but will you tie it in to help cure or not? caller: -- host: we have to leave it there. here are some of the facebook, and we have gotten. -- here are some of the facebook comments we have gotten the. and then we will move on to market. -- those are some of the facebook comments that we have gotten so far this morning. back to your comments on president obama and the supreme

court remarks. huntsville, alabama. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i agree with president obama. in the supreme court, when they made the decision that it business as delina and mel rojas presidential race, this became a code -- a political action committee. that is my comment. host: thank you. from "the new york times" --

host: tom and our republican line. you are on "washington journal." what you think about president obama, the supreme court, and health care remarks? caller: number one, i think the problem wit de >> we are going live now to the national press club, internal revenue service

commissioner douglas shulman is speaking this afternoon. he is speaking about the irs, better customer service, better enforcement of the tax code kamal coming up as the modernization. >> as the person in charge of collecting taxpayer dollars, his words are closely followed by lawmakers and by many of us in this room today. doug chelan oversees nearly 100,000 employees and a budget of almost $12 billion. he has managed a $300 million balance -- budget cuts and challenges that have raised questions about the irs's ability to inform tax compliance, conduct audits, and provide quality customer service. just a few weeks ago, he requested an 8% budget increase from congress to make up for

those losses. i'm sure we will hear more about that today. commissioner showman came to the irs from the financial regulatory authority. the private sector regulator of security firms doing business in the united states. he also served as vice chairman of the national association of securities dealers where he played an integral role in restructuring the organization. he led negotiations of the sale of nasdaq stock market and the american stock exchange, oversaw the launch of industrywide market transparency and modernize technology operations. earlier in his career, commissioner shulman co-founded teach for america and was integral and several start-ups organizations. he will day -- as degree from williams and mary college, a master's from harvard john f. kennedy school of government and he holds a degree from

georgetown university law center. please give a warm welcome to douglas shulman. [applause] >> thank you, theresa. it is good to be back at the national press club. i have done this in the last couple of years. right as we round up filing season at the end, as we approach april 15, april 17 this year, spring is a great time in washington. the flowers are blooming, the trees are blooming, lots of kids are here on spring break. anyone who visits washington also is always impressed by the permanence and the timelessness of the buildings, the statues, the colonnades. it really speaks to the legacy of this great nation. and in my job, as someone

responsible for an important institution in government, it reminds me of the people who have come before me trying to make this government a little bit better and the country better. and it reminds me of the enormous progress that men and women have made over the years trying to move the nation forward. i am always impressed by the creativity and innovation that ec institutions, both private sector and -- that you see in institutions, both private sector and public. many of the statues that you see when you walk around washington are of men and women who were not a part -- not afraid to embrace new ideas, not afraid to challenge the past way of doing things and to come up with new ideas and move them forward. i am also a fan of continuous improvement. that is what we try to do at the

irs. there are a number of great quotations about improvement, one is from ibm's thomas watson. he says that whenever an individual or a business decides that success has been attained, progress stops. i am a big believer that when your response before an institution like the irs -- responsible for an institution like arar's, the job is to build on the successes of the past and then try to push the agency forward to the next level. that is what i've tried to do with me and my senior team at the irs. if you look back at the irs, there is a lot of press coverage of the irs in the mid-1990s, and it was not all positive. since that time, there has been a major reorganization of the irs, and we have had a sustained arc of progress, very different

from the beginning in the 1990's. if you look in the rearview mirror, there was a time the irs was thought of as an organization mired in the past, one that had not kept pace with advances in technology, one that was slow to adapt and embrace emerging best practices in things like analytics and compliance, and also in customer service, and one that was slow to recognize any vaulting taxpayer base, including increasing the fact that many of the taxpayers were operating in a much more global economy. but i would argue that standing before you today, standing on the shoulders of predecessors and others who moved the institution forward, we have made a lot of lasting progress

at the irs that will serve the nation and the tax system well for the years to come. as irs commissioner, as teresa mentioned, it is a big institution. i have 100,000 employees. we view ourselves as a financial services institution. most of those employees are interacting, trying to get refunds back to taxpayers, in directing with businesses, nonprofits, moving vast amounts of money for over 235 million customers. people often ask me how you get an institution that big to move forward. i would argue that there are two key prerequisites. there are many pieces of that answer. first, you've got to set the right strategy, and make sure it is one that people inside and outside the institute -- institution can believe in and understand. and second, you have to stay very focused.

i am a believer in a relentless and myopic focus on priorities, and not getting distracted by too many crises or incoming demands. and making sure that you communicate your priorities in a very clear manner. this is much easier said than done, especially in a large government agency where there are a lot of things coming at you. but say -- staying focused and consistent for multiple years is a key to success. today, what i want to do is share with you some of the results of four years of relentless focus on an handful of key strategic priorities that we set for the irs. these priorities were creating new capabilities and efficiencies through technologies, rethinking henry imagining our relationship with

the paid -- rethinking and re imagining our leisure with the paetec prepare, leveraging debt to improve our operation, enhancing our service capabilities, transforming the agency to confront a global economy, and positioning the irs work force to make sure we are prepared for tomorrow's challenges. let me take them each in turn, and begin with our efforts to modernize our technology. and specifically focus on one critical program that we call the customer account data engine portlock or cade 2. many people have seen the footage from the 1960's. we're very earnest looking people who load huge tapes into mainframe computers. it is the first time we started using technology to perform than magical feat of automated data

processing. if you fast forward 40 years, although the tapes are a lot smaller and there are no longer people moving the tapes but robotic arms, the irs is still actually operating with some of the core systems and basic technologies that were built in the 1960's. you might ask yourself why. that is a complicated question. there are at least three things. first, because it works. the irs was one of the first institutions to deploy data processing on a large scale. and some of our original technologies, ones that hold hundreds of millions of taxpayer accounts and billions and trillions of pieces of data on taxpayers, were truly engineering marvels of their time. the problem is, now there are not a lot of people who remember

how to keep running those systems and those people are dwindling. it is hard to keep them up and running. the second reason our systems are so old is because we have actually built an elaborate set of your systems on top of those older systems. -- newer systems on top of those older systems. some of the things like running calls or exams elections are being run on top of the old systems. but we also have a complicated, in a related set of systems that when you try to unbundle those, it makes the job even harder. the third reason we have been operating on old technology is because there has been a reluctance to fund our technology in a way commensurate with our mission. we spend less than 3% of our budget on long-term enhancements to our information technology

infrastructure. if you compare this to other private sector financial institutions, none of which come close to matching the number of customers that we need to support, that percentage is shockingly low. i would argue we have been underfunded for many years in the technology space. president obama has proposed a much-needed substantial increase in irs technology, really, reflecting in large part our critical mission. with all of these factors in mind, when i arrived at the irs, we initiated a broad review of our technology portfolio. and we pruned that portfolio. we shut down a bunch of projects -- back to focus. and we started focusing projects on the most visible and complex issue that had been holding us back for decades. since the 1960's, we have been conducting our core account

processing on a weekly basis, weekly batch cycles. this process includes the basic tax information in your account, how much your balance is outstanding, whether you have made any recent payments. to put it into perspective, in the past when you sent in your tax return, we would receive it. it would be a week before we would process it and maybe another week before another piece of technology process it. if you called to check on it, we might say, call back in a couple of weeks when it is posted. i'm very pleased to report that this year, the irs successfully migrated from a weekly processing cycle to a daily processing cycle. this was a multi-year, incredibly complex undertaking, that went to the heart of our systems that process trillions of dollars in tax revenue. it is an incredibly important

milestone for the irs, and one that we first embarked on in the late 1980's. the payoff from this improvement -- put your tax return processing for all taxpayers, up-to-date information at the fingertips of our account representatives, and a platform for much more real time data analytics and compliant. it is already benefiting taxpayers this year, and this upgrade in our technology is going to produce major benefits for the nation's tax system for years to come. our next long-term priority was looking at how we interact with paid a tax return preparers. let me tell you why we took this on. right now, many people in this room and across the country in the viewing audience are wrestling with and tackling one of the biggest financial

transactions every year, that is, filing and paying your taxes, or hopefully getting a refund from the federal government. however, in the past 20 or 30 years, the way the taxpayers go about finding their taxes has dramatically changed. today, nine out of 10 taxpayers use either a paid tax return preparer, or software that they have purchased to file their taxes. despite the fact that this is a huge financial transaction and now there is a set of intermediaries that actually facilitate the transaction, when i arrived at the irs, there were no basic competency requirements for tax return preparers. in most states, you need a license to cut somebody's hair. but just a few years ago, you did not need any sort of certification, testing, etc., or basic level of competency to

file someone's taxes. i am the irs commissioner, bias that taxes are more important than how your hair looks. [laughter] other people view that differently. and i'm always looking for a point of leverage with the irs. where are we going to spend our limited resources? our return preparer initiative is just that. one way to look at it is that we shifted from a retail approach where we dealt with one taxpayer at a time into a wholesale approach, where we are starting to focus more on preparers, so we can deal with 100 or 1000 at a time. that is what i mean by leverage. to give you a sense of scale, 95 million individual and business income tax returns were prepared by paid preparers in 2011, and that does not include people who use do-it-yourself software. $5.70 trillion of income was reported through paid preparers.

