an android phone. this in y view is the best film ever made. i say that with a bias it's been off for a week. it's called the nexus prime, android iphone. there are more mobile applications coming out faster than any point in the world than i have seen. if you are young person today, as a programmer like i was, building from a mobile phone. that's where the action is. >> if facebook were to go public at once a $100 billion on the region you had a chance to buy it at that valuation, would you buy it? >> i haven't seen their internal -- the history -- i will tell you the numbers. in the ipo history the majority are lower at six months after they go public than the price they go public at. that would inform my decision. it is at least two-thirds lower. it's quite startling. when we went public, and of course we are all fair and our

partners on the trading floor. so how did you actually start treating? well, they have a fellowhose name is killer, and i am not making this up. she's a young man the screams a lot. so we are sitting there jet lagged a polite and mae you'll remember this. we are sitting there and we run in and there is a guy that is at exactly noon killer will start to trading and he starts screaming it is going this way and that way and somehow it stabilizes. so before -- when you think about the ipo, remember that there is no trading price and killer is during the first trade. [laughter] >> question here wayne. >> [inaudible] >> the question is on a personal basis -- in the first place google earth had something called google ocean. you can go from the earth and go right into the wrecks and other

things we discovered in the ocean. the ocean has 70% of the globe. the majority of the cultural value diversity that is being lost is being lost in the oceans. there is a mass extinction going on right now primarily because of the oan acidification, things like that. it affects the weather cycle. the oceans are a source offood, 40% of humans come on and on and on. there is very little understood about what is going on in the ocean and there's a million of mountains underneath the ocean unmapped and u.n. naim. think about how big those or underwater. it can't reach them accept with sonar which slowly and with and very slow. they know these facts because they can look at the magnetic fields from satellites that is the level. so interested in funding research and to how to address all this. >> speaking of the search, research, when google was coming along, some people thought it would do well, some people were

not so sure. give me your technology ckground. where would you suggest somebody might invest if they wanted to find the next company what area would you think it would be unclean energy or some other technology related kind of company would carry a are you most attracted to as a way that if you were an investor to make money? spec as a part of the project i worked on evidence to manufacturing product where which the president actually announced the program at carnegie mellon. the problem in america is that there is a loss of manufacturing jobs soared on the way of agriculture if you will. and i think many of us and probably you would agree that the loss of the manufacturing in the united states is a problem from the sort of profitability lifestyle. so all of their industries where we could be a mauacturing leader there is a whole new set of advanced materials and drugs and so forth and so on.

the problem with climate change and green energy is very high kunkel costs whereas the industry that line in which is the network the capitol costs are relatively fixed and you have high rates of growth because of the scale so it's easier to operate and the more capital-intensive industries. you understand this in your business because you have invested in a number of these and especially when the capitol markets are tight. every woody could make a lot of money when the capitol was cheap because it's easy when the interest rates are low deutsch and invest in these factories and do hat the fremont and capitalist tight we do not have that country. semifinal question would be where do you think the ego is bigger, and silicon valley or in washington, d.c. based on your experience? >> i think that there is a serious complication. [laughter] >> i want to thank you very much for your time and i appreciate everybody coming. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the first map of d.c. and you were born somewhere in there. >> thank you, david. >> thank >> coming up, brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder among veterans. after that, a look at u.s. innovation policy with a former white house adviser. then, a discussion of the ronald reagan presidential library about the role the cia in the fall of the soviet union and the end of the cold war. jim michele bachmann is here, i understand. she is thinking about running for president. which is weird, because i hear

she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, michelle, this is how it starts. >> amazing to be in washington and all of this history, all these amazing buildings, and yet here we are at the hilton. [laughter] the red carpet outside is amazing. who are you wearing? what does it matter? i am going into hilton. >> with more than 9 million views of president obama's appearance, c-span coverage of the white house correspondents' dinner are ranked among youtube's top 10 political videos of 2011. watch them again at our utah -- our youtube channel. >> the vice chief of staff for the u.s. army says 66% of most seriously wounded soldiers suffered from traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. general chiarelli pushed service -- research and quality

health care for these members. he spoke about reintegrating into civilian society. the military officers association hosted this in washington, d.c.. this in washington, d.c.. [applause] >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. it feels like i just joined yesterday. good afternoon. thank you, sir, for that kind introduction. i am truly grateful for the opportunity to join you all. congressman edwards, i know you are here someplace. it is great to see you. this is a terrific form. i have already gotten some feedback.

as vice chief of staff of the army, i do with a wide array of programs and problems. simply stated, i am the guy who is suppose to worry about everything. and i worry about it. i worry about a lot of different stuff. there is no question that my priority is the health and well- being of the force. rest is important. the network, improvements made to combat vehicles and other equipment, cost-saving initiatives. however, unlike the navy and air force, which are centered on platforms -- and i am not in the navy or air force. but they are more platforms centered. the u.s. army is people

centered. we are a people centered force. the rest simply will not matter if our people are not cared for properly. what i would like to do this afternoon is discussed a couple of challenges related to the health and well-being of our soldiers. then i will open it up for questions. what issues do you see from your perspective? what ideas do you have that might help us all? i would like to start the discussion by showing you a slide with three pictures. if i ask you which of these soldiers suffered an injury while serving in iraq and of the anniston, how would you answer? the female in the middle left lost a leg, which has since been replaced with a prosthesis. the young man on the left sustained burns on more than 40% of her -- his body and has undergone several reconstructive surgeries. what about the soldier on the

right? most would probably conclude he is one of the lucky ones who came home unscathed, but that is not the case. the reality is this individual represents men like him who are suffering from the invisible wounds of posttraumatic stress in a traumatic brain -- a brain injury. these injuries are affecting a significant portion of our population. in fact, 66% of our most seriously wounded soldiers were suffering from post-traumatic stress or trauma to a brain injury. a frequently refer to them as the signature wounds of this war. the fact is there are many, many others affected who are not enrolled in our army wounded warrior program, or have yet to be diagnosed. we must get a handle on this. the reality is as we continue

to draw down in iraq and afghanistan, we are going to see more and more individuals return home and stay home for more than 12 to 14 months, many of them dealing with physical and behavioral self-injuries, including depression, anxiety, a traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic stress. we must also consider the possibility that the current wars will end, but a requirement will still exist for large ground forces deployed to other locations around the world. i carried a chart with me called the "failed assumptions chart." it shows the numerous times over the past 10 years when we have made assumptions about the war or projected for structure reductions and been wrong. we have been wrong 100% of the time. as the saying goes, expect the unexpected. we must also be prepared for a scenario where an unforeseen

contingency clauses demand to remain high. soldiers giving with physical and behavioral health issues do not have the time they desperately need to rest and recover. we need to find ways to help them as well. look at this next chart. as i mentioned, the vast majority of our wounded soldiers are suffering from post- traumatic stress or dramatic brain injury, yet most of us do not recognize these injuries when we looked at the pictures i showed you. in fact, the injuries we believe are most common -- amputations and burns, only represent to & and 2% of the population respectively. the truth is, because we cannot see these injuries affecting the brain, they do not receive the same level of focus and attention as amputations, burns, shrapnel, and other

readily visible wounds. there is simply a bias, and i really mean that. there is a bias, either conscious or subconscious, toward visible wounds or injuries versus those that are not visible. i would be careful in qualifying and bias. it exists everywhere, including in the medical community. part of it, i believe, is a lack of understanding of the physiology behind these injuries. they are real, no-kidney injuries, no different than bullet wounds, amputations, or severe wounds. nearly everywhere i go, i give an explanation of these injuries. i will spare you that today. a big part of the challenge is the call morbidity -- co- morbidity of symptoms. they include irritability,

personality changes, and memory impairment. we need to understand how to differentiate between them and treat them, recognizing that it may very well make matters worse if an individual is misdiagnosed. certainly, the lack of improvement, or in some cases the worsening of symptoms, can be incredibly frustrating for the patient and for his family members. i underline family members. another challenge with respect to injuries of the brain is like nancy of symptoms. unlike a broken leg that is immediately apparent, and in most instances may be treated and killed in a relatively short time, the latency of symptoms that is common to brain injuries often results in diagnosis and treatment. unfortunately, the time between when the injury is incurred and when it is actually diagnosed

and treated properly can be fraught with related symptoms such as irritability, problems concentrating, anxiety, and depression. from the onset of whatever the incident is that causes posttraumatic stress -- it is up to 12 years until someone 6 first treatment. a bunch of bad stuff happens in that time. fortunately, many of our nation's best and brightest women from academia, the medical community, nonprofit organizations, dod, and government as a whole are working tirelessly in this area. over the past decade, we have made tremendous progress in what has been largely uncharted territory, with the development of effective protocols which could be placed downrange to treatment and energy -- and imaging, and devices.

we have also made great strides within our ranks. among many endeavors, we have established a pain management taskforce in campaign plan to adopt best practices are me wide. we have issued much needed guidance in critical areas, such as pharmacy management and pain management, and our medical command recently changed several policies regarding the number of prescription medications and the duration which a prescription may be considered legitimate. these important changes have led to a decreased use of prescription medications -- specifically, narcotics and psychotropic medicine. at walter reed, transition usage has decreased from over 80% to 8.5% in the last year and a half among our wounded warriors. this is a good news story.

we are doing our best to replicate it at other army installations. the problem is having people who are trained in alternative pain management who can work these reductions. this type of challenge will help us and decrease the number of accidental overdoses and drug abuse. these are important elements in the holistic pain management campaign plan. overall, we have made great progress. although i can talk for hours about the tremendous efforts by individuals and organizations, that is not to say there are not problems and areas where there is significant room for improvement. the reality is we as a department and a nation will be dealing with the symptoms and affect of these injuries for decades to come. make no mistake -- this is where your money will be spent. if you are one of those people that that is the only thing that

turns you on, ok. this is where it is going to be spent. when you look at those numbers, when you look at 66% of my most severely wounded soldiers are chromatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress, that is where you are going to be spending your money. this should be familiar to you. we learned many lessons coming out of vietnam. we have all seen images of veterans penniless and homeless, living under bridges. that was and is unacceptable. the reality is these are not new injuries or injuries unique to this war. they have been around since before the civil war, and we know this from research that has been done on the topic of posttraumatic stress. for those of you who have not seen it, i highly encourage you to watch the hbo documentary "war-torn."

it provides an amazing amount of the impact of these injuries on individuals in past wars. there is a segment with a group of world war two veterans that is especially interesting, particularly for someone like me, whose father fought in the war and never talked of his experiences. i would like to show you a short clip. was humorous, it gets to an important point. it is part of a routine by the late comedian george carlin. >> i do not like words that hide the truth conceal reality. i do not like euphemisms. american english is loaded with euphemisms. americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent soft language to protect themselves from it. it gets worse with every generation, for some reason.

i will give you an example. there is a condition in combat. most people know about it. it is when a nervous system has been stretched to its maximum and cannot take more. the nervous system has either snap or is about to snap. in the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. simple, honest, direct language. two syllables. almost sounds like the guns it sells. that was 70 years ago. a generation went by, and the second world war went on. the san combat condition was called battle fatigue. four syllables. takes longer to say. does not seem to hurt as much. fatigue is a nicer word than shock. shellshocked. the battle fatigue. then we had the war in korea. madison avenue was riding high.

