realize the founding vision of president kennedy to complete in our lifetime health for all. thank you all very much. you very much. [applause] >> bus to the very much, ariel, for that eloquent presentation. -- thank you very much. we will go to some quick comments and questions for ariel. we have also received a number of questions from folks on-line, and we were joined by a few hundred people who were able to watch this. i will turn to some of those questions -- there is quite a bit of commonality across the submissions. let me turn to the tougher issues that are out there today

for all the agencies involved in contributing to global health. last week, we saw the outcome of the global fund the board meeting, the admission that a $2.2 billion shortfall in pledged contributions, fully a third of the funds that had been pledged, and an inability to make new commitments for the next two years, hopefully reorder some of those resources to keep the emergency and immediate life-sustaining commitments alive in their poor countries. for us as a country here in terms of our bilateral budgets, clearly we are still living in considerable uncertainty about what will happen, but it is fair

to say that the foundational resource base is going to be flat and more likely than not going to be dropping in this next fed. how badly is to be determined. in your view as you look at this uncertainty, and we know that development in global health has been the subject of speechmaking about the need to preserve those, but i think also the pressure it has begun to build inevitably on all the agencies like yourselves. to pick your spot and protect your vital interests and pick your spot in this next period, which makes for uncomfortable decision making, but it was one that the global fund was forced into doing most recently in saying, ok, these are the things

we can and cannot do, these are the things that are most vital moving forward. given the span of things that you talked about just a moment ago, how do you begin to prioritize and communicate to an american public about what the court vital pieces of those are -- core vital pieces of those are as we head into the tough headwinds of declining budgets? it is inevitable and i think will be with us through this next period. >> the economy is not like we would like it to be, and budgets are being reviewed, and we are working with our colleagues in congress and in the administration. in general, people would like to

protect, but we are sensitive to the plight of people as we speak. so, how do we go about making choices? i think what i have stated here, the message of the u.s. administration to the global initiative it is we are focused on saving the lives of mothers and children in many areas where we can do that. we are committed to our work on aids, and that remains. there has been a lot of success. we believe the key is to make sure prevention is maximize. prevention as part of the equation. so, those are the areas. also, this shapes the way we

work. for us, that means not only the emphasis on technology and innovation, but also on strengthening and working with partners in the private sector. those are the areas in which we are putting our emphasis. we all share concerns about the global fund development. it may not be any more. general manager -- it has been an effort to make sure all the recommendations of the board are and implemented. and we are working for the fund. the fund is very important to align our work.

>> it was about a year ago, the quadrennial development and policy review was completed, and the decision taken to call upon a.i.d. to take a larger role as a leader, in respect to global health programs, and to prove its value and its ability to do more in those areas. can you tell the little bit about -- can you talk a little bit about where we are in that process? there were some general benchmarks established. there were groups created to refine the indicators. most importantly, to begin to

substantiate and prove the case was movinga.i.d. forward in this respect, taking on more and more responsibility. can you talk about what happened and what lies ahead in this? i think that is very fundamental to the future. the outcome of this process, the deliberation, is a very fundamental to the future of the agency, of the bureau. >> thank you, steve. it is an important issue. usaid has been moving right along. i do not want to recognize any one person who has driven the work over the last 12 months or so. particularly, a lot of progress has been made.

from the interagency portfolio reviews -- all of those pieces are actually coming along very well. this just happens to be the case that the director of ghi joined us only this year. and there were issues to pay attention to. and the state department is only now validating the process that we have put in place this year. they are working with the state department, the operations committee. we expect to have our report to the secretary this january. so on the timeline that was specified, we hope to have significant progress reports.

the decision will be to decide when and how. >> thank you. the questions that came in from our folks online, at least four different questions that approach the issue of nutrition. and there was another door rather raise the question around water sanitation and hygiene. -- and there was another drop that raised the question around water sanitation -- there was another two that raise the question around water sanitation and hygiene. as you lay out your health framework and your strategy, the question coming forward is, can you explain how that will linkages in thes nutrition, water, and sensation -- sanitation work as well? >> thank you. when it comes to survival, we've cut the costs for almost all the

conditions. we are very much in a great partnership process over the last year or so on nutrition. nutrition has much to do with micronutrients and so on. it is very much aligned with an initiative that is also would be an usaid -- with the usaid, working very closely on the supply side, making sure all kids up to their second birthday have proper nutrition. providing food security and good nutrition for the first 1000 days of life will also help pre- empts adult risk of obesity and related conditions.

these are very important areas for work. another point that is important for usaid and nutrition is in other parts of the agency. there is a lot of heavy lifting. we are focusing more on hygiene and again on those metrics for child survival. >> thank you. i want to invite comments and questions from the audience. please, what we will do is we will bring some microphones over. what we will do is take three or four quick questions. please identify yourself. there are three hands up here. matt, if you could -- if you could identify yourself and offer a quick comment or question. i apologize.

the podium has blocked your view a little bit. please. >> my name is michelle, and i am a professor of global health law at wagner school of law in wilmington, delaware, and my question is about health sector reform, medicines, etc. one of my observations over the last 15 years in this field, coming from practicing at law to defining my role in global help is lawyers are not active participants in the work that you do. there certainly in the corporate offices of the usaid and who, but they do not tend to be in the field, but from my experience, the interventions that usaid and others tried to

implement are limited by the lack of analysis and understanding of the legal infrastructure that may have relevance to your desired outcome. i mentor students, and i run a program on global health and the law, and i have to ask myself sometimes, where are these young, bright minds going to go? whether they are u.s. students for foreign students. i would like to invite you, sir, consider having the presentation that we did last week at the world bank were we demonstrated the miraculous ways in which lawyers and law have been highly relevant to outcomes. and that includes the world justice project, the rule of law index, very much connected to economic outcomes, and therefore important to health. i would like to hear your thoughts on that and how you might bring in this extra army.

>> thank you. on the road right behind, matt. please identify yourself and offer a quick comment. thank you. >> [unintelligible] there are two things i would like from you. you talked about global partnership. your comments about that approach -- for instance, w.h.o. and the strategy. >> thank you. right here. if you could hand the microphone over please. thank you, sir. >> i am paul hershey. i am a consultant. you mentioned the internet in

your work. i wonder how that might be used in the community you're working with and gather private funding. >> thank you. this woman right here? right here. >> thank you. nora marr with the american jurassic society. i wonder if you can address the question of tuberculosis control, particularly drugs for multi-resistance tb? >> thank you. those of you who would like to join in for the next round, please do. ariel? >> thank you. i remember getting letters from business people and lawyers. we need to engage all of those disciplines and communities in our work. we have done a lot of that over the years.

our work in the agency is paramount, as you all know. i also made an allusion to the fact that the lot is crucial -- that the law is crucial to guide a syrian governments and society. will allow the private sector to emerge, providing services, and responding to us all. it is important to help systems. is not just the community work, -- it is important to help systems. it is not just the community work. on the partnerships of multilateral, of course, we're committed in sunny ways to the

multilateral space -- in so many ways to be multilateral space. providing normative guidance, other systems, always working in tandem with ourselves. we have to make sure that we align the implementation. i come from mexico where the economic transition has not taken place. whether it is here or mexico or argentina or chile, the system has to also of all. haiti is one such example of our commitment to the region. the internet -- everybody is using at. whether it is for sharing ideas,

forming groups. the number of possibilities are huge. alsoasingly, we're leveraged in many other areas, making sure policies are followed closely. de i.t. space -- the i.t. space is all over. we have a global portfolio. we're now developing a strategy for developing the cohesive intelligence to innovate the importance base for health and development. tuberculosis, some of you may know, i come from the director and have worked in tb. we had a really successful.

of the last 20 years globally. -- we had a really successful period over the last 20 years globally. we must continue to prevent, which is a lot cheaper. is a very important area. to work a lot in supporting the programs that show up. it is an area with opportunities and job survival, which i have stated before -- and child survival, which i have stated before. >> thank you. we have a hand up right here, and the got down in front. yes, please. >> thank you. >> please speak up a bit. >> [unintelligible] i wrote a letter on health, adn

what i realize if you look at the u.n. resolution 5 -- it is supposed to be critical on this issue. i wonder what kind of program do you have that actually addresses this objective? thank you. >> thank you. yes. >> yes, mila, director of the help forces specialist program. we have partnered with usaid in the past in areas like pandemic

and influenza preparedness and hiv prevention. our experience in working with other nations, their health system -- there are really no barriers between the military help system and the civilian health sector. as we go forward, i wonder what you see would be the military medical role in assisting? >> thank you. >> hi, my name is paul lemur. i was a career health officer with usaid. now i work with a group based in the u.k. i am very supportive of your comments going back to the focus on maternal and child health. i will point out though that the -- in the mid-1980's come

up usaid was focused on an important child survival programs as well that fizzled out. given the importance of these systems stuff that you talk about, and moving back to the focus on child survival and maternal health, how are you going to make this transition between the disease-oriented approach, which as been relatively successful thus far at dmi, to a broader prevention- based some -- prevention-based approach? >> thank you. just one second, and we will get a microphone over to you, ma'am. >> hello. barbara sullivan with dai. with your attention on harnessing the economic transition for health, has that

changed the priorities for the country's -- countries. with regard to health system strengthening, can you speak about a few things that you might see that they would do differently in the areas were members work? >> thank you. let's get you a microphone, please. just told one second. thank you. >> [unintelligible] my name is adora. user with international relief and development, ird. you spoke a lot, doctor, about the relationship between poverty and health. i think we all know that quite well. i wonder if you can share your vision of how the global health initiative will incorporate economic strengthening and women's economic empowerment