given the importance of the paid preparers to the tax community, we are now well on our way to ensuring that there is a basic level of competency in the tax preparer community. we have registered 840,000 tax preparers in the last year-and- a-half, and we have begun administering a competent to test and requiring continuing education for all prepares to are not cpa's, lawyers, or enrolled agents. our next priority is leveraging data analytics in order to continually improve our operations. we are very information intensive as an enterprise. and a key to our success is taking in the information, organizing it, and then analyzing it in a way that is intelligent, figuring out where to deploy resources and how we

are going to act on the information. during the last couple of years, we have built a team of people with analytic expertise, and connected them very closely with our business units in an effort to continually improve operations. they're working on multiple fronts and have had a lot of impressive results for the nation's tax system. let me give you one example of how we are leveraging data analytics and how it connects into the last two things i talked about. using better data that we now have on return preparers that we have gotten from registering return preparers as well as faster processing cycles, so we can get that data more in real time tax returns because we have cade 2 plaze, we have applied advanced data analytics that show potentially serious compliance issues with the individual preparer who prepares

them. what we identify -- once we identify these returns, we quickly have gone out to preparers can use a variety of compliance treatments -- and used a variety of compliance treatments to stop fraudulent payment, or if there are just mistakes being made, to alert people to the mistakes and get things fixed early in the filing season. but we are testing different techniques in a much more real time and based on those results, we will continue to feed that into our operations and leave of our programs. the results are still early. it is early in the process in the piece that we are doing this year. but as we have a continuous feedback loop of data analytics moving into places where we see noncompliance, we will drive that kind of learning into our operations. in addition to finding and stopping more fraud this year,

by combining our data analytics team from our audits teams, are preparer teams, our technology teams cannot or ordaz we are building a lot of intelligence and -- technology teams, we are building a lot of ability to detect noncompliance and in act compliant earlier. the irs is not just about compliance. while popular culture links the three letters irs with compliance and enforcement, the intoh is that the irs oug racks with the overwhelming majority of the violations to agree on a customer service basis. and providing customer service is every bit as important to our mission as enforcing the tax laws. we provided numerous options for assisting taxpayers, from our publications to our website, to

our toll-free line, to in person options. the list goes on. every year, the customer service at a section index measures customer service and satisfaction across a variety of industries and sectors of the economy. and it also does work with government agencies. we have a lot of madrak at the irs, but the main one that our senior management team, our oversight board tracks tuesday, how we are doing -- to see how we are doing generally is the customer's satisfaction index. in 1998, we hit rock bottom. on the index that goes to 100, we have 32. it showed deep dissatisfaction with the general interactions with the irs. but over time, we have moved forward and i'm very pleased that last year, 2011, we had an historic high of 73.

that gives us a piece of feedback that across all of our programs, we continue to make significant progress in the customer service are we now. -- customer service arena. however, as leaders of a big organization, i remind our folks that we will never be satisfied. we cannot rest on our laurels. we have an ever-increasing job. we have been handed new responsibilities. the tax code is getting more complex. and the budget has recently been cut. we're going to need to stay on top of our game innovating if we're going to keep those scores going. that me mention a couple of innovations, the kinds of things you ought to keep doing at the irs. one is e-filing. it is one of the most successful programs in government. 15 years ago, 16% of taxpayers

of electronically filed their returns. last year, 77% of individual taxpayers file their returns. this has great benefits for taxpayers. you get your refunds faster. all of the data comes in electronically, which -- rather than sending in a piece of paper that we code, that could have a coding error and cause a problem down the line. but it also is greater efficiency for government. it costs about 15 cents to process an electronically filed returns. it costs about $3.50 to process a paper return. this has been a huge success and we will keep pushing that. another example of where we have innovated is our use of new media. i always talk about that as an agency that serves every american, we need to meet people on their own terms where they want to be met.

that is why we still have walk- in centers in some places because people still want to see face-to-face interaction. but last year, week unveiled the iphone or android app called "irs to go." you can now track your refunds on your smart phone and a variety of other information on -- from the irs. you can expect to see us continue to internet -- to innovate because we will need to do that to serve taxpayers well. let me shift and talk about how the irs is managing its responsibilities in an increasingly global world. we live in a world where products are produced routinely intellectual property is developed in one country, logistics and engineering than happens in another country -- one or more countries -- risks

are managed in a variety of other countries, and components are sourced from yet other countries. when you actually take the product to market, it can be quite a challenge to figure out what the proper u.s. corporate income tax is. not only are corporations operating in a -- in a global world, but individuals are, too. people with modest income with retirement savings usually have something global exposure through their 401k. this shift to a more global world produces challenges to the irs. -- for the irs. offshore big dent in canno tax evasion as a major priority. we cannot have a tax system where wealthy people are hiding assets offshore and not paying their taxes, and schoolteachers

and firemen and ordinary americans are getting paid through a paycheck, having their taxes withheld and sent right to the irs, and footing the bill for people who are invading tax as offshore. over the last four years, we have significantly increased our resources and our focus on offshore tax evasion. the results have been very substantial. we upped the ante in a meaningful way with work on swiss financial institutions, where for the first time in history, the bank secrecy jurisdiction turned over thousands of names and account numbers to the irs. as we have increased our enforcement efforts, we also created a new voluntary disclosure program. we have had the program for many years, and usually about 100 people come in and say, i want to disclose something i've done wrong. i will pay a serious penalty, but avoid going to jail. when we broke -- open this

program up a couple of years ago we thought we would get maybe a thousand people. we have gotten 33,000 people so far and disclose offshore bank accounts. today, we brought in just through the voluntary disclosure more than $4.4 billion, and that number continues to grow. we have also brought in a lot of information about intermediaries, bankers, banks, and taxpayers through that. that will allow us to continue pressing in this area. collecting all of this money for past misdeeds and punishing people who broke the law is only part of the story. perhaps, the more important part of the story is the deterrence story. i think we are well on our way to stopping the next generation of people from even thinking about hiding assets overseas. we have fundamentally changed

the risk out keyless for advisers who would potentially facilitate offshore evasion, for banks that would potentially take assets from americans, and from -- and for send their money overseas. we are also upping our game in the large business arena, particularly in the international arena. we shifted our strategy so we much more mirrored the tax planning strategies of corporations when we think about compliance issues. we also increase coordination with our counterparts globally. i am a chairman of a group of my counterparts in 43 nations, including all of the g-20 nations and we moved to a war needed action, offshore invasion, but also doing joint audits with a major corporations, so there is real coordinated actions. let me conclude with a couple of

the last pieces that we are quite proud of as far as progress. one is people. i am a big believer as the leader of any institution, that if you want to do service and compliance well, whatever your mission is, you need to make sure people show up every day ready to do their job, which means, as leaders, you need to make sure people feel respected, they are engaged, they are accountable. we put a bit coca's on people the last few years. -- we put a big focus on people the last few years. from culture, to making sure people in the field of the right technology to get the job done. we are quite pleased with the results of trying to move a 100,000 person organization forward on the people front. from 2008 until 2011, we jumped from eighth place to third place among the 15 largest agencies with over 20,000 employees in

the best place to work in government survey. so, while we have a lot of work to do going forward, we continue to focus on our people and and the federal government for the next generation of the tax system. that is our pro-active agenda. on top of this, in recent years, we have also been called on to execute some of the key policy priorities of this country. i call this final category of work that we have done in coming priorities, because it is much -- must do work for the nation. we are now recognized as an efficient and effective government agency to carry out high-profile initiatives. a couple of examples -- in the recovery act, when the nation was really having questions about was this recession going to become a depression, in the government had to step in in a serious way, $300 billion or

bank about one-third of the recovery act was pushed out through the tax system. 95% of americans were part of the "making work pay" credit so they got extra money through the irs into their bank account, and we did something through the expanded net operating loss where people can get a longer time, and this tax return, operating losses and clawback some of the money from previous years -- we put tens of billions of dollars into businesses right at the time the credit markets were frozen. we have also recently been asked to play a significant role in the affordable care act because much of the money flows in that piece of legislation are effectuate it through the tax system. the lesson here for us is that we need to be nimble and we need to be agile when we are called on to do something to support

the country. so, four years ago, we set out with a clear strategy and a very intense focus on six strategic priorities -- technology modernization, tax return preparers, data analytics, taxpayer service, offshore tax evasion, and our people. the economic downturn and new policy directions at it two other major initiatives to our agenda, but by staying focused and explaining our strategy consistently to our employees and to the stake holders of the irs, we have made significant headway in all of those areas and made a lasting positive change in our nation's tax system, which will position it will to serve the american people for years to come. with that, i want to thank you all for listening and i would be

happy to answer your questions. [applause] >> how big of a problem is fraud on the part of paid tax preparers? >> for the vast majority of tax -- the vast majority of tax preparers are honest, ethical, hard-working, and provide a great service to both the tax system and the country. the problem is, there are unscrupulous preparers who, one, bring down the reputation of all the great preparers who are out there, but also, the real problem with unscrupulous preparers is it is the taxpayer left holding the bag at the end of the day. if you go to a prepare, they jacked up your refund, tell you you are going to get this big

refund and you deserve it, when you don't, you get $3,000, you spend it, we then figure it out -- the repair has packed up shop and you are left holding the bag. it is a small number of people that are unscrupulous, but those are people we need to make sure we are focused on so the taxpayers get good treatment. >> why do you feel it is in the taxpayers' best interest in place higher regulations on tax preparers rather than simplifying the tax code? >> when we pursue our tax return preparer initiative, which we call that, we did it in a very deliberate and a very public way, which is the way i think any big institution like ours that affects a lot of people should operate. and so, first, without having

any preconceived notion about should we do something, shouldn't we do something, and if so, what should we do, we went and held public hearings across the country, most of which i attended, and got feedback. overwhelmingly, taxpayers, public interest groups, prepares themselves said it is ridiculous there is no basic level of compensate become the to see in that preparer and you should do something. what action to put out a blueprint and said, here is what we think should be done. we got lots of feedback from that. from that, we then moved to put out regulations and each time we put out a set of regulations we had public comment on those regulations, so we adjust of those as we have gone. and so, the result, we think, is a very balanced set of both service and compliance initiatives. a basic competency tests for

paid tax preparers to make sure people have a basic understanding of the law in -- by the way, if you already are a preparer you have three years to pass that. but also, through the process, we got a lot of feedback on things we should change, places we should tweak, and most of that, we took. the other part of the question, which is, should the tax code be simplified? the answer is, absolutely yes. in the meantime, we have a tax code that is very complex and we want to make sure -- if people pay a professional, that that professional is competent and ethical. >> what is your response to the lawsuit challenging your power to regulate tax preparers. >> you know, i am a huge fan of democracy and a big believer of the three branches of government. anyone can use the courts who

want to use the courts. as i just said, we went through an extensive process to land where we did, and i am very confident. not only everything we are doing is going to be seen as a legal, but more importantly, everything we are doing, i think, is going to benefit the american people. >> you said nine of 10 people use either a paid tax preparer or software -- what percentage uses the software and is that increasing? >> the percentage is increasing. the latest numbers are 60% to 65% using paid preparers and the rest using software. it moves back and forth and there are quite a few people we use both -- they have software but then get answers from their preparers, etcetera, so it is a moving target. >> with gasoline prices on the seemingly endless upward spiral, will the irs increased the standard mileage rate mid-year