the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. we are up to eight syllables now. the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. it is totally sterile. operational exhaustion sounds like something that might happen to your car. then of course can the war in vietnam, which has only been over for 16 or 17 years. thanks to the deceit surrounding that war, it is no surprise the same condition was called post- traumatic stress disorder. still eight syllables, but we have added a-. -- a hyphen. and the pain is completely buried under jordan. i bet if we had still been calling it shellshocked, some of those of vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. [applause] >> the person who tried to

educate america about the battle fatigue after world war two was none other than audie murphy. he got hooked on a sleeping pill and was himself in a hotel room in texas for over a week so he could get off it. he went to veterans' groups around the nation, talking about what was known as battle fatigue back then. he did not have a lot of success in raising awareness. to overcome the stigma that exists relating to these invisible wounds, and to avoid the same outcome on the other side of this war, we must continue to study and learn while raising awareness of support services put in place to ensure the men and women who selflessly serving our country are cared for properly in the event they are injured or in need of help. as the focus of this pilots, this is particularly important as pertains to reserve soldiers.

we are able to more effectively influence soldiers serving on active duty and help them mitigate stressors affecting them. it is more difficult to do so in the case of individuals not serving on active duty. that are often geographically removed from a support network provided by military installations. they like the camaraderie of fellow soldiers and daily oversight and hands on assistance from members of the chain of command experienced while serving on active duty. in many cases, these soldiers have limited or reduced access to care and services. meanwhile, they are more vulnerable to the challenges of an adverse economy and a troubled labor market, especially for our young people. we are continuing to work this issue very, very hard. we are not going to rest until we figure out how to bridge the divide in the reserve component.

we are looking for further ways to establish the reach and accessibility of the services that are positively impact in the lives of soldiers serving on active duty, and their families. this is a priority. that said, we recognize that the best long-term solutions are at the local level, with the citizens of our communities, colleges, and universities, foundations, industry, and health-care groups. there are private-public organizations whose sole desire is to care for veterans and their families. members of the military, including senior members like me, are limited by law in what we can and cannot do with respect to supporting or promoting these organizations. we rely on others to spread the word and rally around our soldiers, sailors, marines, and

coast guard, so that when a young man or woman returns home to minnesota or iowa, we can be certain they will be embraced by the community and given the support needed to reintegrate back into the lives of those left behind. a look quickly mention one final topic, and then open to discussion. soldiers will be dealing with these injuries for years to come. this is a readiness issue. the number of soldiers has increased 169% to around 20,000. the reality is that number is probably closer to double that factor if you figure in the number of soldiers who are not

yet enrolled in des, but cannot be deployed. some people are going to be given away p-4, the permanent profile. and then they will heal and enter back into the service. others will not. they will remain in that population and finally enter the des. you take 4000 soldiers out of the army, that is the effect of 10 years of work. that is what happens. you ask 1% of the population to fight a 10 year war. meanwhile, the average time it takes to get an active-duty soldier to the disability evaluation system is 373 days. needless to say, this is too long. the system is complex, disjointed, and confusing.

dod is continuing to work closely with the department of veterans affairs along with the military services to make needed improvements. i will tell you i am pleased and encouraged to see the level of collaboration to date. the integrated disability evaluation system is not perfect. however, it does represent a step in the right direction as we work together to address these issues. all of them affect our readiness. we must address them accordingly, not simply as an army or a department, but as a nation. we recognize there will be a requirement to reduce the size of our forces in coming days, as we work through budget cuts, and the drawdown of forces in iraq and eventually afghanistan. that said, we must make these reductions smartly. whatever the size of the army, it must remain highly trained and ready, and not accept

anything less. history has shown us to expect the unexpected. we must always be prepared to meet our obligation to the american people. that is to fight and win our nation's wars. i appreciate the opportunity to join you. thanks to all of you for what you do every day. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [applause] >> thank you. questions? >> i am a retired marine. in the panel before lunch, we had a wounded warrior tell us he thought one of the things that needed to be done was for the medical systems to talk to one another. they do not do that today. i know there have been a lot of top dod talks. that still has a ways to go.

what about the service man talking to each other? >> general and this is who i started with on this long journey three years ago. in working the protocols we put in place downrange, those affect all services. general done furred is my partner today. i do not think the relationship between the ground forces has ever been any greater. i will tell you the air force and a navy are in fact asking us, and they have practiced but fully in the development and implementation of the protocols downrange. like anything, it takes time to do those things. but i think we are a lot further down the road in ensuring that as a joint force recognize posttraumatic stress and trauma to the brain injury. the problem -- we like to beat up on ourselves. the problem is the stigma associated with these things is

in civilian life. it is real. i am talking to 500 people in this room today. 400 of you really believe it. there are another hundred that are saying that some of those folks are just playing the system. i know that is true. a brief every formation that leaves in the united states army. i always mother is about 10%. it is like when you talk to the reserve component. the reserve components, there will always be 10% of not get the point. on the other side, the reserve has the same problem in looking at the applicants. it is just the way human nature works. the stigma associated with these is very difficult to get people to understand when you cannot see that injury. with imaging techniques, we can see traumatic brain injury.

we are starting -- i am hearing in the research -- to begin to image changes in the brain with posttraumatic stress. but the call morbidity issues are huge -- comorbidity issues are huge. i think we have come a long way in all the services looking at these. but that is not to say there are not folks out there that just don't believe they are real. >> marine, retired. one of the things i am wondering -- is there any thought of foot of coming up with some special line items to cover these costs that you are going to incur the ax because that are going to be enormous relative to what they have been in past wars. and you still have to maintain a ready force and hardware.

that line item, no one is coy to insist to reduce, i would not think. >> you are exactly right. we are just beginning to understand the second and third order effects of 10 years of conflict, just beginning to understand the effects of fighting a war for 10 years with the first all-volunteer force we have ever fought with. we have done it with volunteers, but never all volunteers. but we have asked folks to do it 3, 4, 5, 6 -- i ran into a soldier the other day who has had seven deployments. these are real no-kidding costs that we are going to incur. i think the absolute thing i would ask this group to do is if you see anybody cutting back on brain research, raise up like a phoenix and attack them.

because that is really the problem. get on google and find me an article where the services are criticized for not taking proper care of folks who lost an arm or leg. you cannot find an article. all you will find is what a wonderful job we are doing with prospective innovation. but every week there is an article about how we are on caring when it comes to the treatment of posttraumatic stress and trauma to a brain injury. we do not have a bunch of doctors who are saying, "i am only going to take care of people who lost a limb." that are not doing that. the problem is the science is so immature. there is no by a marker for concussion yet. i think we are about a year and a half away from having a by a marker we will be able to get, using a device like a diabetic looks at to check blood sugar. we will be able to administer it 24 hours after an explosion and

it will say definitively that an individual has a concussion. do you know how huge a will be, if we know that they have a concussion? or do not have a concussion? what we need to do is to continue to push forward the research in this area and understand the brain. if you are familiar with what i am the key is doing up in boston,-- ann mckee is doing up in boston, she is looking at the mutation of how procaine in those who undergo significant brain events, like football players and boxers. i think she thinks it could have -- i have to do the doctor thing and say nothing is certain in this world. it could have a direct connection to alzheimer's. what happens to folks with alzheimer's.

we cannot -- we need to be forcing everybody to continue all the research and good stuff that is being done to understand the brain. positron emission topography and what that allows us to do in looking at concussions. put up that slide real quick, the first one about brains. this is a picture using positron emission tomography. it is brains from three different individuals. i like it because it shows us this is an injury. i am really getting old. the brain on your right, the normal brain -- a 20% of the energy critic by your body. that is what it looks like when it is normal. 15% to 20% of the injury -- energy critic in the body is burned by that brain. then there is an individual who has been comatose for five

years. a soldier is comatose on a battlefield, we are getting into medical care. the one on the left is a ucla football player hurt four minutes and 20 seconds ago on a field 100 yards long. let us go with 55 yards wide, with cameras and ankles that everybody can look. doctors and everybody can bring him in a halftime. he plays the second half. as is dressing up that night, some because of to him, and one of the trainer says, "if you display any of these symptoms, come to the emergency room. guess what? he goes to the doctor, explains his symptoms, the ticket picture of his brain. he is walking around.

that is what his brain was like. that is the problem. that individual receives second second concussion before the brain has returned to normal, the chances for cognitive impairment rise exponentially. we need to continue this kind of research so we can understand this more. i would ask you all to force that point home. time for one more question, i guess. you guys have to get to the real good food that is out there. >> my name is andrea sawyer. i am the wife of a medically retired soldier, medically retired a 70% permanent. is there in the works any system which will financially protect us when we are forced to be medically retire? for a lot of us, we are getting

put out of the military with our husbands and able to work, and we have to leave our jobs to take care of them. 70% permanent is a $1,300 check after four years. we are having to leave our jobs. while we wait for that region, we are burning through a lifetime of savings, waiting for something and has already been decided on one side of the house. any financial protection in that situation. we are at the mercy of a va system. is there a look at reforming their retirement wage for people who are going to be permanently medically disabled and are not going back into the workforce? >> if the whole idea of a

disability evaluation reform is one that is very, very difficult for people to tackle. it is a huge issue. i could go on for a long time. when you get a chance, come up and ask the congressmen about this reform. there are so many antibodies out there that believe that any form of reform is trying to take away from soldiers the rights they have, and that after 10 years of for the country has decided it is too expensive to do the kinds of things we are doing. we also have a system that rewards those individuals who do not want to get better. i have run into soldiers -- i will only say soldiers -- who say, "why should i rehabilitate before i have gone through the system? all i am going to do is lower my

disability rating. that, to me, is a flawed system. it was designed for a world war ii army, not an all volunteer force. we need to holistic we blow the whole thing up and start over again. but it is probably one of the most -- that is just me speaking. that is good to get me in trouble otherwise. i really believe it is a system that has needed to be reformed. >> i know that was before the veterans affairs committee this summer. >> we have never worked closer with the va to try to get away from the kind of situations you're describing. the partnership has never been better than it is today. i am doing a video teleconference once a month with the va. i have mission commanders and my

medical commanders. we are all over this. but the problem is huge. there is always going to be stories like your story that need to be brought to our attention so we can see if we can do something about it. >> with the medical benefits, when we are leaving active duty because we are being medically retired, we then become way down the list on the treatment facility. but we have to transition into a v.a. system. we have a rating. we are at level 6. while there is suppose to be some transitional help, we are not seeing that it is available to service members. is there a bigger push? i understand it active-duty component should have priority. but one day, we are priority one on active duty. then they are pushed out and our

bottom level priority. >> i would really like to talk to you about that. as a wounded warrior, you fall in line with all the other retirees. let me take that back. thank you. >> the story was so important in a panel this morning. >> there is a neurologist out of the university of florida and the v.a. medical center in gainesville who is currently conducting a study on tbi in soldiers. if you suspect it, they are doing a study, trying to work hard to make sure these cases are brought to light. i wanted to say earlier we talked about how military are

not talking. my husband is airforce. because nobody in the air force gets hurt, we did not have any place for him to go. he went to fort gordon for three months. when he left, he was given a form from the army but said he was medically unfit for duty. we took that to our home base in georgia, give it to our commander, and they looked at us and said it was an army form. there would not accept it. we had to go to the evaluation process with the air force again the we had already done with the army. obviously, people talking is not happening. there are people down whose husbands have just been injured, and they need to not go through those hassles. >> you are right. i can tell you if it wasn't

airforce doctor who wrote of a soldier for the same thing, the wood look at and say it is an air force form. >> i agree. we talked about the wars in vietnam and korea, and how we are only hearing about dramatic brain injury and ptsd with this war. but i would like to remind everybody that our military has the most effective body armor and weapons systems available. that is why more of our spouses and family members are surviving these types of horrible incidents. the army, the air force, and the marines are trying to take good care of them on the battlefield. i am so thankful that my husband is alive. but when he comes back home and has these wounds, i need him to

be taken care of at home as well. >> i appreciate that. i am sorry for what you had to go through. when i hear these stories and time after time again, i honestly believed it relates back to the stigma issue. the medical community is as much stigmatized by these injuries as anybody is. i never said ptsd. i never do. to me, words mean things. when you say that, you might sound like someone had this affliction before. and i don't believe that. i believe posttraumatic stress is a no kidding injury. if you were to get 10 psychologists in here, six or seven would agree with me. the others would say i was nuts, and how dare you say that if you of not studied as long and hard as we have. the stigma is everywhere. it is throughout the service.