measures into your global health programs. thank you. >> we have five different angles. why don't we come back here now? >> thank you. the role of family planning, definitely nutritionists central to child survival. about 20% of adjusted illnesses could be prevented. -- about 20% of childhood illnesses could be prevented. it could be helped with the economic dividend, although that is now the reason that we drive it. emergency response, but across the spectrum, but the

relationship with the military is also very important. the military were so important in helping prevent hiv, so we look forward to a better relationship. there's so many opportunities for collaboration. this is an area with hospital services where they are nonexistent. paul, thank you for your work all along in this based. we have had a child survival revolution. many of you here were part of that. how do we make sure that this time all the goals that we are making, that we can achieve that sustainability? my sense is we have reached a new level in many countries

around the world, many regions. we need to be committed to those, but also, countries are required at a level of integration. so, we are still accountable to the american people, to the specific areas, and we will probably not change that immediately. the global health initiative already has it worked for country ownership, and that usually means health system strengthening, sustainability. barbara -- [unintelligible] from that area, it has not had the same degree of science as

other areas. how is someone impoverished in going to -- ghana going to benefit from research in job party? we will be supporting countries in a more integrated fashion. the national health accounts, they have been hugely important. the rest of the world and the country's, where these things are going, there is the capacity for the stewardship of new systems. the private sector is actually two-thirds of the sector, and we have to engage constructively with the private sector. is very important going forward. and finally, our policy on

health -- we have noted that global health, not only in usaid, but there are many other groups in usaid working towards this development, and across our agency, or portfolio, it has been crucial, but most important because the pay of its huge. education and empowerment are huge, both for the economic development, and also for health. >> thank you. i think we have time for another round. i am going to ask one question, and then we will turn to somebody here. we have had the chance recently to visit ethiopia and south africa and zambia.

there are a couple of things that came through quite powerfully from those visits, one in particular, that i wanted to ask you to comment on, ariel. that is an enormous upsurge of pressure from a.i >d., -- a.i.d. partnership, other partners, to strengthen and consolidate them, and move them away from direct service directs read the -- direct service delivery and move towards a greater direct funding by usaid and others of partner government institutions. from the standpoint of the

government of ethiopia or the government of south africa, this is what they understand as country ownership. higher efficiencies, of you are implementing partners, not to say the partners do not remain very valuable. it seems to be a court tension right now -- a core tensiondiffe with implementing partners that can't just be ended overnight, it is a managerial challenge and a political challenge in terms of whether you take a huge risk of accountability if you begin direct funding of government agencies, and there is a lot of resistance from implementing partners, some of whom are losing in the process of being basically asked to phase out their work. i was struck by how much turmoil and how much it, and debate is centering around that very issue and how much had realized

as one of the key challenges. >> and the changes are very complex because of south africa. indeed, and of the governments of committees will -- there is interest. we can engage in procurements. rich germans reform is one of the key elements going forward. at the way that it operates, it is the discount

that we get -- the definition of how we change the way we do that business. it means that we will be willing to support the way that it qualifies, a local issues. it is not an overnight decision, but we get more of the capacity locally. the change will not be as

dramatic as several changes. that may be speaking to a and it may not be as big because they may be only 10 of 15%. the majority of our funding, will be -- and the other growth of the small part will be quite significant to allow local ngos a lot of capacity in this space. in the case of south africa or latin america, the direct service provisions, it is the path in position.

>> we have time for one more round of questions. we had a gentleman in the front row. we will take as many as we can, so please be patient. can you identify yourself? >> just ask you, who you may not be able to get to this question, but when of the things we are seeing, the challenges in the economic community of haiti. it is still a priority. when we see these problems about earthquakes and so on, some are going to access with limited numbers. these are good initiatives, but they are not going to solve the problem. 50% of the population has lack

of access to water. is there anything that the global health initiative is a two-lane because it is about development? >> i am mentioning this because i of this is an area where you have had a lot of experience. i am concerned that with the broad rubric of health systems strengthening, the area for health and human services is getting lost. the private sector is getting real leadership with the frontline worker coalition, the goal of 1 million new community health workers. but i think the government has to take a bigger role, too. i would like to hear what your thoughts are and how u.s. aid

can really foster this? >> earlier, you mentioned to the austere budget environment and you gave an example, the moderator did. i like to nohow how the global health initiative could work with the other large donor out there, the multilateral global fund. the leveraged resources. >> there is a hand back here a moment ago?

>> it is and the identified as a key part of the global health initiative, but we haven't seen very much guidance. >> and one other. right there? >> can you elaborate on the strategy to address not communicable diseases throughout the world? >> i think we will close on that. >> clearly, one aspect is paramount as well as housing and others. there has been incredible communication from the u.s. government in the state

department -- it is not as easy, of course. half of it was destroyed. it is a priority. and you say they have been working very much so and the last year, in particular, to ensure that that is the case. there is -- the supply is limited to, and i believe that you have to do it right. and as a priority. human resources are the health system with the front-line

workers and professionals. i would say that the policymakers have also been neglected. they are very important. the reason why a, the economics of h.r. is only when you understand the larger part of the health system. those countries are moving in with all like to have a very good and professional set of services. you have to ensure that you have community workers in the areas result. it is paramount. it has been a leading to the capacity project over the last 10 years. how do we leverage others?

that is what we try to do every day. we believe the time is right. you know how the position is in europe, and though they are quite courageous, there is a platform for liberation, a that is why it is important for us to keep a viable platform for engagement as was the private sector. how do we -- [unintelligible] hindsight is 2020, at the next year is up for renewal. that will be an opportunity for a sign of the work of health systems and there will be guides coming up.

again, which don't have of, it is important. we already have a lot of democratic health services, allowing us to understand the problems with smoking and obesity. have been so important in building the stories in the monitoring success. that is a very important platform for us coming forward. we know that you sometimes have to do things like that devising a parent to quit smoking and that as the other thing that we are doing. healthy lifestyles, there are a lot of experiences in behavioral modifications on the whole for healthy lifestyles, and exercise, nutrition and diet.

i mentioned the first 1000 days of life, being the way to prevent obesity. all of these other pieces we are doing today. america and vests, $30,000,000,000.50 or 60 billion is almost all ncd's. for industries, they will be on the table for many of these conversations. it is important in the future, and we are prepared for the future. >> let me pose one last question that has to do with looking forward to next year.

we have the international conference, the biannual global meeting in washington in july. for the first time in 20 years that this conference has been back on u.s. soil, the obama administration lifted the immigrant and on persons living with hiv and it became possible to do this. can you talk a bit about how you see the impact and the value of all of this for an american public that hasn't witnessed this directly on their soil for almost two decades? getting the message is right will be very important and there have been a lot of deliberations about how to get the very best outcomes from this very

important and historic moment. if you could offer your closing thoughts? >> ha we are coming out with the priorities for the global health initiative, saving mothers, saving children, and an aids for a generation. you are asking about the -- i have to say that the u.s. communities all along have been very strong participants in this country and abroad. we had it happen because the conference hadn't taken place here. they have been so involved in the last few years. it has been an important opportunity because it would bring attention and a lot of voices in the case stories. the work that we do is the work

that the american people asks us to do. it is saving others at the children's lives, it helps the work that we do. stay tuned for the others as well. >> before we close, a reminder that december night at the hotel from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., will be staging a major conference on the power of vaccines and an all-star cast their. they will be delivering it address, and we have three very high level petals. please join us either in person or on line. i want to thank barbara bennett and her staff for helping make this event happened. and many people worked very hard to pull this together.

great thanks to all of you. it has been great to have you here, i hope to have you back soon and i wish you the best living this very ambitious agenda forward. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> by the phone calls and females that we get, and the text messages, the increased participation that we have seen on the programs, we know we are being successful. >> of the communicators looks at the u.s. response to other countries. with director of the office of cuba broadcasting that oversees

radio and tv. >> we have done 23 focus groups, and we found out that people in cuba really want news. and they've always mention the martiz. >> on c-span 2. >> the senate continues work on the 2012 defense authorization bill. will hear more about that now in a segment from washington journal. it is about 40 minutes. "washington journal" continues. host: congress will address the defense authorization bill. in it are issues related to states and governors. let's start with a dual command status. what is that, and why was the put in place?

guest: it is part of a proposal that developed through the council of governors, which brings together governors with the secretary of defense, and senior white house officials to really address what has been a long-standing concern for governors, which is the coordination of state and federal military forces during a domestic military response. this is something that really comes from the lessons learned from hurricane katrina. it is not unique to hurricane katrina, but we have had instances where there have been state and national guard forces operating under command in control of the governor. at the same time, the world of the three forces operating under secretary of defense. the release of a competing chain of command. when you are talking about trying to save lives and protect property, you need to make sure everything is as well coordinated as possible, and a

dual status command appointment is a mechanism to ensure everything is coordinated. what it does is provide of national guard in most instances to simultaneously direct federal and state forces to ensure we are operating seamlessly together to save lives. >> you mentioned hurricane katrina. give us an example of how that can break down when you're getting directions from different authorities, how can that go wrong? guest: when you're talking about something of such a massive scale as hurricane katrina, you have so much going on. in the beginning every response is essentially a local response. you're going to have your local police officers, firefighters, emergency management responded. they will form an incident command center. when they need assistance, the state will come in and back that up. if it goes beyond that level, states could turn to other states for assistance.