again? >> a very specific question. we have a formula that looks at what the standard mileage rate should be, and this is the reimbursable rate. we look at changes and fluctuations, and we do it once a year. occasionally, when there has been a big change come upward or downward, we will do it need year, and we always look at midyear to see if it is appropriate. pimm what is the agency doing to combat identity theft? >> most people know that the fastest growing financial crime in this country is identity theft, which is someone stealing a purse or wallet, getting hold of a social security number and a credit card, and using that for mischief. unfortunately, some people who do that -- and identity theft is

not an issue that evidence -- emanates from the irs -- sometimes they try to use that identity to get a false refund. we have an aggressive program around that. last year we stopped $14 billion of refunds from going out the door that had some indicia of fraue. -- fradu. we continually change our filters to stop fraudulent refunds. last year we put in place a new program where if you have been a victim of identity theft, the context is this is outside the tax system, but somebody might come in to the tax system and try to get a refund using your social security number. you can call us and we will give you a pin with a six-digit

number. if you use that six-digit pin, your refund will fly through. if anybody else uses your social security number, that refund will be blocked. because we saw there was an escalating problem, this year in coordination with the justice apartment in january we did a nationwide criminal sweep of people who had used identity theft in the tax system. we had 100 people who were subjected to arrest, search warrants, or indictment in a one-week period in january, which sent a strong schilling statement out to folks, which is if they commit identity theft they had better not use the tax system to do so, or we will be on the beach. we have tripled the number of people dedicated to general identity theft issues, and this includes the victim assistance. when somebody comes in, where somebody has stolen their identity, and they are having a

problem getting their refunds, we have more people dedicated to unravel that problem for them. >> there are many tax cuts, tax laws that expire at the end of this year. t "the wall street journal" calls it taxageddon. >> one of the jobs he takes seriously is to make sure that as americans wrestle with a complex tax code that it is a seamless experience for them. unfortunately, congress has gotten in the habit the last several years -- at least since i have been here -- passing tax legislation very late. a lot of that is that his patient that has already expired

to give you an example, this year there are three different things happening. there are tax cuts from two dozen 1 and 2003 are set to expire at the end of this year. the payroll tax cut is set to expire at the end of this year. the most important and complicated issue is there is a whole bunch of tax cuts that expired several months ago and are already expired, which include the amt and things called extenders, which include deductions that schoolteachers take for buying supplies for their classrooms -- those have already expired. if contest does not act until late in the year, next year, say, after the election, we will have a risk in the system. we may have to do what we had to do two years ago, which is delayed the opening of filing season for a whole number of people.

if congress cannot act by the end of the year, and even starts to think about retroactive legislation of things like the amt, you could have a real disaster in the filing season where there is total confusion, where some people are filing under what law and then under another. it is an issue we're tracking closely and we are quite concerned about, and we are hopeful these pieces of legislation will pass sooner rather than later. >> do you think we can ever expect to see a simpler tax code? >> yes. [laughter] the statistics are going in the wrong direction now, but i am an optimist. there have been 3000 changes to the tax code since 2000, so we have a very complex tax code. i think there is broad political consensus, both

parties, the administration and congress, all would like to see a simpler tax code. the problem is i had a friend when i took this job and he said, the problem with taxes it is real money. every change to the tax code, even simplification, can mean some people might pay less, some people might pay more. it is hard to do, but i think we're hitting a critical mass of sentiment brown the country that something needs to be done about the tax code. >> some leaders are calling for an end to the mortgage tax credit, and what you think those effects would be? >> look, the more it deduction is an important detection. we have at -- the mortgage deduction is an important detection. we have an economy on the rebound and the housing market that is looking better than it did before 4, so i would not

speculate on something that is not in the works. i will leave it to somebody else to speculate on something that may or may not ever happen. >> you stated that the irs technology portfolio is significantly deficient and far behind the private sector. how secure is taxpayer information from hackers who have gained access to files of certain financial institutions? >> let me clarify my comment. my comments were we have been underfunded for many years, and we are operating on some old technology, and this year we had a major breakthrough in upgrading the core piece of technology we need to upgrade. we are making progress and now in a significant way, and it is phenomenal we have been able to run the tax system every year on the older technology we have got. regarding data security, it is

something we take very, very seriously. we have had no perimeter breaches from hackers. we have got a set of people doing cybersecurity in a very serious way, and we have had extensive internal security that we have put in place. i tell everybody my first hour as irs commissioner i got sworn in, there was a safety briefing, and an information security briefing. that is how seriously we take it, and our people take this all very seriously. the american people can feel very confident that their data is secure at the irs. >> given it is so much cheaper for the irs to processed electronically filed returns, what are you doing to encourage e-filing? >> we moved from 16% to 77% the

filing in the last 15 years. that number is continuing to go up. there are people who want to file on paper, and we still provide that option. last year we actually mandated repairs -- paid preparers had to file electronically if they filed more than 100 returns. i have seen returns that have clearly been prepared on a computer that somebody had printed out, sent to us, and we had people typing in that return. that does not seem efficient and a good use of dollars. this led us to mandate these things. the trend is moving in the direction. people are more and more using technology. there will be a time when

everything will be electronic, but we also have an obligation to every american, not just the americans who use a computer. there are some people who do not use a computer for a variety of reasons, and as the number , and e-file will continue. several >> province said they would not be spending money on political elections. why did you not revoke their status? >> i am not aware of any of these specific cases. not addressing any specific nonprofit or any detailed information someone has or does not have, 501-c4 organizations are social welfare organizations that are generally under the tax

code promoting the common good. they are allowed to engage in political activity as long as it is not their primary activity. our job is to administer the tax laws. commons 501-c4's organization, some apply, he did not need to apply, you can hold yourself out. all have to file a form 990. when any taxpayer filed their forms, we have a set of screens we put them through, and when we see an issue with a 501-c4, 501- c3, we will do an audit and gather more facts. >> he said 73% satisfaction with the irs, and that is considered below average.

what are you doing to continued satisfaction? >> >the question asks about the overall filing experience, and it continues to move up. the irs has a ubiquitous brand, and off as people think about enforcement. when you get a question about the irs, they have a knee-jerk reaction -- no/ what we are doing is doing our job. we're making sure when you call we give you accurate information. our people are polite. make sure when we do an audit we have competent people who find problems when there are problems and walk away when there are not any problems. we make sure we have more and better web applications so if you want to do your job with us over the internet, you do your job with us over the internet. we make sure prepare worst are qualified, and the list goes on. our job at the end of the day is to do all the things we're

supposed to do for the people, and those numbers will go up. while i will not compare us to kids in school and their grades, what i will tell you is it is the highest number we have ever had that shows continued improvement for the irs. >> there are hundreds of thousands of undocumented documented, undocumented aliens in the usa. is the irs doing anything to collect taxes on these aliens? >> it is a great question, and one of the pathways to citizenship that people believe is a good one is if you are not in this country legally to pay taxes. our job is to make sure if you work in this country and you have a tax obligation that you file a tax return, and that is what's we try to do. our job is around what exactly

who wrote the question asked, to make sure taxes are paid. we're not responsible for the other parts of immigration law and policy. you have a lot of people in this country who pay taxes who are not here legally, who file returns, said they can show a track record of being good citizens. the people who are being good members of society, they are contributing to national defense, contributing to our roads, schools, and that is what we want. we try to run the system in a fair way that allows to everybody to pay taxes who needs to pay taxes. >> last year you indicated you had a check -- you had to check with your wife for a second term. did you get permission? >> i have a term that ends this fall. my plan is to serve out that

term, but to leave at the end of my term. what i would say is this is a great institution. it has a phenomenal chondrite of leaders who are well positioned -- cadre of leaders who are well positioned to move the institution for, and that is what we have tried to focus on while we are here, to make sure that the institution is much stronger than any of us who are here, that it continues to serve taxpayers, next year, the next year, and tin years from now, and a generation from now. >> before i get to the last question, i have a couple housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you of our luncheon speakers upcoming. a discussion of the new baseball season. alec baldwin will also be here. that event is sold out.

for 24 we have -- april 24 we have ken salazare from the department of interior. do you prepare your return, and had you ever been audited? [laughter] >> i will take a second one first. when you become the irs commissioner, every tax lawyer in the government takes a look at your return. my returns have been thoroughly preparernd i haven't does my tax returns. >>, bought a round of applause for our speaker today. -- how about a round of applause for a speaker today. [applause]

here is a reminder that you can find more information about the national press club on our website. if you would like to get a copy of today's program, check the web site at www.press.org. thank you all for joining us today. we're adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up shortly we will go live to the white house rose garden. the president is expected to sign the jobs at this afternoon,

a small business build that helps small and medium sized company to have access to markets by reducing regulations. the bill signing will be getting under way at 2:10 eastern. we will show you a part of today's lighthouse briefing with jay carney. he started by telling about the importance of the president signing the bill. signing the bill. >> hello, everyone. welcome to your white house briefing. try to get it done a little earlier in the day today. i know you are or are aware of the fact that we will later today, the president will sign into law the jump-start our

business startup act, otherwise known as the jobs act, which includes initiatives the president proposed last fall to create jobs. a significant amount of job creation comes from young firms and start up businesses, and these proposals will help them access to capital, go public, and become more competitive spirit that will be in the rose garden, due to define whether we are experiencing. with that, i go to the associated press. >> de you think that will be the last bipartisan jobs built this year? >> i hope not. there is a long list of things that could be achieved, if working if congress comes together in the way that it has on the jobs that come on the stock act that the president signed into law yesterday, the payroll tax cut extension, other issues.