it is to route civilian life. and it is directed medical community. that is why we are unlocking the secrets of the brain so we have emperor "of events we can point to. it is absolutely critical. that will change so much of how this is handled today, and stop folks like you from having to go through the pain you're proud to go through. >> thank you, general. >> >> next, a look at u.s. innovation policy, with phil wiser. >> mainland high-school students, tell us what part of the constitution has meaning to

you, and wide. let us know in a documentary, and get it to c-span by january 20, less than a month away, for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in cocoa prices. it is open to students grades 6 through 12. for more detail, go to the website. >> michele bachman is here, i understand, and she is thinking about running for president, which is weird because i hear she was going in canada. -- born in canada. [laughter] yes,michele, this is how it starts. >> it is great to be in d.c. with all this history and these amazing buildings. yet here we are, at the hilton. who are you wearing? what does it matter?

i'm going into a hilton. >> with 9 million viewers for president obama's views, these are among our most-revered political videos. check them out on our youtube channel. >> tuesday on "washington journal," a discussion about the role of libertarians in campaign 2012. then a look at the logistics of the u.s. troop drawdown in iraq. later, we will discuss the latest statistics on illegal immigrants in the u.s. that is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tuesday on c-span 2, a look back at some tributes and memorials. we will begin at 10:00 a.m. with

a tribute to former kansas senator and presidential candidate bob dole. then, a memorial service for first lady betty ford, who passed away in july. longtime friend rosalynn carter and journalist cokie roberts were among the speakers. an unveiling of president gerald ford of the capitol rotunda. his children's book that the event. you can watch that tomorrow. up next, a discussion of national innovation policy with former white house advisor fell -- phil wiser, who now serves as the in of the university of colorado law school. -- as dean of the university of colorado law school. this is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> all right. if i could have your attention, tonight is a special homecoming for me. we have done a series of the phil weiser one-on-ones. we had them on line. we had some great discussions. brad said he needed to turn the tables. i said all is fair game. i will start by giving a little bit of a presentation, so i can get out some of my thoughts. then i will let him have at me. we are going to be on c-span. there is a chance you will be on

tv. if you wish to remain anonymous, you need to sit in the back of the room, behind the camera. however, if you are in front of the room, all is fair game. your questions, to make sure that are heard, we will ask you to fill up these cards that people will collect in the aisles. bring them up to bread. he can ask the questions he has and that you have. introductory notes -- first, the silicon flatirons have been generous. this community has continued to grow. i cannot thank you all enough for that. there are different from stopping us. we thank you all so much. those of you who are not here, if your company is thought listed and you want to be a sponsor, there is always room for more.

finally, there are programs this fall. do not be a stranger. next monday, if you want, you can see an interview in our unplugged series. this is mr. weiser goes to washington. i have been there before. i kind of knew what i was getting into. there is something powerful if you are asked to serve your government. it is hard to say no. it is hard for my wife to say yes, because she knew how disruptive it would be to pick up our family for two years. her first reaction was, "who does this?" if we got to washington and realized there are all sorts of people who leave their lives and go work in the government. i am going to focus on the last 15 months, which were in the white house. they are more recent in my mind,

a little more now worth it. before that, i was at the department of justice, which is most interested only captured by npr, which referred to me as the top cop on agriculture. i was the point person on agriculture competition policy at the doj. is you'd be better off playing farmville. here is what i want to visit with you about today. this is what innovation policy 101 is about -- entrepreneurship, wireless, broadband, and innovations and national priorities. last december, in a little-noted speech, president obama used the following phrase. we are now facing a sputnik moment. many people are not students of

history. they did not understand what the last generations sputnik moment was. there was a time in the late 1950's when the soviet union looked to be beaten as in the space race. that evoked an existential fear that the soviets are going to be ahead of us. they were first in space in the sense they had the sputnik craft. was it manned or unmanned? unmanned, in space. it was a scary moment. we had not done that. they had. that led to a national consensus to invest in science and technology. 1960 levels of r and d are the high level of our nation's history, private and public put together. we are facing lower levels of r and d spending, which is seed corn for tomorrow's innovation. the amount of innovation as

happened because of the 1960's and 1970's research and development -- the internet is one of the greatest contributions to wealth creation probably in world history. but for that sputnik moment, we would not be riding on that platform. similar errors in history -- the transcontinental railroad gave rise to growth. the interstate highway system, etc. how president obama had earlier, in the fall of 2009, been explaining the recovery act as having a pro-investment mentality, and offer the following perspective on innovation policy. this was updated around the state of the union, when the concept of the sputnik moment was developed, in terms of out educating and out-building the world. r and d is essential. it is basic seed corn.

without a commitment to research and development, the innovations we have seen in a variety of sectors would not happen. there is a critical need for an educated workforce. that means we need topflight k- 12 universities. it means that people come from other countries who were not educated here. we want to find a way to keep them here and not send them back home, where they might start companies abroad. we also need physical and i.t. infrastructure to support the 21st century economy. that includes wireless spectrum, which will talk about. market-based innovation -- the american system is unique. think of railroads, the telephone, and telegraph. the government did not take the view we are going to build the infrastructure products and services. we will facilitate private- sector deployment and development.

and that is part of what has made this country great in terms of its entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking. it is not ashamed to fail. it is a shame not to try. there are rule of law values. obviously, protecting property rights and contract law is a key value. it also needs to have the right competitive ecosystem. in rail, for example, the monopoly problem was a concern that came. in other industries, monopolization concerns happened. at&t was recently broken up to preserve open, competitive markets. finally, the government can catalyze national priorities. clean energy is talked about. educational technology is another. health care and space. the commitment to figuring out

strategies to drive innovation policy was embodied in, among other places, and the america competes act. the original act came up with a report which was "rising above the gathering storm," or something to that effect. the concern was our country is falling behind in science and technology. it called for investment in education and infrastructure. the second act established an advisory body. members are shown here. it includes secretary gary lauck. and that was not strategic placement in my part to be by the high-ranking official. others include herman jacobs, founder of qualcomm. there will be a meeting coming up in boulder, and a conference on september 23. we will talk about innovation policy.

entrepreneurship. as i said, innovation, allowing the seed corn technology to be developed, is essential. but the really exciting job development happens when entrepreneurs built companies around these ideas. there is something called national entrepreneurs day. we have a get together in washington. that includes the u.s. chief technology officer. he will be here with us in november to launch something called start for colorado. the reason he follows me on pritchard is because of brad. thanks. what is interesting about entrepreneurs is if you go talk to them, they will have ideas. it is not an easy relationship for the government to help out entrepreneurs. one of the key lessons is probably humility.

obviously, government cannot manage or plan entrepreneurial development. and they think they might. if you listen, you can come up with hopeful strategies. one came from this forum. a lot of people selling web- enabled services around the world might be worried they are breaking the law of other countries. the challenge is how does the met did get out to the community. that challenge was set up and we are able to connect the person to raise said. this startup that was launched evolved a series and here is brad and i in boulder, literally hear what the president, and we were joking, i think brad has been marking -- mocking the values that come out of government discussions of entrepreneur should. it is yet to be tested whether

this effort around startup america can yield a value. there is a huge institutional disconnect because government has not been set up or oriented to listen, adapt, and support entrepreneurs. this is not a small challenge. one thing that is happening and i was able to say in my blog post, is noting the entrepreneurial community. this is an emerging policy agenda around innovation clusters. is not -- it is not settled how to understand them. one concept is that there is a lot to learn from boulder. there are some ways that the government does support entrepreneurs that are worth appreciating. one is government has a lot of data that it can liberate to

allow entrepreneurs to create companies around to help help consumers and create economic record of one clause of 401(k) plan, a report done in the department of labour as to what administrative fees their employees pay. it turns out that these can be extraordinary. in order to bring them down, the company needs to give people insight into how their fees compares to other and can save money. i am sure that this model is 40. it has been really successful. after obama took office, this took off because of the open government commitment. you can liberate data and do it. before, these reports were only available in paper form. pakistan them very carefully and try to -- they had to scan them

very carefully and try to distribute them. now they are available electronically to anyone who asks. president obama here visiting in silicon valley after the state of the union, looking for ways in which the government can help and support innovation and promote private sector job growth. as i said earlier, it is a problem easier described and taken on. -- dan taken on. one way that government plays a crucial role is in the structure. spectrum is are invisible infrastructure. we have a legacy problem in the united states. a lot of businesses have their customer relationship management system for employees benefits software that does back to the 1950's. they have legacy problems because they still have systems built on cobalt, and they have to keep people around who still understand it to use it.

the thought the best use of spectrum was over the air broadcast television. we made the decision to double down on over the air and triple down on that spectrum. it u was it uhf stations, the ones on the other part of the dial. just think channels 14250. those are uhf. most communities do not have a lot of uhf programming. if your uhf tv station, you have a right to be carried on the cable system. meanwhile, wired and wireless programs is an emerging infrastructure. here is a map showing where it

is in the united states and where it is not. one challenge that i have written about in that paper was how to transition from spectrum to wireless broadcasters. interesting-story, i wrote that paper for the director of the hamilton project. he went on to the deputy director to larry summers at the national economic council, if and when he called me up when i was at the justice department, to talk about spectrum, i just gave him some ideas and we could use you to make this initiative real, and so after consulting with a number of people, i said i have got to do that. and it was a great experience. this is where we are according to cycso. global it traffic. what is worth noting is the wireless and it traffic. one of the interesting case studies was in 1985, a band of

spectrum used for heavy missionary, -- machinery, the so-called job spectrum, -- junk spectrum. the regulatory chairman at that time, it appealed to him for another use. years later, the technology for wireless was developed. it has become a revolutionary technology that saved at&t's bacon with the i found. at&t went from viewing unlicensed spectrum with great suspicion to great support because of about half the total traffic on their wireless networks is on wifi networks. if you wonder why they are so aggressive about asking you to go on to a wifi network, it is to get around the band with challenge that the cellular networks have a larger area,

they are less efficient in terms of the spectrum we use, and we can happy -- we will be have it what you did that concept later. it is a valuable part of our wireless ecosystem. challenges making more spectrum available. as well as for the wifi traffic. i came to the council and larry summers was talking to me about this and try to understand that if we free up spectrum from the broadcasters, giving the broadcasters money to give up their spectrum rights, essentially, the government can take a cut of that money and users are better off because they have less congestion on the networks. that sounded like a win-win-win. the broadcasters are better off, the government is better off because it gets more revenue, and the consumers are better off. and then there is job growth,

and so that as the four times over a win. it was important to do. here is larry's mantra about public action and private investment. the government plays a coordination role. for those who do not fully understand or believe me in the following point, you can talk to dale afterwards. why couldn't we just let the broadcasters lease out their spectrum to wireless providers? think high-powered transmissions, cellular networks are more compressed and lower power. you cannot put low-power right next to a high-powered is like oil and water, you get challenging interference problems. indeed is on the spectrum to have this much more efficient. that is the role of government here.

