the present, and they realize the craftsmanship and how extraordinary it was and the pleasure it is to read these folks. this was a real pleasure and a labor of love. it is just out so i appreciate you mentioning that. >> tomorrow on "washington journal." kevin hackett and tracy leskey

on combating the brown and stink bug. after that, former maryland congressman thomas mcmillen looks a recent scandals with college athletes accepting money. plus, your phone calls. live every day on -- live every day at 7:00 eastern. >> and next, the c-span series "the contenders." in a moment, the life of james g. blaine. g. blaine.