as you recall at the beginning of the year, i and others were saying we did not buy into the conventional wisdom that because this was an election year there was no possibility for significant things to be accomplished. some of you who are here in 1996 recall the opposite was true, that year when a democratic president was running for reelection and republicans controlled congress, and the president is glad to be signing this legislation today. he will be joined by entrepreneurs well as members of congress of both parties. he hopes there will be other opportunities in the coming weeks and months for more bipartisan cooperation on legislation that goes right at the core of his number one priority, which is growing the

economy and creating jobs. >> what would you say would be realistic? what would be next? >> there is work to be done to ensure that construction workers stay on the job, fixing and building infrastructure projects across the country. there remains the opportunity for congress to act to change its mind, republicans in particular, about the need to put teachers and police officers and firefighters back to work, teachers back in the classroom, first responders back to the job. that was an element of the american jobs act that has not yet passed. the president's american jobs act. this bill signing into law today, has elements that reflect prayer is the president laid out when he announced his american jobs act initiative, but there are remaining pieces about still available to be

acted on by congress. there is an imperative here, or two. one, the imperative that every member of congress and the president feels that we should be doing everything we can to help the american economy grow and to help the american academy create jobs. number two, and perhaps this one is more of a practical consideration, if there is imperative that a number of members of congress, including all the members of the house, have to answer to their constituencies this year, and they will be to explain what they did while they were working in washington, and whether or not they got things done that their constituents wanted done. i think everyone knows that the overwhelming priority of the american people is that the economy grow and jobs be created. hopefully, the conflicts of

those imperatives will lead to more productive legislation. >> a couple questions, first on iran, iraq has said it is offering to boost talks next week with iran. they are acting on a request to change the venue from istanbul. secretary of state clinton said changing the venue -- can you weigh in on that? >> i am not going to get into a public discussion about the private discussions going on with regard to the venue for these talks. we're waiting to hear back from the iranians on a venue. i am not going to get into any more detail on that. we look forward to the talks resume. our policy is very clear. we have remained determined to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and have worked with our partners to isolate the

regime in tehran to impose unprecedented sanctions on iran to make clear the price that iran is paying for its refusal to abide by its international obligations. all that iran needs to do to reverse that process is to prove to the world that it does not harbor nuclear weapons ambitions and prove to the world in a way that is verifiable. if iran through these talks chooses to do that, that will be a positive thing, but we are clear-eyed about it. >> the opening round of the agusta passes, and the question of whether the all-male golf club should admit women refuses to go away. tomorrow the white house is posting a conference on women and the economy. what -- where does the white

house stand on this? should the club admit members, since you now have a upgstanding sponsor's ceo for membership of >> the president's esther to this question is yes. his personal opinion is women should be admitted. [unintelligible] i happen to have a discussion about him about this so i know that is his answer. obviously, it is up to the club to decide. his personal opinion is that women should be admitted to the club. yes, just at perryessica. >> the sec head said the american jobs at needs to be

modified. the element she recommended be improved, two of those elements were not changed by the senate. one regards the conflict of interest. the other has to do with certifying financial controls inside companies to make sure they are legitimate. these are post-and rock performers. why does this administration is say repealing these -- >> the jobs at leaves alone in place the core post-dot-com refomrs. that means investment banks must keep their research departments separate. analysts must not be dependent on bank revenue. research analyst cannot go on plant road shows and add of an ipo. as i emphasized -- these are

facts. in addition -- [unintelligible] >> it leaves untouched the court post-dot-com interest protections. the president will make sure and will instruct the treasury to ensure the implementation of this is done in a way that retains the necessary investor protections. >> is there a single study you can point to that shows jobs will be created because of the ipo measure in particular? >> i would refer you to the treasury. i think it is a well accepted fact of the american economy that small businesses, startup businesses, are in many ways the engine of job creation and

economic growth in this country. legislation makes it easier for those businesses to get started. >> is no study, is there? >> i am not saying that at all. i do not have the study here. i would refer you to people with business degrees and were recalled to plow through studies. i am not saying that, jessica, at all. >> i am told there are no studies by number of people who are concerned that this bill -- >> we disagree, and i am making clear to you that in addition to leaving in place the core conflict of interest protections, under the so-called spitzer decree, the president will ensure the implementation of this that investor protections are maintained and that the law is properly

implemented. >> can i ask you about the meeting with the muslim brother heard. according to sources, [unintelligible] who are not low-level administration officials. [unintelligible] >> they are mid-level members of directorates at the national security council. they are excellent people and experts. they probably do not in most people's estimation out ranked senator john mccain or senator lindsey graham, who also met with members of the muslim brotherhood or deputy secretary of state bill burns, who met with the members. our policy is clear and the sentiment which is in the aftermath of egypt's revolution, we have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors. it is a fact egypt's political

landscape has changed and the actors have become more diverse. our engagement reflects that. the point that -- is the point is that we will judge -- the point is we will judge egypt's political actors how that act, not by their religious affiliation. >> did the officials stress the muslim brotherhood to -- press them on their plan for the camp david accord to a referendum which would effectively kill the treaty? >> it is part of our conversations with all that diverse an emerging political actors in egypt. our belief and the need for egypt to abide by its treaty with israel, and broadly by its international obligations, and that was part of this

conversation. >> on the subject of egypt, senator leahy lobbied to not release the funds to the egyptian government because of the -- of the egyptian government. and also for locking up activists who work america. why is senator leahy -- why was the money -- and not in a joint account that could be controlled by the americans as well? >> i do not have an answer to you on the specific mechanisms by which funds like this were released or might be released. what i would say is we believe is in the interest of the united states to engage with all parties in egypt and to engage to continue to engage with egypt because egypt has been an important ally of the united states, and has played this

event role in the region. we believe it is in our interest to engage with egypt in an effort to encourage egypt to maintain its commitment to its international obligations and to maintain ia positive role in the region. >> centreville leahy would argue he agrees with everything you said, -- senator leahy would argue he agrees with everything you said. this is a mixed signs they may not be proceeding along those lines. i assume this is not just the secretary's decision. >> she is a pretty high-ranking official. for details on the decision about how to proceed and the state department might be the

best place for those details. the overall assessment -- [unintelligible] i do not doubt that at all. my point is that as you pointed out we share the same goals and i do not think there is a great deal of distance between our position and senator leahy's. the conclusion was reached that the approach we're taking was the best way -- >> why? >> because we believe that kind of engagement that we are participating in a with egypt participating in a with egypt and with its post- revolution the ship and with the emerging ship and with the emerging political actors on the scene is the right way to enhance our bilateral relationship. the answer is because we think it is the best way to go. >> because doing it leahy's way

would alienate the egyptian government? >> the overall goal is the same. the mechanism by which you get there -- there are a variety of ways to get there, and the mechanism is to provide these funds. the approach we're taking is one we believe has yielded the greatest potential for positive results. >> and the rest for alienating the egyptians >> you can make an assessment. we think this is the best approach. >> why do you think it is right? >> we're engaged with these new >> we're engaged with these new actors to try to work with them during this historic transformation, post revolution, and encourage them both to pursue democracy in its fullest sense as well as pursue the kind of and maintain the kind of

international obligations they have made in the past. with those as a our goals, the course we're taking is the one we think has the best chance of succeeding. succeeding. >> i want to go back to the women's conference on friday. there is a political strategy from chicago to exploit the gender gap. there are a lot of polls that women buy a large margin are supporting the president over mitt romney or any other republican. what are using the white house on friday to stage an event that has political implications? >> ed, you're saying anything that has to do with women as political -- anything that has to do with growing the economy, because every analyst with say a stronger recovery would be good for the president politically or anything that has to do with job creation is inherently political because more jobs will be good for the president?

for the president? >> how about a men's conference? >> stay tuned. kind of a silly question. this administration has engaged in a number of policy approach is designed to address when men and the economy, including the very first bill the president signed into law, fair pay act, and there are a variety of initiatives this administration has put forward that deal with issues of concern to women in particular. there is the violence against women act. we have an office overseen by zerothe vice-president's office.

is are important policy initiatives and that is why we're having the conference. >> men obviously have a role on the economy. >> are we discriminating against big business is? we're focusing on women because there are a number of issues important with regard to women in the economy, whitman's safety, women in education that are very distinct and we're proud to host the conference. >> yesterday you mentioned that preston is a former constitutional law professor. another professor says the president misspoke earlier this week. he did not say what he meant, and to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it. yesterday you were saying he did not misspeak. what do you make of the president's former law professor saying he did? >> what the professor said and the president clarified and he did and he expand on his remarks

monday when he took a question on tuesday -- the premise of your question suggests that the president of united states, in the comments he made monday, did not believe the supreme court could rule on the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise, and i know you did not believe that. >> is a lot more than you or i -- >> i knowledge is today in speaking on monday the president was not understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand, he referred to things shorthand, he referred to things like -- what the professor said he did not say what he meant, because tribe knows the president has knowledge about judicial precedent. he spoke on monday and clarify

his comments on tuesday. his whole point is that he is pretty conversant with judicial precedent, and the judicial precedent here is clear, that on matters of national economic significance -- and let's not forget healthcare is 15% of our economy -- that the president is overwhelmingly on the side of upholding the constitutionality of the affordable care act. there is no debate between the plaintiff or the defendant on the issue of whether or not health care is something -- is a matter of economics and the key evidence. that is not an issue in the case that appeared before the supreme court. remarkableent's observation is since the new deal era, the lochner era preceded the new deal and the

change of approach by the court, there has been a longstanding precedent set where congressional authority in passing legislation to deal with and regulation with national economic significance. >> the point of critics claiming that president was attacking the court, when the president said the justices are not elected, he was quoting taters. are you suggesting if you were to lose in this case, the president will not attack the court. does he consider them a fair game in this process, to attack them? >> the president believes that the supreme court has the final word on matters of judicial review and the constitutionality of legislation. he would, having been a professor of law.

the fact of the matter is going back to the comments the president made on monday and tuesday, he believes that because of a the overwhelming the supremet here court will uphold the constitutionality of the affordable care act. that was the point he was making on monday and tuesday. >> what he said on monday was an obvious misspoken moment, because he talked about the court not being in a position to overturn -- [unintelligible] your colleague made a mistake and you cannot admit it? >> you are sharing righteous a nation here -- righteous indignation here. in answer to question,

relatively briefly, and in the context of this case made the statement there's no judge shall president which would -- preced ent would argue the court should not overturned this law. i guarantee you he did not refer to that commerce clause or the full context. he believes that was understood. clearly some folks, notably people sitting in that chair and others, missed that. [unintelligible] look, others -- i am saying -- it is ridiculous to believe that the president was not talking about the context of the case, but i completely concede he did not describe the context when he took a question and entered it on monday. he then, asked again on tuesday,

provided the full context. did he clarify his comments? absolutely. did he expend on them? absolutely. it is your job to come up with cliches, like game one, but i will not -- game on, but i will not engage on that. >> the threshold is at $1 billion. was that a figure that the white house startup council came up with, or did that come from the congress? >> i will have to take russian. i am not sure about that. -- i will have to take that question. i am not sure about that. "to kill a mockingbird, the president is hosting a

screening of, the 50th anniversary of that seminal movie, and looks forward to doing that. it is a fantastic film. i am sure everyone in this room has seen it. i'm sure everybody has shown it to their children. it is a classic movie that elucidates the need to do the right thing even when it is hard, and he looks forward to that. it is an event for members of gregory peck's family here, along with several d.c. students. [unintelligible] i would be shocked if she was not. >> do you know if president obama was influenced in his decision to pursue a legal career by the movie or the books? >> i talked to him today about the masters.