so larry summers liked the idea of the spectrum issue. six months later, at the state of the union, the president puts more meat on the bomb on how the issue will take root. he doesn't go into marquette, mich., in the upper peninsula, -- he does it by going to marquette, michigan. and those who have not been to the upper peninsula, it is beautiful, and the people are nice. the northern michigan university set up a an advanced wifi network. it gives the students at northern michigan university access to distance learning over these networks. it is a demonstration of what can happen with wireless broadband. i got to go on this trip with others, including austin goals big, and i would say, actually never travel business class before. but air force one is much

better. [laughter] i did get to take on some souvenirs for my kids. it was the experience of a lifetime. here is carl levin, who is the senator from michigan, and the congressman will travel with the present when he goes aboard air force one, and senator levin apropos of his integrity, talking about the war in afghanistan, he is the chairman of the armed services committee, and he had no personal agenda. it was just concerned about the war and he also wanted the president to autograph his book for his grandkids. they are in the auditorium. the president before then got a demonstration of distance learning. here is the wireless innovation initiative. the spectrum auction, also making government spectrum more

efficient, exploring the rollout of 4g spectrum nationwide, building a network for public safety, and they can have advanced uses of wireless activity. the starkly public safety has used 1990's technology. ally public safety has used 1990's technology. and in the seed corn for future investments. i want to sum up on innovation and national priority. government 2.0, government does not have all the answers. there are a lot of answers if you liberate data and if you like transportation, open energy, government solutions can take that dad and development in interesting ways. this is one thing that this administration has done exceptionally well. it is called up for using a

certain amount of money can go in, and we're very fortunate tonight because one of the shining stars is a usda act, something the first lady has taken an interest in, sharron founded a company as she put in her own money, her own efforts to develop an application to help kids eat better. but those of you not familiar with top of the city, you should be afraid. the statistics are terrifying. the impact on our health care system is also terrifying. we can ensure use technology to help kids make better choices. this app is something you should have and your iphone. it is something that we're lucky that have a boulder native living here. living here. she is one of our own very congratulations to you. our round of applause.

[applause] one other important challenge that we as a nation have to struggle with is how we use energy. my predecessor and put us to shame in terms of his energy conservation lifestyle. there are huge opportunities to give consumers more energy information. simple energy is focused on the part of this. we as a nation have a challenge because infrastructure is billed by regular utilities whose economic interests are not in saving and injuring -- in saving energy. they get paid more when more energy is used. the smart grid is still a

merchant, and one of the great leaders of that is here. -- is still emerging, and one of the great leaders of that is here. another event which had not put in here, the vice president coming talking about innovation policy. they are not only developing great energy, but they're exporting abroad. and empowering consumers with disinformation and can also make the grid more resistant. and resilience. will we keep spurring innovation with this, the budget questions, we have a long-term fiscal challenge that is scary. but we also have a long-term innovation challenge that we should be scared of, too. here are some in the best -- investment, not clear where we will end up, one of the very

exciting efforts to spur and seed emerging technologies and clean energy. a big building on this basic model, and another opportunity in this area is education technology. another depressing article about whether these technologies are succeeding. one of the challenges is that can we develop this concept in the president's budget, an arpa in education to develop this. and then i think you'd that everyone gets this in the white house. the president, he loves kids and is great with kids. my son stammy was stepping on his foot the whole time. the president said, i've got business to do here, meaning talking to my kids. it was a blast and inexperience

of a lifetime. now's the fun part where brackets to follow and you do as well. you should all have your cards. -- where brad gets to follow-up and you do as well. you should all have your cards. >> we will take a short introduction before get started. [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> now i am on. sorry about that. for those of you that have cards, send them up to the front of the room. is anybody going to grab that? grab them and send them up. preston, a good friend of

phil's, is very interested in having phil where this. >> is good. [laughter] >> an inside joke for those of you who've seen my partners. >> we will go on for about half an hour. a round of questions, we will stop a couple times. the first question which i have been asked to ask you is boxers or briefs? boxers. good, got that out of the way. it is a choice. describe the typical day that you would have. >> i am not sure that i have a typical day. at first challenge with my current job is that you could easily go all day and being meetings stacked up. one of the challenges is being mindful about what meeting to

take. that takes some affirmative effort and your part to make sure it did you hear from lots of different people. a major that i met with consumer groups and entrepreneurs regulate. one statement, the keister does not have a lobbyist. so one challenge that anyone in government has is to make sure that the information that you're getting are wide ranging. one huge swath of meetings i will always want to make time for was meeting with outside people who are across a range of different people, and when i would do so, i would be as transparent as possible with all of them. so that they would give me the information i needed. number two, in the white house, you have different meanings were you coordinate. the white house is like a mini congress because you have a domestic policy council, you had a national security staff, who view things through a

certain lands, and also science and environmental quality, and smart grid, it is conceivable that all five of those areas could have different perspectives on the same emergent technology and you need to spend time to get to know them. and i'll say one of my big lessons that motivated most of what i did was how much our relationship mattered, and what force -- -- i was forced to have more of those. and finally, the white house can only be successful when it catalyzes and empowers other parts of the government. take a smart grid as an example. many might be doing the wrong things. obviously the department of energy would have a huge interest. but of military bases looking at smart grid technology and the sat -- and the national science foundation might fund research related to it. and then standards with nist, so i have to meet with them a

figure out how to balance the different meetings and then catch up on e-mails, read, and right in order to be affected and to keep moving along different initiatives. -- effective and to keep moving along to finish it -- different initiatives. there was a mixture of these different types of meetings. >> you give examples of ideas that germinated and summarize the policy dynamics. obviously there was a path. walk us through what that path might look like including some texture about the people involved in the front end of the process. >> great? let me start with smart grid as an example. i could not have done this job without the meetings i had here first. for example, you would be

surprised how much this is translatable to working in the white house. being able to call something out as bs or not is really important. you could say, come on, be reappeared that enabled me to cut to the case of an issue. it is really important if you cannot cut through the rhetoric, you will never get anything done. there's some people in the world a policy who are good at reading they're talking points. but you never make progress if you were just talking to each other's talking points. you need to get a level of discipline and rigor and understand for the problems really are. and smart grid, one of the real challenges is the utility industry which had a business model and a set of incentives, and instead of technology, that were built on a certain set of promises like energy was very plentiful. and we did not worry about using lots of every the second premise

might be that people cannot or would not or should not manage their energy. it is too time intensive. so how we reexamine policy and we started the conversations here. when we got to the white house, i said he is marking on smart grid so i would have a meeting and is there an opportunity for us to frame our agenda, and by the way, the staff have a lot of money for the recovery act that was going through that. it made it all the more important to call out, particularly for the states to have most of the power and is very , if because most of the utilities are regulated not by the federal government by state's utility commissions. can we get on the same page? what is're getting at, a policy process? what people outside the government did not readily appreciate is that you cannot expect the president to give a speech on that or issue a report

on why and how it can be done like a business plan by entrepreneurs on startup weekend? it is very different. you have to start by getting people in the room who have different perspectives and say, can we start working on some principles together and then the report, you have to build consensus among interrelated groups and you establish one under the auspices of the national science and technology council and then we get a report, we have to get all the agencies to clear it, and in the report is ready for release, and in the question is, how are you going to roll out the report? so we went ahead and did issued a report in a rollout, which turned out the last week was in washington, and it was an effort to frame the discussion and move the policy forward. one challenging policy is that you do not necessarily always get clear milestones.

ok, you have done it, because is an ongoing journey. in shape and frame the debate in terms that move in the right direction. the wireless spectrum cases another one that i worked under that one, i mentioned in the paper before, which people of the time, they said it was a nice academic idea but would never happen. the president might have said that, actually. i thought, i'm an academic. that's fine. the white house but to this and said, wait a minute, we're looking for policies. this offsets general revenue and can we make this happen. so we talk to all sorts of people who were involved. larry summers and i would go to talk to senator jay rockefeller, the chair of the commerce committee, and we're thinking about announcing this, what you think? and another chairman, what you think, and we talk to the product testers, what you think?

it helps to shape what we saw as a policy strategy and when we rolled out, we did not roll it out with all the details worked out. this is also part of the store. policy needs to evolve and starts put stakes in the ground and build on it, and in this case, the first day -- the first was by larry summers, and then the president in the state and rigid state of the union and in michigan, and then the bill that passed, and the policy of all over time. you can see some constant principles. the latest iteration is being discussed in the super committee. it would free up money to deal with our long-term fiscal situation. there's a great quote that says, it takes both passion and perspective. if you are not able to have that passion and perspective and stay at it, it is not one happen

overnight. and i was there long enough to see a lot of things make some progress. and it is hard to know what will be most important because 10 years from now, the work done nano-technology, it will be difficult and i never heard that there was something that i work on that made the difference. >> in that interaction with congress, you touched on it. i know your viewpoint from where you were in the white house, what interaction with congress at what level, and what kind of expectations did you have about those interactions? >> i have never worked in congress. i largely have that as the branch that i am least bergsten.