you are laying response upon response asset. say we have a massive earthquake come in europe folks that need to be extracted from buildings, you would have a number of search and rescue teams stepping in to try to provide response. with some of the different assets doing things at the same time, you still need to make sure you are record dating to provide the best response, and operate seamlessly together. the few were stovepipes and chains of command you have, the better it is for everyone at the end of the day. so pipes and fewer chains of command you have, the better it is for everyone at the end of the day. host: what was the consensus of how it worked? guest: i think they were pleased. hurricane irene with the first instance where they were

appointed for a natural disaster. in the past they have only been used for planned events the presidential inaugurations or special security events like the super bowl. we have months of time to plan for that. but hurricane irene this was the culmination overt a two-year effort to address this issue, and we work with folks at the department of defense to develop all whole training and certification program for national guard officers. we have developed a memorandum of agreement that now 45 governors have signed with the secretary of defense, which set up -- which facilitates the agreement of the gulf that is. we saw this during the hurricane. it was a great effort. it showed the partnership for emergency response. host: another aspect is the proposal to give the national guard an equal voice on the joint chiefs of staff. guest: this is called the

national guard empowerment act for 2011. it was introduced by way he and gramm, the co-chairs of the seven national guard cockers. -- by laeigh and gramm./ it does a number of things to support the national guard in the emergency management role. one of the key mechanisms to do so was providing a seat on the joint chiefs of staff. this would really help insure that the national guard has two sides to it. it is a very unique force. while many of the federal responsibilities are very well represented within the pentagon through policy and decision making process these, providing the national guard a seat would also ensure that it is a critical domestic emergency response aspect and very well represented, which is particularly important as we are getting towards the critical

budget decisions. host: is there a concern that there could be a power struggle between the governors and that position? guest: i am not sure that is so much the concern as the guard would that be over represented perhaps on the joint ssheath. chiefs. we worked very well with the federal partners, and we are interested in trying to make sure that as these decisions are made, that there is a clear picture of how governor's rely and how they utilize the national guard. each day in this country we have 6000 national guards deployed under state authorities to help respond to emergencies. jointlet's hear the chiefs of staff chairman talking about this issue. >> the service chiefs are the single issue for their respective services. with the service secretaries, they bear sole responsibility for making the key resource

decisions that produce an organized, trained, equipped force. this includes the national guard and reserve components. the proposed change could undermine this effort. each of our services has a reserve component, but only the army and air force have a national guard. this proposal will create a situation among our reserve component forces whereby to of of the six wo fo th will be represented unequally. each of the joint chiefs is subject to the civilian oversight of a single appointed and confirmed secretary. the chief of the national guard bureau has no such oversight. elevation would make them equal to the service chiefs without accountability. this seems to me to run counter to the carefully packed red -- carefully crafted principles established by

goldwater/nichols. i do not find arguments to change the composition compelling. it is unclear to me what problem we are trying to solve. host: chairman of the joint chiefs of staff saying he does not see the need to have our representative of a guard on the joint chiefs level. what is your response to that? guest: he is invited to participate in the joint chiefs of staffs meeting, and many serbs and have indicated his input is valuable, so what we're looking at is codifying current practice to avoid instances where that may change in the future. the card is a very unique force, and what we're really trying to do is ensure that all of what they do on the home wind defense side is really brought to bear in all of those decisions. i would point out that when the common stock of the marine corps

and a vice chairman of the joint chiefs were added, at the time the current sitting members very much opposed their addition, but looking back we will actually say they could not imagine the joint chiefs without them. really hoping that this is another one of those instances. host: heather hosett is our guest. -- hogsett. now let's go to the phones. john and myrtle beach. caller: i want to find out why during hurricane katrina, nothing was, not out of bond ruche -- coming out of that larouche -- bgaton rouge to help. -- baton rouge to help.

i do not understand why bush was blamed so much for this. there could have been a lot of things done, and all they wanted to do was push this office -- push this off on the federal government when the local government did nothing to help. these people probably could've gone most of them out. guest: what you highlight is one of the key reasons why are so excitedor's about the military response. her take katrina was a very complex event. without speaking to some of the specific instances you are referring to, i think really what we tried to do -- one of the key lessons we all learned that information was not shared in a timely manner and as widely to all of those trained to respond as it should have been. between the local levels and the federal level, what everyone has tried to do since then, and there have been a number of bills passed, really tried to

break down a lot of those, not just stovepipes, but lack of other -- how we all work together. since then we have made a number of changes to how we plan to emergencies, how all levels of government work together. we train better and exercised together. so that when something like that does happen in the future, we have a much quicker response by all levels of government to help serve the people that are affected. host: independent calller in maryland. welcome. caller: two points. my first one is that director brown of fema, i do not necessarily blame the president, but the director at the time totally dropped the ball in was not prepared for the job. he was appointed by the

president. where else could you have a job where you screw up massively, and you are rewarded with other grants, they expand the size of your company, and you get all of these benefits. the other thing is the constitutionality of this, the 10 governors, they are doing the same thing with the super committee. this is unconstitutional. this is the federal government laying out all first, when in all reality law originates from the local regions. basically your local sheriff is the end all for law enforcement at that level. to have the federal government come in and shut down all local police and governors, if they're not one of the 10 governors, is completely unconstitutional. i would like tether to address that. guest: i think what you're referring to is the council of

governors. this was created in response to some of the problems highlighted during hurricane to train appeared and we have mechanisms to get all sides a government talking to each other. -- this was created in response to some of the problems highlighted during hurricane katrina. they meet with the secretary of defense, homeland security secretary, and a director of fema, and a number of senior administration officials. governors are the ones that have been driving that agenda. the work very closely with our partners. what the council focuses on is trying to ensure the federal government has an appropriate view of the local and state needs. one of the key things we have done through this memorandum of agreements is preserving the

state. it insures when the federal government steps in to provide assistance, they are in support of state who are in support of the locals. this is a critical piece that i cannot underscore how much of a partnership this has been, but how much of a leading role this preserves for governors and their constitutional authority to exercise their authority within the state when something does happen. i would also point out to you that the co-chairs and all 10 governors to serve on the council work through the national governors' association to share and develop plans that are being addressed with our partners throughout the year. this is something that involves all governors, not just the 10 that are currently appointed. host: our calller talked about administrator browner and fema and when things go wrong with disaster response. how would changing things to a dual-that his command situation hold people accountable?

guest: and make sure everything is under command and control of the government. it is maintaining a single chain of command for a response operation, which means the governor will then have clear visibility and know who the appropriate people are under his or her corrections that need to be held accountable if something does go wrong. host: heath hogsett is with the national governors' association. here are the numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation -- -- heather hogsett is with the national governors' association. items we have taught that are

looking the national guard jeep a seat with the joint chiefs of staff. also the dual status command and how that can help clarify who was in control when disasters strike or when the national guard is needed to go out and work on a variety of issues. you mentioned they can go out, not only four incidents like hurricane irene with their need is unexpected and last minute, but there are things that are planned long in advance. how much different is it preparing for an unexpected disaster or catastrophe vs planning for things you know about far in advance? guest: really what you're talking about is the authorities are all the same in essence. the difference is just making sure that it is a no-notice event to have the tools that as commander requires the appointment of the president and governor. you just really need to facilitate the appointment, which is what we've done through the memorandum of agreement. it is an agreement signed by each governor and the secretary of defense on the president's behalf to by name who would be

appointed as a duel that as commander so that when something does happen, that the governor can just pick up the phone, make a call and say i want someone as my dolls that as commander, and the paperwork can follow. -- i want so and so as my dual status commander, and the paperwork can follow. they have developed a very detailed training course that each of national guard officer, if he or she will be appointed, needs to go through to be certified in order to serve as a commander. we are now at the point that nearly every state has at least one, if not to come and national guard officer certified to play the role. host: let's look at the numbers. the army national guard has 362,000 members. the air national guard, 108,000.

50,000 national guard members are either deployed or mobilize that any given time for federal mission. let's get to phil in clearwater, fla. of the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i question is about the national security of the whole deal. let's say we're like egypt and we have the million man march. i am a little it be. i marched against the vietnam war. -- i'm a little hypie. the 99% became the 99 percent signed. what is homeland security and national guard corn to do then? will they shoot like they did in camp state? i really want to know that. are we going to control and try to control all of the people with homeland security? do you consider that a national threat by americans? guest: that is a hypothetical instance, but i am not sure i

can speak to, but what i will say is that really know governor would like to see something come to that point. we would really work with the local authorities on the scene to help manage any sort of instance where you have a whole bunch of people try to exercise their rights at that time, and we would do all we can working with local government, state government, and if necessary, the federal government to preserve order and peace for everyone. host: rabin in denver, colorado. good morning. -- rob in denver, colorado. let's move on to eric in cincinnati, ohio. caller: good morning. my question is, what roll hall will the incident management system play in coordination with

detention centers that are being built around the united states when it comes down to local government? host: are you still with us? talk us through what you are asking about. you are talking about the role of the national guard, or who are you talking about? caller: whole incident management system. the holy emergency management system. what role do they have with new detention centers that are being built? -- the whole emergency management system. under the homeland security act, whatever role they have. guest: what i can simply add is i think if you are referring to the incident command system, which really forms the cornerstone of emergency response in this country, is simply dictates that every response is local and any other