>> on the masters, was masters,-- [laughter] with the president agreed to play at a course that discriminated against women? >> the president said today he believes agusta should admit women. along past the time when women should be excluded from anything. >> on the topic of the resignation of the gsa administrator, the training conference that led to the right is mission happened in 2010. how can the white house be sure there were no other such examples of excess of spending before this was revealed, either in that agency or another? >> it is a big government, so i would hesitate to make blanket statements. what i can tell you is on his first day in office the president made clear the people who serve in his administration are keepers of the public trust

and the public service is a privilege. under his leadership, this administration has taken historic steps to protect taxpayer dollars and eliminate waste across the federal government. when the white house is informed of the findings in this matter, we at the white house quickly acted to german who was responsible of such a gross misuse of dollars. the present was informed before his trip to south korea and was outraged by the excessive spending. he called for all those responsible to be held fully accountable, given these actions were irresponsible and entirely inconsistent with the expectations he has set as president. there are a number of efforts by this administration to curb conference spending in particular. in 2011, it was directed to all agency heads to conduct a thorough review on conferences.

conference-related activities and expenses were not permitted to go forward without a signed off by the deputy secretary or the ceo by each agency treat each agency established to control and certified as controls are now in place. to date, as a result of these efforts, they have achieved over $280 million in reduced costs in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012 compared to the same period of time in the fiscal year of 2010. there is a lot more detail that i can get you on this if you would like. >> that was in 2011. will there be an attempt to investigate excess of spending? >> if excess of spending is brought to our attention, the president's reaction here makes quite clear " the president believes this was outrageous behavior and activity that was

not in keeping his expressed direction that he gave at the beginning of his administration. >> does a mind reader at that conference know about what the president was talking about on monday? [laughter] >> fly out there and ask her -- or him. >> why hold two signing ceremonies this week and not win a free trade agreements were signed? >> we have held signing ceremonies -- there are a lot of moving pieces here in terms of getting legislation pass from the hill here. sometimes remarkably it takes days, sometimes a week. their schedules here. we have had a number of signing ceremonies and the president is delighted to be taking part in one today, and he took part in one yesterday, and should there be significant that deflation

sed by congress, that the president can sign into law, it is a good chance we will have another. the most important aspect here is the work being done, lost themselves -- the laws that affect the ability to create jobs. the ceremonies are nice, but the real issue here is the actual legislation. >> republicans have charged that there have been more signing ceremonies since it has been alleged that this congress is an obstructionist body. >> we are happy to say there are a number of republicans today at that ceremony. at least one republican who participated in yesterday's's signing ceremony. yes.

>> back to the meeting with the muslim brotherhood. other than engaging with the group, what was the in addition hoping to accomplish in this meeting and how far did it go to the meeting that goal? the meeting that goal? >> i do this was part of regular engagement with the emerging political actors in egypt. everyone who has paid attention to the developments in the egypt, the muslim brotherhood will be a major player. we are engaging because that is the appropriate and right thing to do. we will judge all the political actors in egypt by their actions, by their commitment to democracy and protection of civil rights.

how they conduct their foreign policy and abide by their international obligations. as we would with any political party or political actor in countries with which we are aligned or have diplomatic relations. >> have more meetings been scheduled? >> not that i am aware of. this is part of an ongoing process of engagement. senators have met with them. i expect that kind of engagement will continue. >> does the president feel comfortable dealing with people like the muslim brotherhood or the taliban? >> i think i made clear that we will judge all of those we engage with by their actions.

the principles we bring to the table are very clear. civil rights, democratic process these -- processes. this is true with regard to political parties and doctors in egypt. the taliban is a different case -- political parties and actors in egypt. the tall baud is a different case. -- taliban is a different case. adhering to the afghan constitution and abiding by and denouncing al qaeda. the taliban is a little different than the broad principles that are in play when we talk about the meetings with members of the muslim brotherhood. >> [inaudible]

stop brutalizing christians. >> we are very candid in our discussions with actors on the political scene in egypt about what we consider to be appropriate and democratic conduct in a society that has gone through a revolution and aspires to be a full democracy. >> i want to go back to the jobs conference tomorrow. understanding that the white house -- what other groups are you looking at having conferences for? conferences for? >> i do not have any scheduling announcements to make. we have had a lot of conferences over the three years we have been here. i am sure we will have more. these kinds of conferences help to focus the energies of the

administration on specific initiatives, focus attention on issues of importance and will continue to do that. i have no announcements to make about other upcoming conferences. i want them to be exciting. >> the question comes after your exchange -- it makes you wonder, when there are certain groups in this country that have disproportionate numbers compared to mainstream america. i understand women are the heads of households in a lot of homes. there are other groups, like african-american communities. the labor department even came out with a steady -- study on the block if workforce. -- on the black work force. >> i do not have with me the

variety of initiatives this variety of initiatives this administration has undertaken to benefit minority communities or underserved areas of the country. the focus of this particular conference is on women. as i said before, there have been and will be a number of similar conferences that focus on similar initiatives aimed at sectors of the economy and sectors of the population. >> today's white house briefing, we will go live to the white house rose garden. president obama will be signing a small-business bill to help stimulate the a economy. both houses approve the bill last week. the president is signing the bill today. bill today.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. hello, everybody. good afternoon. i want to thank all of you for coming. i want to thank the members of congress from both parties whose leadership and hard work made

this bill a reality. what of the great things about america is that we are a nation of viewers -- doers. we think a big, we take risks, and we believed that anyone with a solid plan and a willingness to work hard can turn even the most improbable idea into a successful business. a legacy of fords, googles, twitters. this is a country that has always been on the cutting edge. america has always had the most daring entrepreneurs in the world. some of them are standing with me today. when their ideas take root, we did inventions that can change the way we live. when their businesses take off, more people become employed.

overall, new businesses account for almost every new job that is created in america. because we are recovering from one of the worst recessions in our history, the last few years have been pretty tough. credit has been tight and no matter how good their ideas are, if you cannot gets a loan from a bank, it is almost impossible to get business is off the ground. that is why back in september, i called on congress to remove a number of barriers preventing aspiring entrepreneurs from getting funding. this is one of useful important step along that journey. here is what is going to happen because of this bill. for business owners to want to take their companies to the next level, this bill will make it easier for you to go public. that is a big deal because going public is a major step towards

expanding. it is a big deal for investors as well because public companies operate with greater oversight and with greater transparency. for start-ups and small businesses, this bill is a game changer. right now, you can only turn to a limited group of investors, including banks and wealthy individuals to get funding. laws that are nearly eight decades old make it impossible decades old make it impossible for others to invest. a lot has changed. it is time our laws did as well. because of this bill, start-ups and small business will now have access to a new pool of potential investors. mainly the american people. for the first time, ordinary americans will be able to go on- line and invest. to make sure americans do not get taken advantage of, at the web sites will be subject to

rigorous oversight. the fcc opaque -- will play an important role in implementing this bill. it means that all the members of congress, before i sign this bill, it will be important that we make sure that the sec is properly funded. so they can do the job and make sure that our investors get adequate protection. this bill represents exactly the kind of bipartisan action we should be taking in washington. i've always said the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector. not the government. our job is to help our companies grow and higher. that is why i pushed for this bill. that is why i know that the bipartisan group of legislators pushed for this bill. that is why i have cut taxes

for small businesses over 17 times. that is why every day, i am fighting to make sure america is the best place on earth to do business. our economy has begun to turn a corner, but we still have a long way to go. we have a lot of americans looking for a job or looking for a job that pays better. we will have to keep working together so we can keep moving the economy forward. i have never been more confident about our future. the reason is because of the american people. some of the folks beside me today are a testimony to that. today are a testimony to that. some meetings go well, some meetings do not go well. that is true for me, too. [laughter] but they keep at it. maybe one of the folks in the

audience today will be the next bill gates, mark zuckerberg. that is the promise of america. if these on to open doors are willing to keep giving their all, the least washington can do to help them to succeed. i plan to do that now by prowled the signing this bill. thank you very much. -- i plan to do that now by signing this bill. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [inaudible]

[laughter] [laughter] there we go. it is done. [applause] [applause] enjoy a great day. [applause] [applause] >> wrapping up here in the white

house rose garden, president obama signed a jobs bill, approved in both houses last week. among those with the president today, eric cantor. we are expecting remarks from the speaker in a few moments. all this happening at the labor department reported that new unemployment claims fell last week to its lowest point since april of 2008. the monthly unemployment rate will be revealed tomorrow. economists are predicting 8.3%. that would be the same as last month. we are waiting for house speaker eric cantor on the jobs bill. while we wait, a segment from today's "washington journal." journal"on continues. host: joining us is tom shoop.

he was editor in chief of "government executive" magazine and it is here to talk about the general services administration, spending issues of late, and government spending and waste in general. a first of all, mr. shoop, what is the general services administration? guest: it handles a range of purchasing-related and purchasing management tasks for the government. anything from managing thousands of public buildings -- building buildings and purchasing real estate on behalf of federal agencies and leasing it to them, and a host of other things. it does a lot of contract negotiations on behalf of all agencies that agencies can use, and it has various supply schedules for everything from huge information technologies and bombs to pencils. >> does it serve as a purchasing agent for the federal

government? guest: yes. and it manages the real estate for the federal government as well. most of the federal government. host: pawlenty employees? how much money flows through that administration? guest: they have about 12,000 employees in the budget is all around $30 billion. but very little about it is actually appropriated by congress, only about $2 billion. the rest comes from fees paid by agencies for the services it provides or rent on federal facilities. host: so commerce department gets a chunk of money from congress and they use part of it as rent. why is the gsa currently in the news? guest: because there public buildings service, western region, decided to hold a conference in october of 2010 that was later the subject of and ig investigation, shall the

spent upwards of $820,000 on this conference and had of this sort of lavished an unusually expensive -- and called attention to it. host: why was this conference held and what were some of the usual expenses and what was the result? guest: the conference is held every two years by the western region and it is sort of training exercise and recognition for employees. it seems this was considerably more lavish than previous efforts, but it is regularly held. it was held -- host: it was held just south of las vegas. costing $843,000 according to the ig report. food and beverage, $146,000, then a team building exercise building a bicycle, costing