-- versed in. congress is still somewhat of a mystery. i will say that in mind time in the white house, i was impressed with some of the people with whom i worked with, who were aides on capitol hill. impressed by how much they cared about ideas, and impressed by how much they knew what they did not know. and our ability to work productively was one of the things i really cherished. i also was a student of the constitution and article i comes before article ii. i always went to them. i tried to be extraordinarily diligent about returning phone calls, e-mails, helping them however i could. and they were extraordinarily interested in hearing what we had to say. and and all these areas, we try to brief congress so that

nothing we did was a surprise. that is often what gets the administration and the trouble. if you told us, you might not of done that way. so there was nothing i worked on where i ever got that sort of call. i was lucky, i think, and also i have a lower profile so i was less likely to get that attention. if we were talking to a member, larry summers are gene sperling would typically do that. i would go along to brief them. at the staff level, we really worked out the details. i did not expect necessarily to work so much with congress, but i did spend a good bit of my time, particularly spectrum issues that had to go through congress, in working with them, and also working with other people who are going to be talking to congress. if someone had concerns, a tv broadcaster, you better listen to them, because if you do not,

they will talk to congress and talk about their concerns and you better have the answer for it. >> someone asked for here, a policy makers and legislators making decisions on tech issues that they do not understand. did you find this to be true are not pressure mark -- or not? >> i would not agree with that. i think there is a reasonable humility and caution about innovation technology. it is hard because it is moving quickly and it is complex. it does require people to take the time to understand it. and there are a lot of people in the government who did that in ways that are largely under pressure to protect cyber security. their people and the government that i worked with at the department of homeland security , one left is going to be a chief information's officer at summitt, someone who knows cyber security. it's been an authority in the field. he understood those issues. i was able to work closely with

him on that. i would put him up against anyone in the private sector. it does not mean it is easy to know what to do. two different questions. do you know the field? do you know the technology and do you know what to do about it? i cannot say that people did not know the field, but it is often that these are not easy issues to understand what to do. people's levels of tolerance for government is often love. you have some conservative orientation, which is understandable, but it is also somewhat at odds with technology policy. smart grid is another example. state utility commissions are among the most conservative in the governmental at the system. and here they are dealing with technology innovation policy with a smart grid. they want to learn. one of the challenges of the federal government is to use its core resources to help educate state regulators to make

informed decisions. >> what percentage of your meetings were held at a coffee shop? [laughter] >> for those who do not know me, people tease me by saying they casual fast-food dining establishments in boulder would miss me. there are ones in washington that benefit. after i came in a word, and i have a call or something, and then i would go to get my coffee at caribou coffee. and their place somebody would be there. i would meet them there. again, it is important to note that i mix of my casual fast- food dining establishments. i have a rotation system. there is another across the street where we spent many a meeting. there is a starbucks. popular -- probably the least popular.

and then for lunch, a really good casual fast-food dining establishment here in washington, those of the top for the rotation. in boulder, i would say panera and chipolte. >> progress in washington. on the same lines of the meetings, how you allocate time, just the percentage. what percentage of time did you know in advance? >> that is a great question. if not every single meeting, everyone has entered only one meeting that was a complete waste of time. the worst networking meeting i've ever had. do not ever network within the

remote purpose whatsoever. what is your ask? they just wanted to talk to me. i cannot see my family enough to talk to a random person who wants to meet me. and this person, by the way, he started to hang out at caribou coppery morning. -- coffee every morning. that was the only time that was a total waste of time. almost always there was some sort of value. and another thing that was good at the morning at caribou, you can always leave when you want to. you can be more aggressive about cutting it short. bob dole taught me that. he was quoted as saying, someone said, it was nice that you could go and talk to senators and talk to them. not at all, i could get up and leave any time that i wanted. [laughter] >> we saw at least two pictures

of you with president obama. describe your first meeting with them. >> the first time i met him was actually here in boulder during the call. bridging talk. during the talk. is actually much more intimidating in person than you might think. is very tall, a firm handshake, definitely interesting voice. perhaps being president helps, but he is more imposing, with your kids, he is a playful, kind person, but i was much more intimidated in that sense than with joe biden, who has this smile, all in in a much more engaging, disarming way almost. >> and entrepreneur in the audience, concerned about the

tech force, or someone who does not plan to develop the technology comes up with an idea. he does not have a question but is concerned about this. any sense that there is any real change happening in the patent reform? i am curious to your view -- is congress really doing something substantive here or are they going to pass something that is essentially kicking the can down the road? >> two problems. when i briefed larry summers on this it was one of the highlights. larry is a smart and he got to the heart of it. or someone who does not know a field, but you could talk to them, and there's a general sense that they're so good that they understand it very well. the first problem, given that the patent office is at the

center of innovation policy, he would think that it is the crown jewel of government, it is treated in a way with respect and support so that it does his job extremely effectively. if you thought that, you would be deadly wrong. it is quite the opposite protection people appointed to head it who have no understanding of technology of patents whatsoever. a former congressman looking for job. they are -- the revenues that it gets, people are paying to get patents, and it was funneled away from the office to other things, thereby leaving the office understaffed and you get a backlog of patents. and finally the technology itself that the patent office use, which was nothing short of a disaster where people could file patents electronically, they would have to literally print them out and re-enter them into a different system. so the first problem, a real problem, stealing from the patent office. can we enable our patent system

in the office to be more effectively, by that i mean, issuing higher-quality patents, one of the core problems in the system. issuing them quicker, making the decision, and getting people to review the decision more quickly and cheaply. the bill through congress and the leadership is set up to do it very good job on those issues. there are a second set of issues that are not unrelated. the patent litigation mess. those who have not seen the diagram of all the smartphone patent wars, the nervous. it is scary. for those who have not read other discussions of this, obviously the phenomenon of non- practicing entities filing suit in the state of texas, it is hard to square with anything we might cause useful progress in science. but we might call useful progress in science. question -- how much will deal

with that problem? insofar as the first problem, less bad patents and cheaper review, helps to solve the second, but given the magnitude of the challenge, it is only somewhat. how well can we get there? there are a few different things that i know. one is something that the ptl is focused on. -- the pto is focused on. you cannot enforce the written description and enable many requirements. you cannot submit a patent application for something that might be invented some day. you must have invented it, describe it, and put it into practice and then you get a patent. if you did not enforce that requirement, which the patent office finally for the first time a year ago has now guidance

to enforce that requirement, and you can get rid of and not in force a lot of patents that should never have been granted which are able to be used strategically in litigation and that are not about motivating invention. that is a promising tool. i think we should nervous about the progress -- the problem, because of we did not make progress, it will be a tax on innovation, not a spur to innovation. >> you showed a picture of obama, president obama meeting with a bunch of folks in silicon valley, in this picture that i suck, eric schmidt, steve jobs at the dinner -- in this picture that i saw, eric schmidt, steve jobs at the dinner, others were at the dinner. art levenson was at the dinner. was there any sense of any feedback that cycle back through around innovation policy

that came out of that particular meeting? any sense that meetings like that have real impact other than the obvious? >> the impact that i would say and we take for granted because to get used to what we have, having the president interested at the level of the emerging technology trends that we have is a new thing. i do not remember other presidents -- for example, gore as a vice president, i would say that is true of him. but obama as the president has a deep interest in technology, understanding it, understanding what makes that technology plays, what role the government place, so i do not how closely related it was, but one topic at the dinner was high skilled immigration, and that the president's position has gotten pretty clearly behind start-ups as one of the instruments that can help free us from what strikes me as one of the most

crazy policy is that we appear to ourselves into, which is like i said having great minds come here, get educated, want to stay and build a company, but being forced to go home. that is all part of a jobs agenda that is creating jobs at no cost to the government. he has heard a good bit about that from silicon people and more generally, it is good, like my experience, he operates at a different level. i think the problem that we should be cognizant of is that washington is a bubble. it takes discipline to get out of the bubble and get broader perspective, whether you are the president, the director of the economic council, where the staff of the economic council. >> so you talked about smart grid a little, you talked about others and innovation policy around government investment, and smart grid energy

technology, and you had a big program around that oz part of the original stimulus. there is a company recently in the last week that went bankrupt called solyndra. i think they raised half a billion dollars from the government in a loan guarantee and another half a billion dollars of private equity type investment. do you have a sense that something like solyndra will have impact t in that on how these types of investments are made? the gap between what the house wants, the president wants, the agency's one, boom, boom, boom, and we are already in this position where you invest in those extenuating circumstances, so small relative to the extent in waste and other things. how did they play out over time? >> it is a negative in the pollen is the spirit of power of the-talking point -- it is a

negative in the following sense. the power of a negative talking point, how would never have thought that a longstanding republican proposal about giving choices in healthcare, that that be put into the budget, if that were to be put into a health care reform bill, i would not think that that would give rise to the idea that obama was in favor of that panel's. i would not have guessed that. the talking point becomes, the government is throwing away money on losing companies. that is what this program is. that could define -- even though this program is a different loan guarantee program, there is sometimes in the world of talking points, a lack of rigor. it is sometimes hard to control the narrative once it gets out of control. a real hard challenge for

someone like president biden, when he gave this talk at solyndra, how you frame the narrative around investing in innovation that can have some of the same impact on the narrative and this course the way the sputnik moment of yesteryear did? go back to the 1960's investment in basic research or even some applied research, and point to failures. if you let those failures define the whole program -- you had some failures. you cannot let it upon the whole portfolio, and if you look at darpa over its entire history, and said, if every single investment darpa made was a total waste of money, except for the internet, i think darpa is an unbelievably good thing to have done just because of the critical work in enabling the internet. overallknow how the

profile in the loan guarantees are going to realize energy facilitation, i do not know enough to have a view, but it is quite possible to view that portfolio over periodic years, we will say, they were able to change how we use transformers in the electric grid in a way that made them much more effective, cheaper to create, advanced manufacturing here in the united states, and some money was wasted, but it was a great thing that we did. it would be great to have that perspective and that discussion, and judge it on that merit as opposed to how happens all the time. by defining and how it happened at one time. >> someone wrote a very disheartening peace and fortune about -- in fortune that both republicans and democrats in communication and the white house and congress, essentially

the communication [unintelligible] the given number of examples and one of them was exactly that point around tarp. the positive message around part is that it looked like it ended up making money. it is still buried in the discussion about the bailout dynamic that was so negative, versus have actually played out. -- hallett actually played out. >> it is a challenge, and i had limited opportunities so this is a frustration, but some very high percentage of americans believe that tarp and the stimulus were the same. they do not differentiate. they run together. a limited number of americans know that a huge portion of the stimulus recovery act was tax cuts. that obama task -- cut taxes like 52 times.

i do not quite know what people 's caricature of the stimulus is, but like to say, in salt in this ferry -- the stimulus was wasting money on bank bailouts. but wait, that was part. and part actually did in the costing money, but unfortunately these narratives get set. they get repeated, and it is hard to turn it around. at one of the challenges as policy makers is you cannot create a narrative -- that if you cannot create a narrative the major policy understandable. >> later this network. all look back at some of the tributes and memorials had this past year. we will begin at 10:00 a.m. with a tribute to former kansas senator and republican presidential candidate bob dole. just after noon eastern, the more also serves for the to the memorial service for petty for who passed away in july. longtime friend rosalynn carter and journalists cokie roberts

are part of the speakers. also, the unveiling of a statue of gerald ford in the rotunda. journalist and his children spoke at the event. you can watch that on c-span2. >> michele bachmann is here, i understand. she is thinking about running for president. which is weird because i hear she was born in canada. [laughter] yes, michele, this is how it starts. >> it is so amazing to be in washington, all of this history, all this amazing buildings, and yet we hear briard at the hilton. -- here we are at the hilton. the red carpet outside was amazing. who are you wearing? what does it matter, i am going into, hilton. >> with more than 9 million

appearances -- use of obama video ofance, c-span's the white house correspondents' dinner was among youtube's top 10 political videos of 2011. >> have you tried the three radio at? >> this c-span half as fast, easy-to-use, and visually appealing. and the audio quality as convincingly clip. insanely great deal of considering it is also free. all some application. took me 10 seconds to learn and use it. >> anytime and anywhere, get screaming audio as well as all three c-span television networks including live coverage of congress. you can also listen to our interview programs including q&a, newspapers, the communicators, and afterwards. c-span -- is available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org /radioapp. >> up next, an event looking at

ronald reagan possible use of intelligence leading up to the end of the cold war. the cia, the co-sponsor of this event released more than 200 to classified documents, photos, and briefing videos. you will hear from former arms control director kenneth adelman, peter clement, and of former kgb general. from the reagan presidential library in california, this is an hour and 35 minutes. >> we all need to thank you for making this facility available for this. and a half of our director and are chief communications officer, will the thank you for coming. i hope you enjoy the afternoon. almost every day i get to go to cia headquarters in langley,

walking to the main entrance, walk across the agency seal on the floor, the one that you have seen in the spy movies, all passed the statute of william donovan, former director of the office of strategic services. [windows sounds] [laughter] i did not know that there was the ghost of william donovan that lived in the reagan library. i will pass the memorial wall, chiseled the start for agency officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, 102 stars on that wall today. 49 of which have been added since i have been working at the cia. i go past a couple of guards with a really big guns, and right in front of a bust of george bush, the former director of the cia, i turn left.