response on top of that is in support of the local incident commander. the incident command system would certainly be used to step in in that case. host: fremont, california. benjamin on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i was curious about where does the coast guard fit in? and also, are you trying to pass the budget all of the states by including -- the making them go first kind of deal? guest: with respect to the coast guard, they are a somewhat unique military force in this country. they perform missions every day and they fall locally under the department of homeland security. governors do not exercise in the command control over the coast guard. it is somewhat unique and falls under the secretary of homeland security, and in rare instances

they are federalize to put under the command control with the department of defense. with response to your second question under the budget, i think what governors are really concerned about today, and why they are interested in the national guard and power of that act is to make sure as we are facing tough budget concerns, that governors can help provide answers and solutions to that. they would like to have a seat at the table, and really want to ensure that everyone understands within the military establishment was some of the ramifications are of certain decisions that might be made. for instance, if you have an air national guard wing that is removed from the state, that my how far-reaching consequences throughout the entire region of the country. so if something like that were to occur public governors would like to help in that decision

process, but also look like to know as soon as possible, because this will impact their emergency management plan any to make adjustments. because we never know when something might happen and what this deal might be, it is important to make sure everyone is at the table. host: how is the role of the national guard changed since 9/11? guest: governors will let you know after 9/11 many people may see the national guard deployed. since then we have had over 5000 national guard serve alongside the active-duty military overseas. we have seen the home when defense mission grow. within this country many people may not realize, but the national guard is the only one who can provide a first response to what we call of chemical, biological, radiological or experience in this

country. they have a localized response system to provide a quick response. this is something that did not exist before 9/11. what we have today is a highly skilled, highly-trained work force that has proven its value time and again, both to the oft-duty military and governors as they try to serve their citizens. host: let's go down to new orleans. will on the democrat line. caller: good morning, ladies. i am calling from new orleans. i disagree with the calller previously about the states. i believe the federal government has the authority, in my opinion, to step in and take control of the situation and do what is appropriate, and me as a person with medical needs, i

was very disappointed in my federal government, because the local governments basically, in my opinion, were powerless, because they did not have the resources to deal with hurricane katrina, something i just wanted to college on a voice my opinion. host: before you leave us, what do you think could have fixed the things for hurricane katrina, in your experience? we lost him at. how much has been learned from katrina? guest: really, we have worked with local and state governments to come together and insure that it is not necessary. because of the localized nature of an event, the best able to respond are those who know the area well, who know the people,

know their neighbors, know what response may be provided. congress passed a number of bills in the emergency reform management act which insures that the federal government is better able to support state and local efforts to respond to their first on the scene. host: to argue his point, you live in one state that borders another with a dedicated resources and the other state does not, whether it is because of their own budget or a lack of interest on the governor's part. does have been more federal control of the many disparate? -- eliminate disparity? guest: all the time states provide assistance, the emergency management assistant program. it allows the state that is not able to provide that response to

go to a neighbor of or someone several states over and say, "we need firetrucks." they can then provided through the emergency response system. host: st. paul, minn., on the independent line. caller: does having federal involvement create more of a disparity? i think it does. after the patriot act, i think you will find more federal involvement will take on more management roll like yothey didn katrina. fema get in the way of local governments. i would like your guests to comment on the patriot act in particular. tost: i'm not prepared comment on the patriot act, but you raised another good point. fema and the federal government

does not have first responders and that can be brought to an event. they have specialized personnel to provide assistance, but they do not have the first responders to control. the military is restricted on pearl -- under law. unless we are under military law, they are not able to do so. host: newtown square, pa. good morning. caller: i'm so sorry. host: take your time. caller: all the concerns about homeland security that have come up since 9/11, it is great that people have been able to coordinate better, but is

costing us so much money. one thing in particular that they are spending so much money on is all this equipment, this riot gear. if you look at anyone officer now come i cannot imagine how much money everything costs. one officer could be wearing that on his body. do we really think it is necessary to spend so much money on all of this equipment? are there other ways to organize things without spending so much money? we're talking about cutting costs, and this all costs so much. host: let's hear what heather hogsett has to say. guest: they are looking for

better ways to perform these missions. it is up to the governor to provide for the safety and security of citizens. they are interested in protecting, whether it be a law enforcement officer or firefighter, in their duties. governors have had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from their budgets over the last several years, as they are looking for all sorts of ways to more efficiently provide those critical services while better utilize in taxpayer dollars. that is one thing that has been highlighted today with the world and national guard. -- the role of the national guard. for one active member of the military, you can provide three or four members of the national guard. they are a great resource and a great value. they are ready to serve overseas when called. they can respond in the united states for a fraction of the cost of other federal resources.

host: a couple of people are weighing in on at twitter about homeland security. maverick says -- in what if a governor has a difference of opinion with federal efforts? what they feel that the national homeland security efforts are too heavy-handed? guest: if it is a specific emergency response under the control of the governor, and virtually all of them are, the governor has that authority to tell federal resources to stand down. some governments feel very strongly about respecting their authority and if something is going on within their state. they will put an end to it through their own chains of command. one of the key things to remember here is that we have

learned so many lessons about the partnership between the state and federal government is very different than it may have come across in the past. it is clear to us in the federal government that they are in support of governors and the local emergency response. we just want to support the authority of governors in the constitution, but help of those with response efforts with possible -- when possible. host: heather hogsett is with the national governors association. their web site is nga.org. they do public safety, homeland security, emergency management, and veterans affairs. louisiana, democratic caller. welcome. hi there. caller: hello.

what i was trying to say is that it is like a big cookie jar here with this military budget, in every branch of the military. no one is standing by the cookie jar to slap those crooked hands. it is hurting the american taxpayers. we need enforcement of laws. we need bookkeepers. period. host: how does that relate to homeland security and the states' roles for you? caller: i am talking about every branch of the military, including homeland security, should all be overseen if we want to get the budget on. -- to get the budget done. guest: there is homeland

security and homeland defense. homeland defense falls under the military aspect. homeland security is more in the civilian demand. governors are working as well and are very interested in insuring that taxpayer dollars are used as efficiently as possible. they are looking for all ways to better reduce costs while still providing these critical services. one thing? governors have been doing is to work with congress in the area of interoperable communications. that is a critical emergency response tool. the ability of view, as a citizen, to be able to call or text 911 for help and make sure it gets to your local police or fire in a real time and are is something that governors are trying to look for opportunities to better leverage your technologies out there to help overall reduce costs through out

how we provide communications. that is one example of ways people are trying to use taxpayer dollars efficiently. host: raleigh, n.c., independent line. caller: good morning. i work in the field of emergency management at the state level. people talk about homeland security since 9/11, and it did not exist prior to that, especially katrina post- -- fema post-katrina. fema was in pretty good shape in the 1990's and was much improved under his rule. it was then gutted. bush's philosophy was that it only needed to beat a checkbook to hand over to the governor. pre-planning is crucial.

the structure is correct. the locals respond first. when they exceed their capacity, the state steps in. when they exceed their capacity, the government's federally steps in. i think the structure is right. the key is to implement it and appointing people to positions that are competent and take the job seriously and know how to plan as much as respond. they are both crucial. that is something that needs to be ongoing. guest: that is a very key point he makes. we get the best system in place, but if we do not train, exercise, and have qualified people serving in those positions it can be difficult to provide a good response to people. that is by working with the federal government, we have really put the focus on making sure that we have trained

national guard officers to serve as dual-status commanders in these instances. we are not exchanging the proverbial business card, but we really need to work together beforehand and have a clear understanding of what their responsibilities are to really serve our citizens. dual-let's talk about the status commander a little bit more. do they require special training? guest: they do. there are several weeks of training that they go through with the assistant secretary of homeland defense and other organizations. they have to go for a course to ensure that they understand what the national guard can do under title 32 authority versus what can happen under title 10 federal military authority. the go and meet with officials at the federal emergency management agency and learn about the incident command system issues that have already been brought up by a previous

caller. they are all certified. we are at the point today that each state has at least one officer trained and certified to serve in this capacity. that is a critical piece to actually making this happen. host: when incidents happen along the border, how do governors work with international agencies or international leaders? how does that command the plight when we talk about who has control -- how does that come into play? guest: the borders are really a federal responsibility. the national guard is under title 32 come under the command and control of the governor, but with the federal government providing the funding. the national guard has assisted. editing going along the border has impacts well into a state and it can affect different agencies both on the human side

with hospitals, health care, schools, but also law enforcement. governors court in it very closely with the federal government, -- governors coordinate very closely, but it is much more coordinated by the federal government. host: so if it is along the border, that is something that the feds would be more coordinated in a response? guest: it depends on the incident and where it is located. it is a border point of entry, that is a federal area of control in the federal government would lead that response. if it is further inland, it would be under the governor's authority with a lot of assistance from the federal government. host: democratic caller from florida. go right ahead. caller: i am in water hill, fla.

host: thank you for calling in. what is your comment for heather hogsett? caller: my comment is that you were seeming to go through this mountainous approach of thinking to stop terrorism. there are so few of these numbers that you should be concentrating on the people who could be possible terrorists. it is ridiculous. that is just my opinion. i just think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. host: what role do governors and national guard play in detecting terrorists? guest: that has to do with the role of governments sharing intelligence and information through our fusion centers to bring together intelligence analysts, law enforcement,

emergency management, and the health-care community more and more to ensure that as information comes in from overseas regarding possible terrorists that it is tracked, analyze, and integrated with the things that states or localities may be seeing. there is a fusion center in each state, and i believe 72 across the country. they are a node and follow all of that information and they are concerning with all of these crime control and prevention things. it is trying to break down the walls between a terrorist and a non-terrorist, so they try to bring that information together so that the people who could do something about have the information to respond appropriately. host: heather hogsett serves