$75,000. why did it cost $75,000? guest: i am not entirely sure. i think it is probably not outlandish for that kind of exercise. i think in the corporate sector it goes on -- and the company that provided it quoted a higher price and then went down to $75,000, in a negotiation according to the ig that was not entirely above board. host: commemorative coins, semi- private room parties, mind reader entertainer, $3,200. are these abnormal government conference expenses? guest: no. i think it is highly unusual for this to have taken place in a government conference. i think the vast majority of government conferences are much simpler affairs landis, and that is what sort of stood out about this one. host: weren't there some trips to set up this conference and some planners from outside?

guest:8, i believe, planning trips, including scouting trips and a dry warren. ig called attention to that. some of it would be necessary because it is a conference that about 300 people and there is certain planning that goes into it, but it appears there was excessive spending. host: who is martha johnson? guest: now the former administrator of gsa will resign after this scandal became public. after taking several steps, including removing two other officials at the gsa and overhauling their internal procedures and processes to try to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future. host: was she aware of it ahead of time? guest: still don't know at this point. it would not be surprising to me if she was not aware of it. and certainly if she was not aware of it in its particulars, i do not believe she was at the event. host: does gsa hold these events on a regular basis?

guest: they do hold events like this on a fairly regular basis. this was a regional conference was held every two years going back some period of time. they will not be holding these things in the future, though, because they put a stop basically to anything like these employee-only events. host: when you look at this event and the spending, in the scheme of things in the federal government, where does it right? guest: as these types of scandals go, it is up there. unusual large amount of money an unusually lavish kind of spending. also, what is unusual about it in some regard is there really has been no effort on the part of gsa or the administration to challenge anything in this report. they say they are appalled by it and money was squandered an action had to be taken, so they are essentially it knowledge in it occurred and it was accepted

and it is relatively unusual. host: besides mark johnson, who also no longer employed question of guest: robert peck former bolden service commission, and stephen leads, a top deputy to martha johnson. host: what about any of the western regional folks? guest: there have been people placed on administrative leave and further actions like will emerge the they have not taken place yet. host: 202 is the area code if you would like to talk to tom shoop -- you can also send an e-mail or a tweet -- >> live to remarks from eric cantor are talking about the jobs legislation just signed by president obama.

>> good afternoon. it is a pleasure to be here. we just finished up the bill signing of the jobs that. it is an honor to be here to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to watch the president signed into law the jump-start our business startup bell. this is a bill that was aimed directly at trying to address the problem we face in america today, which is the economy is lagging and our small businesses are having to heart of a time getting up off the ground. this bill -- having a hard time getting up off the ground. its business solutions oriented bill. i hope it represents the kind of bipartisan work that we can

actually accomplish in washington over the next few months. we have a very difficult economic situation. the president said today that he has always believed that it is the private sector that is the job generator in this country. i agree with them. i think most americans agree with them. because of that, we will bring to the house floor next week or the week after, our bill. this is the same line of thinking that the jumpstart bill is about. to help small businesses keep more of their own money so they can retain and hire more people. with that, i would be delighted to answer any questions. >> [inaudible]

>> i did not have a chance to talk to the president. i look forward to doing that. i am glad the senate is talking about finally starting to do something for small business people. that is the key to get the economy going. i would respond to this in a terse statement by saying this. we need to empower small business men and women. for the government to mandate that they act one way or another in terms of hiring people or not, that puts more restrictions on small business. if we believe in free markets, if we believe that small businesses are the growth engine, we ought to empower them by allowing them to keep more of their money so that they can retain and hire more workers. >> [inaudible]

>> i disagree with the allegation. what i believe this bill does is it strikes the proper balance to allow small business people a little easier time seeking investors and accessing capital so they can grow. i hear anecdotally throughout my district in richmond, va., it is too hard right now for small businesses to get up off the ground and grow. this bill response to that difficulty. one more question. >> [inaudible] >> we are all for good on economic news. over the last several months, i have been very encouraged by the private sector job growth.

we are not out of the was. we want to continue to grow this economy. we want to make sure that people get back to work. we need to do more. we need to make sure that families can begin to reestablish their economic security going forward. we have a lot of other problems that families are facing. gas prices are way too high. that will add an added burden on families. we have a lot to -- we have a lot of work to do. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the house to make sure we can do that. thank you. >> eric cantor offering remarks on the job legislation just signed by president obama. if you missed this for the bill signing, you can see it on our website, c-span.org. tonight, it is book tv in prime

time. maggie anderson talks about her book. after that, chris matthews on the book "jack kennedy." all these events starting at 8:00 on c-span2. this year's student cam competition asked students across the country what parts of the constitution was important to them.

>> today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, are very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks. >> i can hear you. i can hear you. the rest of the world hears you. the people and knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. ♪ >♪

♪ ♪

>> my understanding or impression of the patriot act is that it was the legislation that was passed by president bush in response to 9/11 and allowed the federal government to really tap in better to our communications system to understand the banking system, to be able to trace, apprehend and prosecute people who might be involved in terrorism either within or without side -- or outside of the united states. >> patriot act is a collection of laws created to change or modify substantially existing laws in many different aspects of law enforcement, intelligence gathering, different agencies of government. it modifies many different things. >> for me, civil liberties are

what you find in the bill of rights. for me, the fact that we have the civil liberties and the united states is what makes it so great. we have the right to free speech. we have the right to assemble. in my opinion, my civil liberties important to me are the ones protected in the bill of rights. >> civil liberties are codified or set forth in the first 10 amendments to our constitution, so as a lawyer that is what i think about, but as a citizen what we'd think about our those aspects of the constitution, the protections we have that make us americans, that give us the set of rights and privileges that we have as americans. >> how are you seeing this right

now? disobey and you die. >> someone is tapping into the power grids. traffic cams. >> you have a theory? >> i do not believe they are of using anything. obviously anything that is law abiding, they follow the law. a lot of myths out there. >> i do not. i am a person who believes that first of all come anything done under the patriot act, and there are examples where you can do war with searches and seizures of information. that sounds carry on its face. i know that the government, should they attempt to use the again someone, still enjoys

protection of due process. the judge gets to hear that case. and if something was done in properly, that is what the judge is there to protect. our entire system of justice really insurers even though the patriot act has brought in the power of the federal government, that there will always be a check and balance to make sure people are being treated fairly ultimately. >> do you believe the government is abusing the patriot act? >> i definitely do. most of the patriot act was designed around keeping an eye on the american people, and it is very rare the american people are causing terrorists related acts. >> that is the way that you

have, whether you want to weigh that being more important and then taking the information like you have that you consider personal and using it in a way that you might not find to be acceptable. >> i have a report from thelatimes.com bust as fbi intelligence investigations have compromised the civil liberties of american liberties that were previously assumed. >> go ahead. all right. >> get down, get down. >> not cool. ♪ >> the patriot act as a destructive undermining of the constitution. we started this congress off with a discussion about reading the constitution. many of us carry constitutions

with us in our pocket. how about today we take a stand for the constitution to say all americans should be free from unreasonable search and seizure? >> the purpose is to keep supplies but -- suspected serv terrorists under surveillance. i believe it has been successful, and i support this extension. >> this, to me, has been a classic example of sacrificing liberty for safety and security. ♪ >> go to studentcam.org to what all of the documentary's. continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> last week that has been institute hosted a discussion on

the trends in public attitude towards content in the diddle aid -- digital age. we will care about social media, content and their effects on the content industries. this is about one hour 10 minutes. >> thank you all. welcome. this is our first in a series of dialogues on the future of content in partnership with firestone communication society program. i really want to thank pmg custom media. they published as an idea magazine they came up with the idea for a series on the future of content, and it is our great pleasure to thank them for doing

it. the event is on the website. it is also on twitter with the future of content. one other quick announcement, we will also hold a symposium on the state of race in america moderated by brian williams. that will be on april 9 at the museum. see people out if you go out if you want to hear more about it. thank you very much. in this is the first of this series. one thing you will notice is you have three guys from the old media up here. i think this is part of a trajectory we're going to try to do in this future of content series. the first will look up from the vantage point of people who have been in traditional media, how are they moving things forward? and as we move along in this

series, we will do people who have helped to reinvent new forms of media come and people who have only worked in forms of media and never old. i do hope the last of the series will bring us full circle with people of work only in new forms of media but now work on magazines and other things, and feel that having a broad portfolio of media and content delivery systems is a great way to go. if you are wondering why we're starting this way, you will see the trajectory. we will be going to people who have been involved in media from different vantage points. first, marcus bradley is the editor of "the washington post." ken, is among other things, the artist team. rte

since 1992, the author of the adult communication column in " the new yorker." he has written 10 books, the latest of which is "google." everyone of these books has dealt with communications and people changing the nature of communications. i want to start with what i think is a historical overview to get this thing started, which is it has been about 50 years since the advent of the digital age and its impact on content. for the first 25 years of that period of the digital age, the format of the content in digital form tended to be community and discussion. it was the early days of the internet, and eventually online services starting with the web

and aol. in which people formed communities and were in chat rooms and bulletin boards, discussion groups, and everything was shared socially in terms of information and discussion. approximately 1995 with the advent of the mosaic browser, and other things, there was a dramatic shift in the way the internet works, and that is it shifted to the world wide web. the reason i think that was a huge shift is that shifted away from an internet-based community and more on publishing. it was actually a regression in some ways, and people just published things or put things out, even if they were bloggers or new newspapers or magazines. it was much more of you put your

content out for people to see, and the community was relegated to comment sections at the end, which were dogenerally brain- dead and stupid. [laughter] now we are having the next shift of the web, it seems to me, being faced much more on social networks and social media as, which is bringing us back, thankfully, i think, to a combination of people who are publishing things, but also people forming communities and circles and discussion groups. in some ways instead of resembling the web, the social phase will resemble more the first phase of the internet that was based around communities, bulletin boards and sharing of information and internet chat. with that introduction, i am going to start with marcus, because he has been at the forefront now, not so much the

web, but social media and a good partnership with facebook. i was wondering how you think in the next five years your partnership with facebook and social media will change what you do as a traditional newspaper editor. >> thank you. thank you for putting this on. being called an expert by walter isaacson who knows more about media than i do given his experience. thank you for characterizing as a media establishment. [laughter] even we have our eyes on the future. washington post has had a fairly close relationship with facebook. the board and very good friends with mark zuckerberg. we have a team of engineers from that is focused on getting the content out.