i go down a hallway and at the end there is a mural of the statue of liberty. below that mural is printed the agency moscow -- it reads, we are the nation's first line of defense. we accomplish what others cannot accomplish and we go where others can i go. in order to accomplish those things had to go to those places, much of what we do it must necessarily remain secret. if our adversaries have access to disinformation, our agency would quickly become in effect it. so we take this declassification business very seriously. information management services, the office that my deputy and i believe that the cia, have the privilege to lead at the cia, is responsible for the records of the cia. although operating a secret intelligence organization in a democracy has inherent tensions, as an organization we believe that we hold these records in

trust for the american people. in fact when their sensitivity degrades over time, we have a duty to release them so that the american people can see them for themselves. our list director, leon panetta, said how decide when a secret is no longer a secret from are the only thing i could come up with is it is a very difficult task. he immediately agreed and offered that he was glad that he did not have to personally do it himself. fortunately at cia we have very dedicated, very experienced officers who goal line by line, page by page through millions of pages of documents each year protecting what they must in the interest of national security and releasing what they can in the interest of the american people. these officers work on incredibly tight time deadlines, and by march without any expectation of acknowledgement whatsoever. so i'm going to break tradition right now and if you work in

information management services, would you please stand? [applause] thank you very much. thousands of hours ago a declassification projects like the one we are engaged in today. these folks that just a minute ago spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours and have worked for this particular event for the last two years. finding documents, redacting documents, and ultimately releasing documents. history is a very fluid thing and what we know about the past is always subject to reevaluation when new information arrives. this conference today, it provides a wonderful opportunity to examine the narrative that our company has in our nation's

history for that document collections we're talking about today challenges some of the most persistent misconceptions about intelligence leading up to the end of the cold war. for the ronald reagan was an unsophisticated consumers of intelligence provided by the cia? with a contention that u.s. policymakers were blindsided by of all this loaded -- the soviet union due to a failure of intelligence. when you are writing, you're given a booklet. on the back page of that but what you'll find all the classified documents on today's event. it also contains a variety of videos produced for president reagan, photographs, maps, and a variety of other things. it is a treasure trove of information and i highly recommend that you look at it when you have a chance. and before i get 1000 calls back in washington that it does not work -- it is designed for your

other dvd player. some of the fantastic ideas, i want to recognize a couple of current and former cia officers who are in attendance today. peter clement, i did a director for intelligence is here. you will hear from him here on the putting charlotte. our chief of permission officer is with us today. without her leadership, events like this simply do not happen. the former deputy director of central intelligence is with us today and you will hear from him on the podium as well. we haven't gentleman who s cia needs no introduction of all because he is a legend. former officer and the office of strategic services, a charter member of the cia in 1947, major general john synclinal. welcome. [applause] thank you very much for coming. i hope you enjoyed. especially the young folks in

the audience today who are the next generation of history makers. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, joe. interesting in our business at the national archives, when you have conferences for suppose him like this and you realize how open our society is, i think it is and extremely important and we should feel fortunate that american citizens are able to do that. when ronald reagan took office in 1981, it is doubtful that anyone with a predicted the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union a decade or so later. no one that is except ronald reagan. president reagan had a vision and the result set a course to change the world to make a safer place. but he also knew the importance of a strong military as well as good intelligence. as you will learn today, information provided to the

president and his advisers is critical. in all fairness, things were not always easy, nor were their full agreement on the course of action. those disagreements probably caused some consternation in washington. today we offer and insightful look at that amazing period of our history. we have assembled a stellar group of speakers and panelists who will provide important perspectives and perhaps some lively discussion. our keynote was there on the front line with ronald reagan. we're quite fortunate to have him with us today, because he graciously agreed to modify his schedule so that he could be here. unfortunately he has to leave at the break because he has to catch a red eye to go back to new york this evening. ken nadelmann has an impressive resume, author, professor, a senior government official, on control expert as well as ambassador. but there are a few other things that you might not know about him.

in a program he called movers and shakespeares, he uses the lessons learned from shakespeare to teach leadership, to top executives. being a renaissance man, he also took part in an expedition in 1974, traveling down the, forever on the 100th anniversary on stanley's legendary expedition. kenny been translated for muhammed ali at up rumble in the jungle fight with george foreman. one of the many highlights of his distinguished career was accompanying ronald reagan to the super powers summit with the general secretary mikhail gorbachev. all this provides a unique perspective for our symposium today. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to ambassador ken adelman. [applause] >> thank you, do.

that was a wonderful introduction. so much nicer than the introduction i had in indianapolis when i was in office and a fellow there from the rotary club said that i had been with ronald reagan for all these important things, i was in and out of the white house constantly, new everything that was happening, so he ended his introduction to me with a grand flourish. he said, listen up carefully and hear the latest doh from washington, ken adelman. [laughter]

i remember i briefly served in the senate intelligence committee for about a year-and- a-half. this is one bill casey was the d.c.i. it was the forest for having selective fidelity in his presentations -- he was notorious for being selective fidelity and as presentation. the committee rig up a microphone that started all long descent and you -- and it came right here. you cannot possibly avoid it.

what i like to talk about is the article that i read that talked about the actual record of the intelligence community in predicting the soviet decline and collapse, and talked a little bit about why even to this day there is misunderstanding about how well the community perform. and then conclude by discussing the lessons we can draw from this episode. in the mid-1990s, around 1994, some of the cold war intelligence estimates were just beginning to be classified -- to be declassified. one of my friends has written extensively on intelligence and uses the freedom of information act extensively. he got hold of one previously safe -- cited in harvard university study. jeff knew me from graduate

schooling called me and said, bruce, i've been looking at these estimates. they are pretty good. the intelligence community was not that far off the mark. this was in the early 1990's. the common consensus was just charting the form that the intelligence community had blown the estimate of the century, the collapse of the soviet union. that was the common wisdom. that is why one commission was established in 1994. jeff pressed me more, and so we decided, this might make the makings of a good article. to begin to -- we never really said set the record straight, but at least put the record on the table. so having worked in the past with many of my colleagues who worked on those estimates, i set

up a couple of interviews and we also talked to policymakers and republished -- we published an article in 1995 called the mass of the soviet collapse. it ship -- the myth of the soviet collapse. it showed that if you measured along three dimension, getting good strategic warning, intermediate warning, an immediate warning, that they did pretty well. strategic warnings, telling leaders and years before the fact that your major adversary has some serious problems that has implications for how you deal with them down the road, intermit your mornings, -- intermediate warnings, say, five years are more, based on the soviet decline, and immediate warnings, telling the

policymakers it that you have specific things to watch for, that this is reaching a crisis point, and if you meet conditions, expect big things happen and then paid out the scenarios. so we published this, and our assessment was that the intelligence community actually did pretty well. now about 10 years later, the editor who had had me work on that article with jeff, came back to me and said, we would like you to write another article and revisit this topic. even now many years later peoples still think in some fundamental way that the intelligence community failed to predict the collapse of the soviet union. so i read another article, and that is the one that appears in your book.

i think that one of the reasons why even after the document of record becomes a really well published, and by that time, not only did we have these early nie's but also the major on the military and political side, even then people were still not fully aware of what the records said. at that point, in addition to all the other reasons, the initial lack of information, the fact that american policymakers seemed to have some difficulty coming to grips with the changing events in the soviet union, and also some people who just insisted on pushing this line, that the intelligence community in this case failed --

in addition to all that, one of the reasons why people were not fully aware of what the quality of intelligence was, was that linkage between intelligence and policy had not been understood. into the years that followed the 1990's, the national security archives for also opened and we began to see some of the policy directives that came out, they were issued rather, during the reagan and later in the bush administration. what we saw then was something more interesting, was that not only was the intelligence for the most part pretty good in anticipating soviet decline, seeing the political forces leading to a soviet crisis, and then getting tactical warning of the crisis itself, but it had a direct effect on policy.

so that you could see the intelligence was saying, and you could see how it actually affected ronald reagan's policy for dealing with the soviet union. much of that is there any article, and i suggest and encourage you to read it. the point is, though, that i would like to leave you with in answering that question, is talking about the zeitgeist in the intelligence community at the time, the zeitgeist in the intelligence community at the time is that we took these soviet union decline as a given. we were not surprised by it. we were following it all the time. i can remember actually having a conversation with one of my colleagues, he is here today, and he said, you know, next year

-- this is a 1979 -- he said, you know, they are not going to have any growth year -- next year. it might 0.5%, but for all intents and purposes -- and foreign analysts, that is a big deal. but it was not wrestling with the issue of whether they were in decline. the context that we worked in was, ok, here is the decline. now what is going happen? that was the intelligence challenge. the option that doug alluded to was, well, they are either going to have to pick and choose what they are going to do with their limited resources, maybe selectively continue their military buildup, which at that time, we just saw as an unnatural force -- an inexorable force, or they would just have to cut it out and make the

soviet people do with even less than they were doing then. or perhaps they were going to have to rethink their military buildup. that was the big challenge. and that was the context. that context was what moved up to the national security council in the white house, and so that was the context that ronald reagan was working from as he realized that the soviets were in this package, and that was the big question. how do we deal with that and that is what translated into policy. if you look at the national security council documents, you will see that u.s. policy was aimed in forcing this transformation of the soviet union. now the policy is never said that we were going to try to bring the soviet union down. the policy said well we're going to try to do is to take advantage of the situation, to channel the soviets, and they

always referred to the soviets, not the russians, which assumed that the soviet system itself was going to survive, but in some fundamentally modified form. and that is what the policy was, and the policy worked. it was transform, not in the way that we fully anticipated maybe, but it was fundamentally transformed because of these tidal forces that we followed all during that time. so what are the lessons to be learned from this? i think one thing i would like to get across to you is -- what is the atmosphere in which intelligence analysis operates? in routine business, analysts really are rarely asked questions like whether the soviet union? or whether now?

it is a day-to-day process. thousands of people go to work and work on their piece of the problem. let happens over time is that this group of people, working together and talking together, as they develop a collective knowledge. that is probably the most important organizational aspect of the u.s. intelligence ,ommunity's analytic cadres this collective understanding of the targets that usually other people do not have the ability or the interest of opportunity to follow at that level of detail. an idea gets kicked around. that analysis, by the way, it's translated into better collection, because when we put together estimates, it is not to come up with a grand truths so much as to summarize the

collective wisdom of the community, including where we have doubts. and the very understanding of where the gaps are then dried " day-to-day and -- drive both day today and longer attempts to fill them. over time, this knowledge cumulates. if an ant -- it has in this case it is well connected to the consumer and the consumer has intelligent questions and is willing to act on that information, the process works. and if you really have the right people at the right time, you win the cold war. so i will leave you with that. [applause] >> thank you. >> all-star to make sure that you can hear me.