>> today, congressman barney frank announced he will not be running for another term in 2012. he has been representing massachusetts for 30 years and is the chairman of the house financial services committee when the financial reform bill was passed. it is expected that maxine waters from california will take his place of the committee. many have decided not to run for reelection in 2012. dodd is the founder of the freedom forum first amendment center at vanderbilt university in nashville. he faced a dilemma when it falls biography was greeted on line that said he was a suspect in the assassinations in president john kennedy and his brother, robert kennedy. he visited vendor built in october and told his story to an audience.

this is his talk that runs 50 minutes. >> it is rare i don't have to >> i want to warmly welcome you to our reunion speakers today. as i promised a little earlier, john seigenthaler is someone i greatly admire. he's a remarkable graduate of vanderbilt university and we're so proud of him. he's not only -- [inaudible] [applause] he has helped form the industry and lived the news. we know he is a national treasure but he is really a

national treasure. he has played in the highest political arenas and contributed to the civil rights movement. he has contributed more to the intellectual lives of national then i'm sure i even realize and it is with great admiration and great fondness that i present mr. john seigenthaler . [applause] >> thank you. i wish i was worth waiting for, but i'm happy to be here with all of the and so glad you waited and so sorry i made to wait. i had a little fender bender. she didn't need to call the cops but the young lady was afraid of her job so i was stuck literally five minutes away. i planned to be here three minutes early. but some how seigenthaler standard time to cold and i am

fashionably late. i apologize for that. i want to talk today a little bit about what the new technology has done in opening up a new world for those who need information and i also want to talk first about what the new technology has done that inhibits access to new information by distorting or misrepresenting. i won't dwell -- i might dwell on a deeply personal aspect of the problem that really makes the point.

some of view, my friends, i looked around and see about four years ago i had a little problem with which to pia -- had a problem with wikipedia. i didn't think was a problem at the outset. i had a call from someone who said google yourself and hit the wikipedia link. i did it and my name popped up and someone had inserted without my knowledge, certainly without my permission, you don't need permission from anybody to say anything about them on wikipedia or many websites.

but someone inserted a six sentence biography of me. it said in the early 1960's, he was the administrative assistant to robert kennedy. true. it went on to say after the death of president kennedy and attorney general robert kennedy, he was the suspect in their assassinations. then it said nothing was ever proved. it said he then defected to the soviet union for 13 years. [laughter] and i did exactly what you did. i laughed. late in the afternoon, my son called on the phone and said dad, you have to take this seriously.

you are not the only john seigenthaler in the world. ina john seigenthaler and grandson is a john seigenthaler. you have to do something to get that down. i didn't know enough about wikipedia except to note is a good resource for instant information. i had been there for quick checks, but suddenly it dawned on me how could this happen? i called my friend brian lamb in washington. he had an interview few days before i had seen with the founder of wikipedia. i call them in st. petersburg.

it's a genius idea, wikipedia. he called intellectual democracy and i have a hard time challenging that except apple if you give access to anonymous sources, people all around the world and wikipedia has an international reach, it's likely that someone given the anonymity and the difficulty of tracing that anonymity will say something bad about somebody. i had no idea who did it. so i said would you go up with me and look at wikipedia and let me take you to this biography under my name.

he said i don't know enough about you but i know that's false. he said i'm going to put it in the archives where nobody but 1100 of my editors can read it. i said i don't want anybody to read it. he said the best i can do is put it in the archives where my editors can see it. i said i guess i have to accept that, but would you tell me you did it? he said i don't have the slightest idea who did it. i don't have any way in the world to know who did it. i can help you with your ip number. you may not know if you are on line but you have an internet

protocol number. i'm sure at the library is the same as it is across campus. everybody at the seigenthaler center has the same ip number, but if you have an individual computer at home, you have an individual member. the number tells you what is the name of the on line carrier doing business with the person who has written this biography. in my case, it was bellsouth. i was delighted to hear that. that narrowed the whole world to 12 states. i was 80 years old at the time and i said i've got enough

investigative reporting skills that i can find out who this so be is. [laughter] -- who this s.o.b. is. i'm going to back channel bellsouth. i know some people way up in bellsouth. i called them and said look, in strict absolute confidence, look this up and give me a hint. [laughter] that's the way journalists do it. i said this is completely off the record. they had heard that before. they called me back later and said if i talk -- if -- i have talked to my lawyers and if i

give you that person's name, i'm violating their privacy what rights. -- their privacy rights. you have to follow aide john doe lawsuit in court -- you have to file a john doe lawsuit in court. my problem is i created the first amendment center. if you created the first amendment center, are you going to sue somebody the first time they say something bad about you? [laughter] i said i'm not going to sue anybody, i just want to use what skills i have to try find out and going to list the best reporter i know, my son, to help

find out. we could not find out. after a couple of months, i decided the best way i would address this, i wrote an article, an opinion column on the op-ed page of usa today. my successor was happy to help out. i said in this call-in -- in this column, that wikipedia was an unreliable, and on a credible resources. i acknowledge it was loaded with great information but was not a credible resources. that was published and that attracted the interest of the

critics all across the country. usa today pick it up, associated press, they all began to call and say what about this? then they called jimmy wales and he said anybody can come on anonymously. i don't know who it is. jimmy and i got on television a couple of times and npr couple of times. i'd want to say we yelled at each other, but i raised my voice. he was as polite as he could be. he said it against my rules to require people to come to wikipedia and say who they are. the article resulted in literally a flood, a thousand e-mail's, telephone calls,

letters, many from people who had been harmed in the same way. some five wikipedia -- some by wikipedia and some by other websites. what finally was impressive to me was the flood of a tax. some of them came by e-mail personally. but so many of them went back to the biography that somebody was writing and most outrageous, venomous, vicious things you could ever imagine or said about me over the next eight months. jimmy wales finally put a block on this new biography to which i had confused to contribute anything. the last person said i had raped jacqueline kennedy. not so funny. but there was not a thing i could do about it.

then i received a call from a person i had never heard of who lives in san antonio. he said i can help you. he said this happened to media -- as happened to me a few years ago and i started something called wikipedia watch. it took something like mine and posted them. he said i have researched the ip number, have gone to another site, and i have found the person who did this did from a business called instant delivery. -- resht delivery. he said it is located -- rushed delivery. he said it is located right in your town.

on the morning i was on npr the second time, came back into the office and the lady at the receptionist's desk set i have dropped this off for you. it was a man named brian chase. they worked for -- he worked for rush delivery and they feared was going to sue journalists from all over the country. they have started calling in as soon as i have let it be known that russia delivery -- rushed delivery is where it originated. he said i did it as a joke and they fired me. just before christmas. i went home feeling triumphant, telling my wife that i found

the scoundrel and they fired him this morning. she did not burst into tears but she said it's just before christmas, you can't let them fire that man because he said something bad about you. [laughter] so i called them and i said i'm sore at him, i don't like what he did, but it's wrong for you to fire him for christmas. my wife dolores said so. [laughter] they took him back. rush the -- rush delivery has since gone out of business and i have not heard from brian chase since they took him back. but i tell you that story because it illustrates in the best way i know about my personal encounter with this ingenious idea called wikipedia.

but in the process, i found i am not the only victim. many of these people e-mail me, some did not. you may have heard of an african-american actor-comedian named sinbad. his name is david atkins. he's quite good, a talented man. but david atkins has been killed several hundred times. he is alive and well, but they have killed him on which p.m. -- they killed him on wikipedia in more ways i can count on two hands. they have killed him in a drive-by shooting, a sexual assault and a public bathroom, he has been a suicide victim, he had a heart attack, again and again and again.

they killed him. most of them, there's a place of his biography they have created that gives his birthday and death date is blank, but they fill in the death date. again and again. here is a man who relies on his visibility to work and he is victimized by this website that is so marvelous in so many ways. there is another name that might be more familiar to you -- fuzzy seller. he was a professional golfer years and years ago. he won the masters and won many golf tournaments. he is a man with a great sense of humor. sometimes he lets them get away

with things and he says things that are not funny. but one thing about fuzzy is he's not a drug addict. he is not alcoholic. he is not a wife beater. he is not a sexual abuser of children. his biography on wikipedia said he was all of those things. his lawyer called and said what do you do when this happens? i said i know what you are thinking. younot going to encourage to bring a lawsuit because it's very, very difficult. he said i am going to sue wikipedia.

he did and then he found out about something called sextant -- section 230 of the communications decency act. he files the lawsuit and the court says give him a name. they gave him the name of a company in miami with 49 employees. the company said we are so sorry. we don't know anything about this but we will help you look. and they did try to find that person. i think the interview every employee. but it could've been some of visitor in the building. it could have been someone who came in off the street. fuzzy couldn't find out and said he dropped the suit. i don't know if you remember

reading about the time, but it was a scandal. but it is not just wikipedia that misleads on line. i will tell you and more tragic story. there is in hollywood and actress whose stage name is chase masterson. there is in los angeles something called metro/. -- metro splash. it is an online entity with an arm called the dating board.