the one thing you cannot do any more is deliver news from the mound top to the audience. instead, you have to figure out where the audiences are that are interested in the kind of content you are producing and put that in front of them here yet there are conversations that take place over many other platforms then obviously the washington post website. rather than assuming people will come to us and look for information, which i think is still the attitude of people who read articles and go to web sites, i think what happens more and more is people go where their friends are. they engage with their friends, and in that community they learn what is interesting. the reason why people look for news stories is because they want to be informed and be able to share whatever information they get with their friends. facebook clearly recognizes this in a big way. the folks at facebook refer to

their home page as a personal newspaper. we have evolved something called the washington post social read yoer. that takes a bunch of content, a wide range of content, and put them up in front of audiences that they then freed. as they read, their friends see what they read. if i know that don gramm has just read an article about walter isaacson, i am curious to know what don is reading. the conversation is very different, or the interaction is very different than going to a newspaper or going to a website. when i am much more interested in what my friends are reading and talking about. to go the traditional editors and anchors of the news media are the gatekeepers. they would say that is the way it is. they said this is the important story.

what you are saying is in the future your circle of your social network will be the gatekeepers for you to say this new album is really cool, or this story is really good. >> it is not the future. i should say this is now. if you talk to a large swath of the population, people we want to develop as loyal followers at the washington post, that is how the consumer content. they see what their friends -- if craig tweets something about an event or something an article he reads in the washington post, i do not know how many followers he has, but they will see it. by the same token, if someone on facebook, if you are interested in it, i am interested. that is tell a lot of people consume media.

the percentage of readers that we have at reading content on social media platforms is rising dramatically. >> one more question. one of the things i get from the washington post is here is today's front-page. i do not necessarily mean the frencont page. i know those are the stories i should know about. could you ever imagine producing a front page and that is tailored just to me based on what you think is important, the kind of content i generally go to so you learn i think it is important, and the stories my friends are reading so everyone gets a different front page? to go i did not set it questions of the way they're coming out, but we have something called personal post, which is a product that does something like

that. if you go to the web site and sign up, it knows what you have been reading, and you can go through and tell the content and it starts to tailor it to you. ideally we would like to get people interested in that a front page of content they are most likely to be interested in based on the past habits or friends what -- or what their friends are interested in. the experience of reading the news becomes much more tailored experience and in cajengaging experience. >> 1995, the year you launched, andy grove, the head of intel, i was interviewing him. i said you have 1000 newspapers in the room. what is the value?

he said, what is the value? zero. he said i can create my own newspaper. i do not need an editor. i can pick and choose. i can get just what i wanted my newspaper. two years later i was interviewing him again. i quoted what he said. i said do you still feel that way? he said i was totally wrong. he said i need an intelligent agent. he said there is too much information out there. he said i need help to sort it out for me, because i would never have known to read about rwanda or serbia that was not on my radar screen. that is one of the most hopeful stories i can think of. i hope we do not see in create

individual newspapers. you as an editor feel as a citizen is important. to go i think it is a mix. i am not suggesting everything you read you will want to read, but there has to be a mix of content. not everyone wants to have the same information. there is clearly a role in any newspaper. site now,t on our web too. we need to be attentive to what the audience areas of interest are. the underlying point is you do not know about serbia or rwanda. there needs to be a way of surfacing. i do not think we will abandon that any time soon, but i think what you have to the other into the mix is some kind of personalization so that the news really is what people want to

know about, and the news is what their friends are talking about. >> he said, how do they know what they want until we tell them? [laughter] there is a sense you are trying to do three sings now in the next five years and does -- as an editor. one come allow people to tailor based on their own interests. three, to say on the front page you should know. or even what i would call serendipity, which is no interest in sports, but you should know that jeremy lin has just emerged as up phenomenon or something. that is important, the serendipity. >> we have a story on the front page that has gone by royal of a

man who dresses up and up batman costume and drives around in a lamborghini. no one would know to look for that, but it is clearly working. it is drawing a huge amount of attention. >> this is content king, and it has been a debate for decades as to who is king as a distribution. is the content? the truth is, and it flows from what you were saying about social media, the consumer came, and technology gave them the ability to become king. basically they choose to lower the prices on books through digital books, which is technology that comes along for free google searches and get news on that. and to say what they like and say what they do not like in the

newspaper. that sometimes collides with traditional media. in we either decide to play the gatekeeper or editor. your spinach. you should know that as assist in. maybe i do not want to know that as a citizen. that is an ongoing conflict of all of us in the media. >> what happens to the trust in media when there is no one particularly responsible? >> the argument that markets when they in reputable news organizations is that we have a brand of value, and that's if we put our name on this story, you should trust it. the problem is on the web you do not know where the story is coming from. you do a google search.

you do not necessarily know. it inevitably risks of diminishing the value of the brand. >> you have done a lot on google. what the event they will do in the next five years to try to navigate the environment. >> people think of it as a search company, and that is a mistake. they are much broader than that. the head of microsoft likes to say google is a one trick pony. in fact, they have for ponies they are writing. they are riding. second, they have endured, the operating system, which is the largest of rating system for cell phones. they will figure out a way to monetize that, either by operating or charging. third, cloud computing, which is a very hot area.

when you are on your blackberry server, that is a cloud. your information is on the cloud. they are saying you do not need department. wn it advertising is a huge area for google. 40 percent of the videos down loaded are done loaded on youtu. they were losing about a billion dollars a year a couple of years ago by relying on user-generated content. what they discovered is advertisers to not want their advertisements next to a dog pooping on the street. they said we want more could contents. increasingly vocal is going out and buying in professional content. they are making money. >> it makes it important. on the other hand, the user gets

the vote, which they did not have the same capacity and the digital world. >> i think content clearly has a great deal of power. you can see evidence that the power is ousting some of the platforms that came before. cable television is an interesting situation. i do not presume to be an expert. if you think about what cable television does, they charge you $130 per month to deliver content you are not actually consuming. you could pay just for espn you want to watch for $5 per month. they get more money than they are getting today in new does have the content you want. i think any time there is a situation where the amount you are spending is vastly more than what you're getting for it, i think technology has a way of compressing it out.

i think that platform is facing challenges, and i surmise that is one of the reasons why comcast wanted to buy nbc universal. i think what you see is content still has great value. we see it, too. our audience has been growing terrifically in the past three years. the social reader i was describing on facebook is up to 18 million down notes, which is extraordinary in a few months. people are reading the contents in larger numbers on that. >> let me say there is another major shift and is about to be happening in internet or social- based content. it is a way for desktop computers to mobile, but more importantly to apps, which

is not necessarily the same as the web-based application where they can do more functionality, and they can be paid for and often are paid for. do you think the move to digital content from web-based digital content is a major shift? >> not clear. i did for awhile. there is a new technology that people are starting to write websites on calledcal html 5. it became commonplace with the ipad. now you can create a web site that was the same whether you were on a mobile phone or traveling on your desktop. you might have all the qualities an attribute of an act, but it may not be one.

>> the other thing i think is there is too basic streams. there is open, which is local. there is the extreme, which is amazon and apple. facebook is a closed system. i think you may see a lot of applications build upon facebook that are unique to facebook. that may be the way a lot of people consumed content. it is slightly different from the notion of the applications you have done on ipad where you often paid money for -- >> you see this across the platform and it is hard to make people pay for them? to go i do not know. -- >> i don't know. i just think that -- i would not say we are necessarily going to end up in an app world.

i know that microsoft and something that is the direction we're going. >> i think the battle is a battle.m that o it used to be the powerful platform was cable and broadcasters and others had to go through them. increasingly facebook is a platform. youtube is a platform. amazon and the kindle fire is a platform. these platform companies are competing and finishing -- diminishing the power of cable in traditional media as saying i want to be on that platform. what kind of money will facebook offer me to run up my cbs shows or apple? that increasingly is the battle, i think, that is taking place. >> the last of the great gate

keepers. they have some say into what gets into your living room. you think that this appears in the next five years? to go it does not disappear, but it becomes more, the ties. cable programming companies, fx, hbo become very valuable. they can then sell that content to some of these various platforms and not keep it exclusively. >> will i be able to take out an application and watch espn or other things, or will it always beat -- -- >> time warner will let you -- >> or you can watch al jazeera. >> which is interesting.

if you are in the arab spring, you could watch it streaming live at. you suddenly realize how come i can watch this, but it cannot get the yankees on cable? >> i do not know whether you follow this. barry diller announced a new technology, which is through cable potentially. it is a little box you have in your house. it is like an old antenna. wirelessly you can get television signals from broadcasters. they will roll out in new york and bring it to other cities. they will charge of $9 per month, as opposed to what you pay for cable. there will not pay broadcasters anything. they say it is free, over the broadcasting. a huge battle is about to take

place. >> we are rooting for them, are we? ways that cbs or nbc and the broadcasters have been able to pay for content is they have gotten what is called new transmission fees, which are quite lucrative for them. why would cable paid them hundreds of millions of dollars per year, it barry diller is competing for free? it is a huge battle potentially, if the technology works down the road of this. >> looking further down the road, each new technology and media eventually creates a whole new form of content. going back to the printing press that novels and vented. you can look at television first. it is radio shows with pictures.

suddenly people invent new forms of content for television. it seems to me, with the exception of logs, there is not a new form of contents -- blogs, there is not a new form of content and intent for the digital age. >> i am not so sure of that. you go to your web site, what is different about that than the paper you are getting tonight or tomorrow morning? on the new york times today, i can find out what happened at the supreme court. and i would have questions about that in terms of how much time the reporter had to report the story, and you are compelling the market to file and final. maybe they are not able to report as well. on it -- in addition to that, i am on my ipad reading an

obituary of someone who died and i can read their aad their lif's work. it seems to me that has changed the nature of what a newspaper is. >> i think there are several streams of content that did not exist before. the first one is when you go to our website at 11:00 in the morning, not only can you see the news, but we have a lot of very talented, smart bloggers to write fast analysis. it is a different form of the news. they turn around analysis throughout the day. do the same thing with politics. that is a new form. i think there is a new form of

contents and that is the conversation that readers themselves have. the kind of streams on different news organization are a difference thing. i cannot say they always make me proud. you do see really interesting, thoughtful conversations taking part. that is a different form of content. >> content please. the, the sections are so much worse than what we had 25 years ago. to g >> like i said, i am not exactly crowd of the washington post, and stream. i think if you look on some of the web sincsites -- "wall stret journal" has an extremely accomplished content publishers.