-- i will start to make sure that you can hear me. july 19, 1978 -- i had been invited to the bohemian grove and southern california. the former dci, george h.w. bush, making his first speech there. there were several animals, and we went on back to -- admirals', and we went on back to eat lunch. and there was governor reagan. along the way, he made the five- minute oration on fighting the barbary pirates. it was a magnificent leap inspirational, and mr. bush's turn to me and said, damn, he's good.

foreshadowing what would happen two years later. passport -- fast forward past the election, all week later, i get a call from this it -- the head of the transition for the incoming administration saying they would like you to be the new deputy director of central intelligence. i said, no, thank you. i am retiring next summer. i am walking promotional opportunities for youngsters whose careers they help develop. i had already been a flag officer two years longer than any of my previous intelligence predecessors. about a week later, i got a call from the head of the transition team saying, you know what? i understand you are not interested in being in the ddci. i was even more explicit that i did not want the job and that i planned to retire. i was talking with my australian

counterpart in the office of the secretary of defense, and i get called out by a build duesseldorf saying come i cannot understand you turning down this wonderful opportunity to be the deputy director of the central intelligence. i was even more blunt with my admired former secretary about my plan. past board, january 21, secretary comes in and says the president is calling and i assumed it was president carter continuing the dialogue of getting the hostages out of iran. it was the president. could not be more charming and laid out the entire story. after he lost the primary in new hampshire, he had asked bill casey to chair the campaign. and he had asked casey, what do you want to do if we are successful? and his response was, if i cannot be secretary of state, a lot like to be director of

central intelligence. he had had a great time running os has operations in europe. passport, election night, s -- past ford -- fast forward, election night, it is clear that he won, and reagan turns to a man says if he is ready to be director of central intelligence, and he said, if i cannot be secretary of state. they all laughed. about an hour later, calls coming from senator barry goldwater. he got governorhe got governor o politics in a big way. he said, congratulations, i just have one request. i have the perfect candidates for you to be the director of central intelligence. is currently the director of national security agency.

and nobody edmund. -- admiral bobby inman. reagan said, i have already given the job that bill casey. there was big animosity and between barry goldwater and casey in republican politics. over the next week, the president-elect said he got more calls about me than any other single candidate for any job, as cold water and moynihan were out marshaling other things. and then came the idea, well, less to a shotgun marriage. casey and inman, try to satisfy the congressman. and so we are in the office and speaking as your commander in chief -- [laughter]

i need you and i want you to take the job as bill casey's deputy. under the circumstances, i am honored but no more than 18 months to two years. and he accepted that. and he nominated me for for a start. that's how i ended up with four stars. it was an unusual arrangement in many ways. normally the director of central intelligence deals with outside work and the deputy director runs cia day today. that is not what bill casey wanted it all. he wanted to run the clandestine service and the analytical arm personally. he did not want anything to do with science and technology or administration very minimal involvement with the other agencies and certainly not with the budget. but he wanted to do all of the communications with the president.

so we marched off on that track, but there was a little modification in that last part. the president talked about rebuilding the intelligence community and bill casey told him of the division of effort he had made. so the president sent for me to say he wanted to rebuild the intelligence community. spend whatever needed to be spent to do it. any told frank carlucci find a place to hide their requests, what everyone did. -- whatever he wanted. and this is a lesson for us again now. we had drawn down the training establishment so much that the work finite limits of how many people we could train and position and put to work rebuilding the intelligence community.

i never encountered the president that he did not have a joke to tell, he did not need script writers, he was just naturally an enormously warm, engaging person. fairly early on, as i listen to ken adelman, he made a comment about the -- nothing really good for the country had ever come from corms control agreements. i spoke of an said they did it to differ. he said, tell me. i told him how the soviets had made a decision because of the limits to put much more of their capability in land and mobile missiles and lessen underseas missiles. the president said, nobody ever told me that. and then he used it later. he picked up very quickly when he was interested.

he retained and he used it in the proper manner. my last meeting with him shortly before i was leaving on that 18- month line, the british had moved into the falklands, there were at the outer limits of their military capability, mrs. thatcher had asked for the use of a island to stage -- ascension island. it was a british territory but it was entirely seated over to the u.s. national security agency, a major collection site there. so we had a meeting to deal with the question, and the ambassador of the u.n., jean kirkpatrick, held forth, you cannot possibly do that, mr. president. it would destroy hemispheric

solidarity. and that is pressed my button and instead of being intimidated, i outburst, what hemispheric solidarity? it never existed. and she had been there every time. and the president smiled and said, sorry, jean, and tell maggie that she can use ascension island. the quick ability to see the larger picture and where he was truly a very remarkable man to work with. [applause] >> great, thank you. thank you. obviously we are over time on the schedule, but i've been assured that we mean that -- not curtail questions and answers. so we will take questions for some minutes.

i want to remind everyone of the need to actually ask the question instead of simply commenting. alice shamelessly exploit my position by asking the first question. the soviet analyst, dug-in david, it is interesting to me he madeand davide,. some assertions that i had my doubts about as a historian. i wonder if you would comment on the idea that trying to figure out gorbachev's economic program was a waste of time and resources that the agency nor the significance of chernobyl, and that cia did no opportunity analysis for any parts of that question. >> chernobyl -- does this work?

what was your first question again? >> figure around -- figuring out gorbachev's economic program. >> i had at two-word answer, the initials were b and s. [laughter] it was the objectives, i think story written's a by corps' top black guy who was his assistant when he started off in the agricultural and then portfolio for the politburo, and the guy stayed with them. he described that gorbachev did not have her have a master plan. he was winning its step-by-step. but he knew where he wanted to get, that was clear from his plan. he was making it up as it went

along. none of our presidents have ever done anything like that. [laughter] anyway, but that's just nonsense. >> opportunity analysis. i'm not sure that the head the arms control would have had the need to have an opportunity analysis. >> that was one of the priorities. the first opportunity analysis delivered was, they have gone through three coffins in a row and the economy is going down. this guy was being touted by all the people. he was even reported to have been cut by one of the leading czech dissidents, when he was going to college, he told us later that gorbachev's college classmates -- anyway.

gorbachev, all the college students he went with -- went to school with the most european dai was gorbachev. we described gorbachev himself as an opportunity. >> and those analyses, many of those are included in the dvd. on chernobyl, what is the story there? >> not too much data on that one. even gorbachev himself did not know how bad that was. some of that was being withheld from him. the more that became clear as the weeks and months went back, it is part of what drove him, as ken mentioned, to open up more and to begin to push more toward scaling back on weapons and nuclear energy projects. i also comment very briefly on

the economic and commercial front, i think reagan faced a lot of his thinking on a clear assumption which to him was a no-brainer that of course the russians like anybody else would one more open trade, more commerce, more opportunity to engage with the west and buy goods and sell goods and things like that. so that trade and economic councils and the commercial enterprises that he instituted, with the soviet union, they were one of the key underpinnings of his entire relationship, along with the arms control in the military buildup to keep the pressure on. no doubt in his mind that he was envisioning mcdonnell's on most corners of the streets in moscow, and coca-cola signs everywhere, and movie theaters showing western movies and things like that. it was just a natural thing. there really was one of the carrots, one of the opportunities that we had, and this is what the russian people shirley wanted. this makes that more available

and makes it happen and the rest will take care of itself. theet's open it up to office. if you're soft-spoken, please come to the microphone. super. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> beginning in 1947, the leadership of the country

wanted encyclopedic knowledge of the entire outside world. and resources flowed to build that, and there was a great build up from 1947 that plateau around 1958. large numbers of people around the world, maintaining an and national intelligence survey on every country, the plateau in 1958, decision to get into vietnam overtly needed more tactical support, and in steading to continue to add as in the previous era, it was shifting resources. so we gave up first in-depth looks at the latin america. next year, africa, and then the next year, western europe. maintaining the middle east because of the interest of israel's security and then focus on the communist bloc. in 1957, president -- he in

storage in 1967, president johnson was worried about reducing the official american presence in your country. he's president fall that until president reagan. over that time frame, 40% of the overt human observers, foreign service, military-essays -- were reduced -- military and ttaches. that is where the real damage was done to the human capability. it was more cost-effective to run them out of the embassy's. so another great switch in the process. there has been a lot of myths about how we got into the condition of a very shallow

human intelligence. we maintain some terrific clandestine focused efforts and with a lot of success that hopefully you will not read about for another 40 years. but it was the overt human capability that was decimated and has never really been rebuilt. >> thank you. yes, sir? [inaudible] bin laden, 2002 -- >> good for you. >> [inaudible] then you have a president u.s. 10,000 items on his agenda

[inaudible] >> i think that is another one of those myths about how the intelligence or spirit the president is the most important consumer, but the thing that characterizes our national security establishment today is that a lot of people all down the chain, military branches, diplomatic and so on, all need intelligence. so thinking in terms of how you deliver it to the president specifically is not necessarily the problem. the problem isn't getting the tailored products to all of these different users -- is getting to tailor products to all of these different users with their own responsibilities

so that they can do their jobs, and also it is increasingly important to get analysts across many different organizations of different expertise to talk to each other so that they can exchange information and find solutions that require this kind of combined knowledge. also, to get the collectors, who are increasingly interdependent -- these days, in order to get one kind of intelligence, you need a different kind of access. you have that technical operators working with the human operators, and the different kinds of technical operators all working together. so focusing on that one critical noted, the president, as important as he may be, is not going to solve your problem. you need to have greater interconnected the throughout the enterprise. >> quick observation if i may.

22 years in the intelligence community. dealing with a lot of users, consumers, across all those organizations i could see two direct results. if what i provided them with their preconceptions, i heard how brilliant guy was. [laughter] and the of what i gave them conflicted with that, that is a bunch of garbage. where did you come up with those ideas? so there is a reality -- we may work to produce, and the consumer or user may or may not have an open mind. >> if i could make one quick input. as shocking as it may seem, i rented to that same problem. [laughter] >> we have a question back there, yes, sir? >> [inaudible]

>> i do not think it was phrased exactly that way. but the reality was, president reagan was absolutely committed to rebuilding our defense capabilities as well as the intelligence capabilities. he particularly focused on the reality of the need for expanding conventional forces. soviets saw that as a major challenge. once said that if we do not invest more in smart conventional forces, we are going to fall behind in the superpower status. the answer he got back, they could not afford to spend more in the process. so as not a deliberate effort to bankrupt the soviet union. it was a deliberate effort to build the scale of forces in capabilities that president reagan thought this country needed to have.