people who want to date other people can meet on the dating board. somebody in germany, an anonymous source, put on the dating board specific information on how to reach a chase masterson. addresses, telephone numbers, and she began to get calls from people looking for dates. some of those calls quite obviously were salacious because the posting on dating board when beyond who she was, be on the fact she had been a star on the soaps. i think she was on some of the star trek programs. it not only to find how to reach her, it invented in a

salacious way water sexual preferences were. she began to get these calls and she talked to her lawyer. she sued metro splash. it was a federal suit and went to court. this is the point, the final point i want to make about people who are harmed by this. the judge used the word reprehensible. as reprehensible as what happened to her, the decency act protects online service providers. what the language says was in matters of defamation, if you

are an online service provider, you are protected against libel suits, different, the law says from publishers or speakers. as i could have been sued when i was a newspaper editor, i could have been sued for saying that about her. a television station or network could have been sued. the information service protector provider is protected online. unless she could find out who this anonymous source was in germany, and she couldn't, she had no opportunity to succeed in the lawsuit and so it was dropped. the court dismissed it. reprehensible, but protected. i am a first amendment advocate

and i'm not interested in having congress passed new libel laws. every time congress begins to regulate the media, it goes way too far. some of you won't believe that, but i can tell you i did not want to go down that road. hereeason i'm happy to be with you today and talked about this and because of your interest in it, it only reflects a sliver of the opportunity to post vicious, venomous information, false information, plagiarized information. libraries with access to the

internet like newsrooms, they have the world at their fingertips. that keyboard can take you to places and give you the information that in other circumstances in days of yore, you would have spent hours, weeks, months digging for to get accurate impression. it is there now. the question is, and you have to ask yourself, is its a credible website? is the blogger honest and honorable and looking to provide straight, truthful, candid information? what if you are a student and

your professor says i want an essay on an african-american entertainer and you say i will go to sinbad. i watched him on television last week. and you go to sinbad -- dead. you are a journalist and you have the same assignment. we would like a profile on sinbad -- dead. you go to the editor and say he is dead and he says the hell he is i saw him on television. if you saw him on wikipedia, you know he is dead. he's caught in this trap that is not able to enter because day after day after day, someone answers again and again and again. as one who went through that and tried to laugh my way through it, through some tears,

i can tell you it is a problem. the great conundrum is this -- what do we do when we have access to this information literally at our fingertips. i am working on a biography of a woman named alice paul. a suffragist. i've been working on a for a couple of years. i can sit there and from the computer and i have at my fingertips access to information about her that was -- without that information, i would be here asking for help and she would be given me all the books ever written about suffragists and i would be trying to pick and choose what i could find about this little known but hero, prison for seven months, who went on hunger airstrikes, -- who went on hunger strikes.

she was fed by tubes being injected into her nostrils to keep her alive, put in an insane ward by the wilson administration. psychiatrist examine dallas and said look, she is not crazy, unless you think it's crazy for women to want to vote, she is as same as i am. it tells you something about history. to add the information at my fingertips, including a 700 word oral history she gave before she died at age 91, it's a marvelous world, this new technology has given us. but it is flawed. those of us who rely of

libraries that have traditionally relied on libraries for access to accurate, credible informationie credible? is it going to be factual? is it going to be reliable? at one point, i irritated him. he compared himself to wikipedi a. i'm sorry. the encyclopedia britannica, and he found himself almost as reliable as the encyclopedia britannica, but of course, he never considered how much of the content on wikipedia was

plagiarized from britannica. back and i had had enough of it and did not want to go there. my friend did a survey and said yes, plagiarism does affect wikipedia. it is not just those who want to say something evil or wicked about you. it is also those who are willing to steal the work of others. i will deal with this very quickly, and i do not want to keep you late. i would just ask you to think

for a moment about which he leaks -- wikileaks. wikileaks dropped a bombshell on the world. its creator got access to information, government information, classified information, top-secret information, information about american interactions with people around the world, and much of it, most of it was accurate, which tells you something else about this wonderful technology, this marvelous new technology. government secrets are not easily kept.

now, there is a problem with that if you look at rupert murdoch and his son james in england. they had a crew of reporters who would have into your telephone, get into your computer, and go with information that was deeply personal, often scandalous, and i dare say sometimes inaccurate. the point of it is particularly for those you love libraries, who worked in libraries, who want to protect the integrity of libraries, is to remember that those computers that are available to people who use libraries are fallible. they can be misused as well as

used to discover the wonders of the world. they can ruin you. they can mislead the people who come to libraries for information, and, you know, there is going to be at some point, there is going to be a movement to regulate information online. it is inevitable. you cannot find out about me on wikipedia i do not think, but you can find out about george bush or barack obama. what happened to me is superficial compared to what is delivered to politicians, and when enough politicians are damaged by its anders scandalized by it and find out they have got no right to sue, there is going to be a change in

the law. from gutenberg until microsoft, every regulation is in some way a step beyond what is needed to protect the information and the public. so the bottom line i come away with is that there is an awful lot of information out there on line. that is not part of the wonderful world at your fingertips. if i were advising people who go online, in my grandson does, to study or to research or to write, and so many people use

libraries for those very things, i would say there is always a second source. there is always a third source, and if you are in doubt, there is a fourth source, and at the library, at the keyboard, they are all right there at your fingertips. i will close with a quotation. i love when i talk about first amendment issues, and clearly, this is one. i love to quote thomas jefferson or james madison, our most elegant and eloquent spokesmen. there is another founder, one not much identified with the

rights of free expression, and he pointed out, he said, in the constitutional convention, he stood and he said it was never fine words, and i am paraphrasing only slightly, whatever fine words are inserted into a constitution, and then he is talking about the freedom of press, he says, "it always must depend on the general spirit of the people." on public opinion, he said, and the general spirit of the people and the government. now, what he is warning is that

you can go the direction jefferson and madison said you should go, and if you do, there will be violations. there will be wrongs done. people will be slandered. people will be insulted. people will be wrong. and what you will do, and it is with this in mind and the words in mind that had a major role when we started the first amendment series at vanderbilt. what you are saying is if you go there, you always must worry about public opinion and the spirit of the people and the government, and i want to say, most of my life, as i looked at

public opinion and the general spirit of the people in government, i worried about maybe losing it at some point, some sort of rights and values, and i look today at libraries, and once again, i recognize that we must take every advantage of the world of the media, and as we do, you must be well aware that as we gain knowledge, we can also be undermined by way of false information. some of it not fit for your garbage pail. thank you very much.

[applause] >> questions. >> she said, "will you take questions?" of course. you waited this long. i am sure a number of you have to go to the bathroom, but -- [laughter] if anybody has anything they want to ask about? >> did wikipedia let you have an explanation? >> wikipedia is always happy for -- many people criticize me for not correcting my website. but i thought if i corrected my own website or asked my son to, i was simply playing to their system, and i did not want to

play their game, and if you read that biography if you can find it today, they may have a block on it, but if you find it today, it is riddled with errors. now, there is no longer the slander. but it is riddled with errors, and people have picked it up from other publications or some of the stuff on the freedom rides, for example. it is just wrong as it relates to my role, and some of it is wrong in a way, and somebody ought to correct, because it depicts my role in a rather heroic way, and i should as a matter of conscience go in there and downplay that to give credit where it goes for those young

people who literally risked their lives, but i am just not willing to play their game. and so, i did not go in and correct it, but the answer is, yes, i could have. the problem is that the day i corrected it, it will be damaged again the next day by dozens of people. one interesting, he said he had editors -- every time there is a new entry, he has got more than 11 hanel who can go in there. in the first draft of my biography, and i told you there was the administrator during the early 1960's, well, he had summoned watching, and brian chase, who wrote that stuff, he spelled out a were wrong.

the editors clotted and corrected it, but let me there as an assassin and defector, so i decided i would not play the game, but, yes, wikipedia rules allow for you to go and change it, but that does not mean that some it will not come in tomorrow and change it. a microphone. everybody ought to hear from a real technology expert. >> access to it. then i can send anything i want, with your statement and your ip address. >> that takes the deception another step away from reality

and make the correction even more difficult, borderline impossible. and you know, i have recited cases here that suggest that i am hospital to the new technology. i am not. i use it every day. i love it. but it is not equal love. i love what is the best of it, the access it gives me to what i need, not just what i want but what i need. on the other man, it also gives me access to that which damages so many of us, damages many of whom without any their knowledge. well, you know, you have just about listened to me to death, and i really appreciate the opportunity.

>> the german. >> thank you. >> hi. a question about something that happened at vanderbilt recently. over i think the past summer, they instituted a new policy on the vendor build website about free speech, but there are actually three rules on this. there is no organized crime, no free advertisements, and no hate speech. i particularly have a problem with the no hate speech rules. >> i have a problem with any hate speech rule. i think hate speech laws are a bit dicey. people put the word hey in front

of speech. it is vicious, venomous speech. i do not think calling it hate speech helps it at all. so i have a real problem with the issue of hate speech. i think it should give you an opportunity to say what you think, and i do not want to get caught in some issue with vanderbilt on a first amendment issue with the vendor build when i have a first amendment space on campus. i appreciate the question. i think.

[laughter] >> it is so refreshingly to hear someone championed the general freedom of the public again. in terms of the supreme court decision, and that you have done it on technology. >> thank you. thank all of you for coming today. i very much enjoyed it. i have talked about wikipedia, wikileaks, and i did not have a chance to talk about wiccans. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> before we continue the conversation, on behalf of the staff of the library at vanderbilt, we would like to add

something to commemorate today. a book from 1830, to our special collection, and it is called "a treatise on law and the liberty of the press," showing the origin, use, and abuse of the law of libel written by a college president, and i will not go on because i know you want to get to the reception to talk to john, and we can discuss it later. we would like to commemorate this occasion. >> every time i come here, your honor me with something else. >> many of you know that we are very honored, because john has announced that his papers will be at the vanderbilt library. [applause] we have offered regularly to help with that, and we welcome the day when they will be in our collection. our reception, and let's bank john one more time.