>> governor wilson, you have a question. >> [inaudible] 0 was our ability to assess the capability of the soviet effort in the field? the inference clearly [inaudible] be on the technological capacity. >> first of all -- >> the question was, what were the sources of our knowledge of associate -- of assessing the soviet dci system?

>> i do not want to mess up happy hour. [laughter] sdi, the concept, because the soviets saw themselves at behind the curve, and admiral inman mention one statement, he was at the time recommending, he said, i think i quoted as i, nuclear war is the war that can never be fought and won. and some people took that out and said that he was a peacenik, which is not what he was saying during instead of spending all our money on this, we should spend money on things where we might actually get some play. he was trying to reallocate the money -- they saw that and we had played information on that, we saw that as the balance. so that know if we did actually have a strategic missile defense

system that actually work, they may have thought we could do it, and some on our side were not sure that we could do it, that would tip the whole scale and put them in a situation of having to deal with it. interestingly enough, the rest -- the description was a simple case -- i am going to give you an abstract and political science. the policy makers try to make a deal, a faction will blow his head off that they cannot accept it. sdi with the soviet general. he could not say yes to all of these other things while not stopping sdi. i am reducing at the same time this other guy is blowing up his defense. it was the total deal breaker. [inaudible] >> to violate sdi?

>> we had a substantial disagreement with them in the intelligence community. there were some people that they were far ahead of the where they actually were, and it turns out reality was that there were much further behind than even the advocates thought. so there was a combination that they did not have the technical capacity and they did not have the resources to spend. >> and that was exactly -- they were already seeing themselves as the times. when they saw sdi, even the concept was something they saw on our side has something that we could could not, but it was their perception that that was going to completely tipped the scales in the u.s. favor. >> they thought that we would do it. >> i am getting the sign, and as much as i would like to go on,

of like to take our panelists for this illuminating discussion. we have a break coming. duke, how much do we want to take? five minutes. and then we will start the next panel. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this final panel looks at intelligence. the soviet union and the opening of the berlin wall in the 1980's from a policy perspective. speakers include historians, authors, and cia deputy director of intelligence peter clement. >> see what i could do. >> ok, now it is time for the second panel. i think the first one was fascinating. i do wish we had more time but they will be available afterwards if you want to ask

more personal questions. the only thing i asked is that after this panel, we're going to have questions and answers, but we really need people to use the microphone. c-span is covering this and we have a student group taping is. it is difficult picked up the sound of the questions, even those who can project. we will have people actually holding the microphones. if you want to raise your hand, the person will come to you. now like to invite back up to the podium -- actually, he is going to rund panel. petet. >> thank you, duke. we're going to be focusing on the issue of the policy makers perspective of the uses of intelligence and how it actually directs, hopefully, the decision making process or informs it. just on a personal note, i have to tell this story. in the current position i am and, i spend a lot of time looking at the arab spring. one of the things i've told so

many of our newer analysts now working the tough area in the middle east, candidly saying that in my lifetime in the agency and after 33 years, this is the single biggest event for me analytically, the challenges of the arab spring, has the collapse of the soviet union. it is seismic. i can distinctly recall in 1985 around march 10 or march 11, i took my very first trip to the soviet union and i landed in moscow denied that turned into a dive. -- the night that chernekov died. some of my family thought that there was a connection. [laughter] but the absolute sense of excitement as a young analyst at the time, because of your young

criminologist, there's nothing more important than being at a funeral. analyzing it was speaking, who is leading, who is standing around, and the decisions that have to go into it says -- selecting the next general secretary, and we had just been through -- this is our third death in about three years of a general secretary. and there is a great amount of anticipation about the future. we've seen three rather old, on help the leaders selected. i wonder if this time they will pick someone poured junior who has more energy. and there were a fair number of us who were betting it was going to be gorbachev, despite rumors it might be someone named grecian. it did turn out to be gorbachev and it was a amazing period of turmoil and change and analysis in that office. i still get energized how exciting a periodic was delivered. so with that, i want to get the death matters of hand about the

impact of intelligence, how it interacts with policy. we have four very distinguished and talented speakers here. i will quickly go through the four speakers and into the for speaker, mary sarotte, associate professor currently at usc. she is recently published a wonderful book that the book of the year award from the financial times. look forward her promoted. it is a terrific books on the event surrounding the collapse of the berlin wall. not going to go through the entire seat on every speaker. but if you go to pages 66-69, you can read all the fine print of this very talented group. i had the pleasure to work with them and they pass. is that iran the institute. in an earlier life, he worked at

the council of economic intelligence. also is the vice chairman of the nic, where he worked on the production of national intelligence estimates, which many speakers spoke about on glass panel. i'm sure that he will have a lot to offer on that process. thrilled toay, i'm meet him for the first time. he is the author of the classic work, "stolid and the bomb." a professor of stanford, and he is a top-rated expert in the field. it's published widely on international nuclear issues and the history of nuclear issues. our last speaker, annelise anderson, a distinguished fellow at the hoover institute, and she has recently published another widely read book which i have in front of me, "reagan's secret war --the untold story of

his fight to save the world from nuclear disaster." she has written the friday books and i feeling she has a lot of personal insights into president reagan to add. if we could turn to our first speaker, professors sarotte. >> i feel very honored to stand before the saudis. i like to thank you for serving in this audience. i know you served in the intelligence branch. given that the hour is getting -- jetting you need a microphone. >> that fine gentleman can help you. can you hear me now? no, they cannot hear me. >> can you stand at the podium? >> i am micced up. should i move it up? is that better? take two. hello. given that it is late in the

afternoon, i thought i would do some emphasis to keep us all away. i'm going to talk a little bit about one of the findings from my books that intersects with today. the uses of intelligence by the leaders -- ok. it works. tear down this wall, intelligence and contingency. one of the many challenges facing the intelligence community is of course predicting something one of foreign government does not even know it is going to do. the actual opening of the berlin wall is a classic example. i am going to talk very briefly about the transition from president reagan to president bush, says it was actually on a lot of george h.w. bush said a wall finally opened, although president reagan had the great impact. and then i will show you a four- minute video clip of the opening of the law, and say a few words

on intelligence. this is a map of cold war europe during reagan's presidency. you see here the border between east and west germany. this is a map of my childhood and the top of many people in the room. berlin was an island inside east germany. berlin was further subsidized edition of. it was encircled by the berlin wall, west berlin, and cut west berlin off from east berlin. and of course president reagan -- president reagan! president reagan famously went to berlin in june 1987, and images of him here and in the museum exhibits that we toured earlier today, president reagan, there he is, standing in front of the berlin wall. there is helmut kohl, and this is the famous teardown this

wall. but the actual opening took place two years later, november 9, 1989, after vice-president george h.w. bush was there in january 1989. it was at the end of 1988. the events of 1989 were as unexpected as what was going on now in the arab spring, and was very difficult to predict what would happen. of course we know now that what happened in 1989 in europe was peaceful, but bear in mind by comparison the example tiannamen square, the same day that poland had semi-free election, the same day that the chinese communist party decided to use the people's liberation army against the people to clear tianammen square. this was torn down by chairman

mao and they had cleared the square. bear in mind that we know the outcome of the events in 1989 were peaceful, but it was not apparent at the time. so was very breathtaking with the east german government decided to respond to the massive street protests and took their inspiration from the solidarity movement in poland, going on since 1981, but had become a truly manifest in east germany. you see here the city, the remote does not quite work, the city of leipzig, there started to be truly massive protests in east germany. it was looking like the east german government might follow the chinese example. the most recent piece i did was between the east german politburo and the chinese politburo, where they were great

concerns that these kind of protests such as in let's say, and dresden, and others could end in similar binds. but that did that happen. we know that what did happen -- what did happen -- [laughter] what did happen, of course, was the peaceful overcoming of the berlin wall. this is one of the great examples of contingency in history. the east german government did not intend to open the berlin wall. the east german government, despite what gorbachev was doing, despite the connection with reagan in the united states, and found very sympathetic ears in beijing, and was trying very hard to seal its borders and maintain control of the country. massive popular protests, millions of people on the streets, finally forced them to

do two things. they decided to hot start holding press conferences, a really bad idea. there's no incentive to develop media skills if you are on the east german politburo. so they decided to start holding press conferences and decided to announce a relatively moderate change in the travel laws. this is not been very well understood, and even the voice- over on the video was not accurate. they decided to make it easier to apply for a visa to leave the country. but you still have have a passport, which was a whole other bureaucratic endeavour, and what you had a passport, you the file an application and then you could be told way you could leave the country or not. but the politburo that had to announce this at a press conference did not really understand the complicated change. so i'm going to show you a few minutes, his press conference

where he bungles this announcement about a visa regulations, and in the immediate consequences as the flabbergasted border guards are confronted with tens of thousands of people demanding to cross over. all right. so we just have to advance it all of that. >> two minister said some time. -- two minister say some time. >> nothing had been announced. [german speaking] >> the news flashed around the city. east germans rushed to the wall

to see. the border guards were baffled. >> we did not give any instructions from our superiors, none. >> i observe the situation. we tried many times to speak to our security, but nobody got back to us. [speaking german] >> you have to bear in mind that our soldiers were fully armed as an all day and they had one order. to in that order was to stop anyone trying to escape. but the crowds were huge, now. suddenly the guards gave in.

that opened the barriers. [cheers and applause] >> they open the borders and took no countermeasures. they did not consult or get my approval. [cheers and applause] [speaking german] >> i found myself and a group of

people who are applauding. i did not understand right away like. then i realized i really was in west berlin and they had crossed the border and they were applauding us. there were all crying in embracing each other. even now when i look back, my heart is racing. it was so moving. [speaking german] >> west berliners all right from the other direction. they began to demolish the wall in front of the brandenburg gate.

>> alright, so that was a clip from the -- [applause] i wish i could take credit for it. i did not work on that video series. there are probably people that did. it was from the cnn cold war video series. i wanted to show that brief clip the so that this results -- this is a picture of a unified europe, roughly the european union today, that was the consequence of what happened that evening. what happened that evening was not supposed to happen. it is an example of contingency in history and one of the main challenges that intelligence collector faces. since the east german government itself had been organizing a crackdown, says the interest in tianammen, adding extra blood reserves taken to hospital, if you have access to that information you require

reasonably come to the conclusion that another tainammen square was about happen in the east german. this east german politburo member mobile and announcement and said all wall was opened, something very difficult to predict. in that case, president george h.w. bush and we see him here with his secretary of state can baker, they had very different challenge on hand. an unexpected event, and you have a long-term intelligence like the economy in the state of the country, it was clear then that east germany was going to collapse, and the discussion of the soviet economy, some dire predictions as well. there's times when intelligence is very useful but there are times when it is overtaken by events. this is one of the classic examples of that happening. that is why i decided to write a

book about that. so i think i have exhausted my 15 minutes but thank you very much for your time. [applause] >> thanks. it is a pleasure to be here with old colleagues and friends. i have lit for tenure is to see him back here physically, and a library has been a wonderful addition not only to the ballet but also the nation. i had the opportunity to get asked a good question by a british magazine, what should we expect of our intelligence services? not should we -- like should we want, like omniscience, but what should we reasonably expect? and i doubt reflecting on are subject to it that today, intelligence and the fall of the soviet union. soviet union.