-- let's thank john. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. >> by the phone calls we get and the emails that we get, by the increased participation that we have seen on our programs, we know we are being successful. >> "the communicator's," tonight, with the director of the office of cuba broadcasting, which oversees a radio and television station. >> we have done over 20 focus groups since i have been there, and i have been there one year and one week, and what we have found out is that people in cuba, they want news. they definitely want news, and

they mention this. >> tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and prisoner will be out of this jungle and back home in america where they belong. >> the pledge of george mcgovern at the democratic convention came nearly one decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon, but his ground-breaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week. from among government center on leadership, live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> next, a discussion on how much it costs to continue operating the guantanamo bay detention center on cuba.

from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. host: carol rosenberg with "the miami herald" , and she has written extensively about guantanamo bay. good morning. you did a recent story looking at the cost of prisoners, how much it costs to detain people there. every monday, we have a segment called "your money," where we look at a program, how much it costs, and how public money is being spent. why did you start looking at the cost of keeping detainee's at guantanamo bay? guest: "the miami herald" has covered guantanamo bay coming up on 10 years. in july, the administration wrote congress in a letter signed by the dni, the attorney

general, and the secretary of defense that this is costing america $800,000 per year per detainee. they compared this to about $25,000 in federal detention. they were doing this as part of a letter talking about the pros and cons of military versus a billion trials and military verses -- military verses civilian trials and military verses civilian detention. how could this possibly be? this makes it arguably the most expensive detention center on earth, $800,000. we set out to break that down. host: carol rosenberg, we're looking at a chart right now, the cost per prisoner at guantanamo bay compared to other prisons. miami dade county jail is $50,000 per prisoner compared to $800,000 at guantanamo.

colorado supermax is $38,000. the state board system is $19,000. once again, guantanamo bay $80,000. where did these come from and how have you been able to parse out the numbers? guest: we added the supermax because there is a small group of people there that would be more like the supermax than it would the dad county prison. we tried to give comparisons for those in maximum security, not necessarily solitary confinement, but on their own, to mix it all up. whate knew all along was that the commanders down there had told us to think of the guantanamo as an aircraft carrier in the sea. it is totally dependent.

they create their own water, their own electricity, they bring in all of their supplies by barge or aircraft. because they cannot live off the land and everything gets brought in, you have mark ups for contractors and transportation. there are rotational staff, people coming and going, and there have never been any fixed costs. you can think of it as the international space station, staff coming and going, supply missions all the time, no expense spared. that is more the way the detention center functions way out there with what they need brought in and the rotational staff is key. the guards come in go in six,

nine, 12-month rotations. they get 24/7 mental, medical health care come amusement, entertainment, three square meals, entertainment, and housing. there is no detention center where a prison here in the states that functions that way. a guard gets up, packs their launch, drives to work. it is their ca their home, their lunch. at the end of their ship,hey go home. guantanamo is a 24/7 operation. when they are insi the wire and working as guards as opposed to other stocks that may be outside what they call "the wire," but also get combat halite their brothers and sisters outside of guantanamo. is it like a gated community down there. host: a pie chart from "the

miami herald." carol rosenberg, you have worked hard to try to get more specific numbers. why they are spending, and what they are spending. tell us about your search for information. guest: this is a very superficial snapshot, the best we could surface when we ask the detention center staff and their supervision at the southern command. they give us a very, very broad categories. when we asked them to drill down and asked what intelligence

meant it, ask for things that seemed, perhaps, privileged but are actually quite meaningful at guantanamo, we could not get anywhere. basically, the people down there who handled the budgets, the ople who handle public relations refused to drill down to any level. when we went to their supervisors at southern command here, the pentagon's office they say they are responsible for a portion of theudget but give us is superficial snapshot. it is hard to know exact what they mean when they say something like "intelligence collection missions." we know from briefings that sometimes at the intelligence operations has been responsible for books in the library. we know that there are linguists down there and some of them are accompanied by their families living in the base in these

apartments. we are trying to figure out what the true cost is if you were to separate this out and how you could consider this huge figure of $800,000 per detainee and we only got so far. we filed under the freedom of information act a couple of months ago. we asked for expedited consideration, because as everyone knows there is a debate in congress about pentagon expenditures at the moment. we were denied expedited consideration, so we are still waiting for the documentation that breaks this all down. we did get numbers, but they were the numbers that the detention center has been publishing through the years as a part of their transparency mission to show certain things that they want to show. i think you have a chart there for food costs. they are considerable when it comes to the detainee's.

it is not quite $40 per day per prisoner to feed them. if you look at about, we have compared it to come for example, the average american living alone what they pay out of their pocket, what in midshipmen would pay out of their pocket. what we're trying to show is that they are not eating surf and turf, not all y can eat salad bar, but three meals in styrofoam containers, but there is a considerable markup. everything that comes down there starts out frozen solid in a barge in jacksonville and is shipped in. the exception is that the military has been very careful to observe hallal, the islam

equivalent of kosher. they bring in special lamb. for holidays, they bring in treats, honeyed baklava. i think those are special order, but generally often out of detroit and brought in by aircraft. host: carol rosenberg wrote a recent story for "the miami ."rald," caller: anthony wayne meyer. guantanamo bay is a clear demonstration that we, the people, are under siege. a state of war exists between our federal government and our

people. they are using our federal tax dollars to capri's -- to oppress everyone around the planet including our own citizens. it is an outrage. the 99%protests demonstrate that our money is being used to terrorize everyone on the planet and it has to stop. guest: what we have learned is that we just report the facts which is one reason that we try to drill down and figure out the meaning of the figure of $800,000 per detainee. people read the same story and a drop completely different conclusions about the wisdom of the detention center, whether we should keep it, whether we sneed it, whether it is a good or bad thing. our stories do not follow the politics of the guantanamo issue. we just cover it. host: georgia, chris on the

independent line. you are on with carol rosenberg. caller: guantanamo is more of a wartime facility for prison detention. right now, we are not even in a legal war. only congress can declare war, and we have not been in one of those legally since world war ii. do you also do studies on the crime rates in the united states? basically lost the war on drugs in america and how that is affecting the statistics that you're lking at. guest: we did a ry basic straightforward comparison of the cost of detainees. we look at different types of

prisoners and captives ranging from convicted terrorists at supermax to those in the county prison that cover the types of crimes you were speaking about. what is interesting about the war on terrorism is that this project at guantanamo opened on january 11th, 2002, so coming up on 10 years. one of the things we learned in preparing this story and doing reporting is that, in some ways, the pentagon was spending and preparing for the next 10 years. they would not grow down and explain their operating costs and how they could spend $138 million in the basic operating costs. we studied contracts and it took a look around the system, but they have been on a bit of a spending spree, resupplying for the next 10 years. they put o a bid for new

equipment in the detainee hospital, which they are in process of moving to a diffent part of the base, and diffent prison operations. remember. guantanamo is a navy base which has a porch, an airport -- a port and airport. in the corner, there is a series of prison camps that have been built culminating in three fairly rigid structures that look more like prisons we would recognize in the states where most of the detainees are not kept. that is just a corner of the base. we only looked at the cost of that corner, which we describe as kind of like a gated mmunity. they have their around jim, movie theater, health clinic -- they have their own gym.

we are talking about the detainees. they have their own satellite television, three meals per day brought in. they have a section of the kitchen that feeds the guards and prepare and their meals, but they all eat out of the same kitchen in effect. barnes, interrogators, intelligence units, command staff, the people who control the budget, the public relations team, they all eat out of a special dining room set up separate and apart for this community within a cmunity which, as i said, part of which are getting combat pay. host: carol rosenberg, off of twitter - presumably, for the pentagon. what do you have to say?

guest: we found no evidence that is the case. but you can go down there and see buildings under way. one of the big questions i have ked since the start of the project is how mh they a actually consuming in fuel at this detention center? there are building this all along a part that overlooks the water. everything is air-conditioned. a stadium-style lighting so that might look like they. they consume large amounts of fuel. -- they have stadium-style lighting so night looks like day. the detention center on the occupies a portion and they consume $100,000 worth of fuel each day supposedly. the money is being spent, but the question is how to drill down a see suspect that the clean -- and see specifically

how much is going to feeding the guard versus the detainee's, the command staff, and a number of people that are on hunger strikes. they do not give those numbers come out exactly how many prisoners underwent that treatment. they are certainly consuming a lot of money. i guess that would be my answer. host: thr meals per day, satellite tv, it sounds like club m. you can submit your tweets, @cspanwj. our guest is carol rosenberg with "the miami herald." the first dispatched her to cuba

in january 2002 ahead of the arrival of the fir of the captives. she has been there from the beginning. carol rosenberg, can you paint us more of a picture of what the detention center is like? he describedhe kitchen facilities and the way the people who work there live, but how much accesso you have as a journalist to the prisoners? guest: we have never spoken to a prisoner. one of the conditions of access that you signed in the voluminous ground rules to get to the base is that you will not talk to the prisoners even on occasion when they shout at us. engaging with a prisoner would get you banned for life, as it happened with some of my colleagues. the live on a section of the base that was built since the start of this enterprise. it used to be a beautiful, beautiful piece of land overlooking the water and now it is surrounded by barbed wire,

offenses, with guard towers -- fences, guard towers. there are about one dozen of prison camp-like structures. half of them are out of service at the moment. it staed out as a temporary enterprise. it to the but the pictures you have seen it with 20 men on their knees in orange jumpsuits, that is not even the camp they are using now. you cannot use that facility anymore. it is dilapidated. then they built more priso camps at considerable expense that they are not using any more either. the weather is unforgiving. it is salty, hot, sunny, and the infrastructure to not hold up well which is why they are in

their third or fourth iteration of these buildings. they went with steel and cement air-conditioned buildings that are all steel bulk -- sealed up with little access to the outdoors. people are in these lockers, pretty much, with access in the cooperative camp to an outdoor area that is surrounded by, again,ences, barbed wire, guard towers. i want to go back to the club med analogy. when you visit as a reporter, it is a surprising place. the detainees do get these goo meals, the satellite tv, and they get 2,500 calories per day. the military, as they developed

the detention center, realize that wt they wanted to do was keep the detainee's busy and distracted because there was tension between capt. and guard. the guards are soldiers and sailors in their 20's and the captives have been there sometimes for 10 years. the objective is to keep the two sides from having this tension and having them occupied. they did introduce the satellite tv's and there are some that will notatch. remember. some of these are quite militant in their observation of islam and they will not watch television. there are some radio stations and audio teachings of islam. but back to club med, it is striking when you go to that base and you worked there as a part of this rotating staff that

does six, nine, 12 of months, some of them volunteered for multiple-your duty and get to bring their family. -- volunteer for multi-year duty. when you leave the prison and go to the base, there is a scuba diving, an irish pub, beautiful beaches, fishing trips, constant visitors and entertainers coming, cheerlders from professional teams, comedns. they have some of the bt gyms that are available both to guards and anyone who lives on the base, aside from the detainees. they have a wonderful baseball field that looks like it came out of "the field of dreams."

it is a beautiful, surprising place when you are posted their as part of the military. there is a tremendous transportation system in which buses run are aund like a little community. they have a school for some of the military and contractor kids for attend. -- kids to all attend. scuba diving is very popular down there. they also have night school. e staff complains that the internet is so low. if you ask them what the biggest gripe is, they want faster internet to skype with their families. you can call home anytime, but you can use the internet and study to get a degree or higher education.

once the government decided they were in the guantanamo business, they went down of their way to improve the quality of life of the military down there in such a way that it is really a fine duty. you talk to soldiers and they will tell you that they picked a guantanamo over afghanistan or iraq any day. in a way, it is a commuter job. the military has planes coming and going all the time. theyave guessed housing, guest quarters, and you can bring your family down a. if you are not part of the long term staff tt gets suburban- style housing with your kids in school, you can arrange to the military bureaucracy to bring your girlfriend or boyfriend down and put them up in guest quarters that are likeotels.

i am n saying it is ub of mad, but it is definitely a surprise when you go to that base. -- i am not saying it is club med. host:ho is actually serving there? there is a total of 2046 on active duty. guard, 400, a 70 reserve. our guest, rol rosenberg, writes in "the miami herald." you go through some of the other benefits they get there. omaha, neb., on the republican line. caller: i would just like to make a comment that this is one of the most biased things i have

ever heard c-span put on. we are talking about a detention system whose conditions are set by the geneva convention, the aclu come and thmedia for the most part. i do not suppose ms. rosenberg has ever been sent overseas without her family. she describes it as a space station, well of course it is. you cannot observe stars from a motel 6 on the corner in motel -- in omaha. there are security concerns. there are so many differences between the guaanamo base and any other prison that is not set by international tribunal. to make a dollar on dollar comparison just because the military treats their soldiers the way they need to is senseless. host: we are not making a

judgment on tt. the segment is about your money and letting you know about h it is ent. it is up to you to have an opinion on that. "the miami herald" is just trying to do the monetary brake down so you know what is being spent where. guest: it is a hardship to be away from home, and no one disputes that. being separated from your family is difficult. the have been engaging in this war for 10 years now. what is notable is the commanders have gone out of their way to ameliorate that isolation. to their credit, they can call home every night, and if there is an emergency, they can get out pretty quickly. that is to the credit of the pentagon. we are certain that when we drove down and study the cost of $800,000 per detainee per year, part of that cost will be taking care of the guards in

such a way that they have the ability to, again, ameliorate their separation from home. we are interested in trying to figure out what the true meaning of $800,000 per detainee per year is. getting back to the figures, there are 171 detainee's at guantanamo. the last time they reported to 50s, they said there were 182 pentagon employees down there, the vast majority in uniform. also at the detention center are cooks, art teachers, part of the process of trying to keep them distracted. there are language teachers that decided -- initially, they decided they did not want to,

t they decided to give english class as to those who wanted to study english. everyone is there for the long haul. it is clear that what the pentagon has done in this $800,000er detainee expense is to make it easier on everyone including the soldiers and sailors, sir. host: democratic caller from virginia beach. welcome. caller: why can they not put these detainee's into a military prison like a brig? guest: why have they not been moved into the brig? first of all, the bush should nistration di -- administration did use brigs. the south caroline navy brig has experienced a holding these

enemy combatants in their special housing units. they only had a few. today could they move them to a brig? congress has set now. they have legislated against transferred to u.s. soil. this current administration decided that initially they wanted to close guantanamo -- or rather close the prison at guantanamo. they are still committed, but there was never really a vision that was articulated that they would move the majority of them into military dettion. they did loo at a state prison in illinois as something they would purchase and perhaps move some of the guantanamo detainees to. that could be a brig-style detention come -- detention, but congress did not allow.

there are 171 detainees. none of them are moving elsewhere anywhere in the near future. it is impossible legislatively. host: milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. caller: i have one question. as halliburton involved in this in any way at all? guest: halliburton did some of the construction of the prisons, the steel and cement prisons that were done early on were the majority of the detainees are currently capped. they had a hand in construction and you can see it on the plaque on the building. we have had a very, very difficult time drilling down and servicing the meaning of this

$800,000 per detainee cost. i am not awaref any current halliburton contract, buthey have not given us the transparency we sought in order to answer that question with any more specificity. host: kevin in nashville, tenn., on the indendent line. caller: i would just like to make one comment here. host: could you start over for us? caller: i have been listening to some of the other callers in the people that are pretty penstock about antanamo bay -- pissed off about guantanamo bay even being on the planet. what we need to slow down and realize is fort irwin had nothing.

it w like being a new york citye democrat line. caller: in the people that are pretty penstock about guantanamo bay -- pissed off about there are just as mane that work down there in guantanamo bay than are prisoners. without that prison, it will be a nightmar because no one up here at state side wants that in their backyard. if they would allow the prison to move up here with the new infrastructure is taking place, then they would it turn around and the city, state, county would be receiving benefits from that prison being there. they need to look at all the issues. these are family members and

lives. other than the fact that you have to take care of the prisoners and anyone that has studied anything about taking care of prisoners knows that somewhere out of someone's pocket there is probably $48 per day to house each person. host: kevin brought up a couple of things ranging from his own experience in service and how one in -- how lonely that can be verses' the option of bringing the prisoners to the united states and how that could be effective. guest: it is true that the price we are paying is a considerable markup because of the need contract out all the services. nothing that gets eaten down there does not come in by march. you cannot go to a local economy. -- nothing that gets eaten down there does not come in by barge.

they are not plugged into the cuban water or electrical grid. they make their own water and electricity. everything is more expensive dam ever. if they went -- everything is more expensive down there. if it went to a local community, which is illegal, you would then be able to pay for the local internet, local electricity, and everything would be cheaper if it were on u.s. soil. again, i understand that soldiersnd sailors have served in isolation, in a very solitary, lonely conditions, and that has been ameliorated in guantanamo. it was decisions made by successive commanders to attend to the quality of life of the current 850 pentagon employees who live and work down there at

that detention center. it is hard work. no doubt about it. the guards do 12-hour shifts four days per week. when they are down, they can go to the beach, go to a ball game, go to the irish pub, and they can go eat in a series of galleys, get entertained. they have a church for every denomination and religious services for anybody. they have acdonald's and a talk about -- and a taco bell. there are lots of distractions and lots of ways to keep disease -- busy and not be lonely. you are separated from home. when people sign up for the military, you recognize you do not get to stay with your family and you go on deployment with the exception of the commanders and certain staff people who have been able to bring their family with them and get very

nice hou and. guantanamo bay is a 45-mile squaredsland. it is a lite piece of americana with a lot of amenities, especially to those people who remember isolated and lonely service posts. it was a different military that he is describing than what you encounter when you go to guannamo bay. host: new york city on the democrat line. caller: good morning. that last caer stole a little of my thunder. first of all, when president obama came in and said he wanted to cse guantanamo y everyone was with thatntil everyone was figuring out where to house

these prisoners. no one wants them in their state, but they want guantanamo osed. i look at it like this. it is like alaska. they have a vast land. why do we not just build something in alaska and house them there? maybe that is the only solution. no one wants them. host: let's get a response. we only have about one minute left. carol rosenberg? guest: in the article we wrote about guantanamo, we pointed out there was a study done down there by a general on the expenses and how truly expensive it is to run the place because it is not on u.s. soil. he likened it to alcatraz, the now-defut prison in san fransisco. what the general in this secret study, which would also like to

see, concluded that bobby kennedy shot down alcatraz in 1963 because it was too expensive. we have never had a discussion in america that suggests it's to keep or let go based on cost. we just saw a surprising figure this summer and drilled down as best we can. you can follow the coverage on miamiherald.com/guantanamo. recovery pretty much all time. host: carol rosenberg,