>> we have relegated readers to a comment section, as opposed to wikinews, in which readers are shaping a story under the supervision of your editors. that would be a new form of content, rather than calling someone and telling them to write a story and having lots of comments on the bottom. >> if you file a story for the washington post and get back a ton of responses from the readers, including criticism, that reporter is reading that, and reporters of the most sensitive folks on earth -- you cannot tell me it is having -- not having an impact. it is not the whole new thing. all whole new thing would be

wikifying news. >> to your earlier question about trust as an interesting one. i think what happens is first of all, all of the digital transformation is exposed in the past 10 years. there were too many journalists, too many organizations doing exactly the same thing. the internet came along that obliterated the things. the next thing that happened is the conversation that took place among the readers became much more part of the general news flow. the general information flow the reader's engage with on the side. the transformation taking place today -- i have lost my train of thought. i will leave it at that. to g>> imagine 10 years ago the

supreme court was hearing arguments on a health-care law the way it was 10 years ago. imagine how you would handle it. how is that different from what you did yesterday when you wandered around and what your people did and how will that be different five years from now? >> the first thing is much of what happens takes place the night before, because there is massive planning. reprogram the day in the way tv does. -- we program the day in much the same way tv does. the supreme court is not prevented video, but they do provide audio and transcripts, and you have armies of people that are turning around journalism based on what is available as quickly as it becomes available. we are immediately looking at

the transcripts to be able to highlight the critical moments during the hearing. that is a really different kind of thing that would have happened 10 years ago the >> all in one news room and one physical area? which is new. >> right. we used to be in two areas. we consolidated. is it the same people? >> in many cases more and more it is, and that has to be. there are some people still writing long-form projects that will appear over to full page prints on a sunday in six months, but they are working closely with teams of producers and multi-media people thinking about what kind of other content we can pull in so that when it does launch, it is vital and exciting experience. a couple of years ago we did a big project called "top secret

america." we spent nearly two years on that. when we launched it, we had 10 million previews. much of that was people coming in and having a completely different experience than people would have had before, because you could go to the database -- database, you could go and find out there have been up contrast given by the cia to someone doing something in anaconda, montana, which for the person who went in and was interested in montana would have different information than someone who came to the newspaper in just read the article. the experience will change as we can add more information. >> ken, how does the change in the new platform changed the basic fundamental content, or does it? >> a couple of years ago i went to the white house doing a piece

on obama and the press. i was stunned. if you think about how the business of journalism, how journalists behaved today, i mentioned filing at 11:00 in the morning, but peter baker, a great reporter. it was before you got there. peter bakker was filing three or four times per day. i i that likes to write longer form. poppinged the tv guys up every 25 minutes and going outside. there were on their blackberries sending e-mails. is that what are you doing? they said we are doing e-mails. and they do not have time to do that anymore. so they are going out and doing quick seeds. increasingly that content is

affected by the technology, not just at the white house. think about campaign coverage. 25 years ago you had final time, and the campaign -- first of all, you flew on a campaign plane, which often times reporters have to fly themselves, but there were typewriters set up, and it would file the store is usually on the phone. 15 years ago you saw them filing on their laptops, and now they're filing on their cell phones. now they're calling their editor at 1:00. he would say i just saw something on line, and he would say that is not the story. he is filing for tomorrow with very little time. i think what you wind up getting is the content inevitably changes and becomes less reflective, more fast.

>> let me part open it up with a question about the shout out your publication. the new yorker does of phenomenal job of that beautiful long form that is beautifully reported. for peace being our recent example of that. yet it also is very well- positioned in the digital age. it has agreed application. and i also find that ipads and tablets tend to be a great place to read long-form. if you were reading online you tweet and that sort of thing. how do you think the new yorker has figured out navigating in the new media?

>> one of the virtues it has, they know who it is. stay -- one of the problems with journalism today is too many journalists to not know who they are. they are grounded. there never were to have a mass audience, but their audience is 1.2 million subscribers. when i started writing for the new yorker in the late 1970's it had 600,000 subscribers. the average age is older, but it is not as old as the network, which is 60. it has dropped. essentially they say we believe, as the economists believes, as that there is a quality audience and we reach them and do not have to come down to do it. i think there are publications

that do that. they do ok. >> the ipad is actually a good development compared to the website for presenting really carefully to rated long-form. >> you can get it online, or you can subscribe. and i often look down loaded so i can read it on the plane. >> we are on c-span and other outlets that we need microphones. >> thank you. to questions that are related today -- >> two questions are related. i am even more concern for democracy that i was before. a lot of the problem right now, especially in election year, is people are only listening to

people who agree with them and not hearing an alternate point of view, and that is a problem when it does affect the ultimate responsibility of journalism. the example is radio. what is the future of radio because they're even more fragmented and extreme. >> i have a split personality on the question about the future. on the one hand, intellectually and my brain i believe we will see fewer newspapers in radios and more dumbing down of media. of the other hand, emotionally i cannot live my life as a pessimist. so i look forward those nice stories that give me some hope. if you ask me to speak from my brain, i think it will be

inevitable that you what you were newspapers. at one point, and i know this was true at "the washington post." suddenly it does not necessarily mean that that local will be the new king of the block. i think a lot of medium-sized newspapers will be gone, and probably a lot of radio stations. i agree and where the train of thought i lost earlier was talking about consolidation, and i think he is exactly right that there will be consolidation in the business. there are more players and their need to be. i do not necessarily agree that this is terrible for democracy.

i do not think it is great if people are listening to ideas they are ready believe in, but i do not believe it was always that way. in the history of american journalism, the anomalistic time was 1950-2000 when everything centralized and newspaper became more centrist and they went for long-form a journalism and they had immense profit margins because they control their town. before that time newspaper published a relatively slow pace. they have to get a million copies on the streets of new york. newspapers were heavily the ideological. washington had something like 100 newspapers. i think there were two comments,

two stars. and a tornado, which i do not know what the political alignment would have been of that. [laughter] there were all of these papers. newspapers were illogical. "the new york times" was an abolitionist paper when it was first heard it. there is a cacophony of electrical viewpoints. they thrive or depend on that there loyalists to survive. i do not necessarily think it is that. i think this worry about the democracy underestimates the motivations people have to get good information and make wise decisions, because people have a motivationalic an

decisions to make. they may only care about what ever they see on whatever channel they happen to like, but somehow the society finds its way. we could have a long political discourse on this. >> i think there are two things that compete with each other. on the one hand, there is many more source confirmation from and that is wonderful democracy. that you could have a library or search or retrieve information you want. there is much more to-play information, which is more democratic. that is good. the worry is you have more information that may not be better information. i worry more about that. >> let me speak on optimistic side. i agree totally with markets. if you look at the history of benjamin franklin running away to philadelphia and he starts the 16th newspaper and they're all very partisan and

ideological come and you have the short time in american history in which you have mass media, partly because broadcast comes along and benjamin franklin at age 18 can start a newspaper, but you cannot start a network. everything centralizes. newspapers tend to become a monopoly is because department stores and there is a natural monopolizing tendency for consolidation. this has been blown away by digital media where everyone can blog or start a new publication. we haveback to the wherwhere been for the pbefore the past 5. i think radio was a real example of polarization, but it did not does happen in the past 50 years. i can remember reading about oliver einstein in the

1950's. he says i have seen this happen before. he said i grew up in nazi germany. suddenly things are right themselves. eisenhower gets rid of mccarthy. he says america has this ability to right itself. i do think inherent in our democracy in allowing more and more sources of information is the wisdom of the crowd of american democracy, and it does always tend to right itself. people say on the internet, isn't it like talk radio where people go to their end of the spectrum? and they get an echo chamber. i do not think that is the case. i actually think on the internet you find, instead of people wallowing in their corner of the there is morehere, interchange in shooting of heroes back and forth and more

people linking back and forth and much more of a dialogue in the days of the 1950's when talk radio fragmented our society. >> thanks. garret mitchel. essentiallyments answer the question i was going to pose, which is that the introduction of every new media there are all these predictions, not just about what will happen to the media but how will the changes as a country and what will that mean to democracy? >> you should have seen when the printing press was invented and they were buying up the bible's trying to stop it. >> i have heard about it. the question i am struck now is listening to the three of you talk about the democratization, i think walters notion about the positive influence of the sphise things, given all of tha,

what relationship to you see between those positive and the fact that our politics are as polarized as they have ever been? >> i guess i would challenge the assertion that they are as polarized as they have ever been. i think the history of the country is full of political betrayal and intense partisan rivalries. >> [inaudible] the farthest left republican and the farthest right democrats, there is lots of space between them. >> congress in general, but not the nation. congress is clearly partisan to the point of sometimes almost dysfunction, but i am not sure -- i do not know that i would start by blaming the media.

i think there is a leadership question in terms of everything happens faster in today's world. technology it celebrates every progress. maybe you could argue it has enabled people to rally around a cause, and maybe that does exacerbate the national partisan tendencies of politics. i am not sure, even if it were true, what the action point is. so what do we do? >> you look for positives. i am pushing that aside. look at fund raising. look at how much, how the ability for the president of canada it is to raise money from large numbers of people in small increments. >> just four years ago the

nation nominated the two candidates that were most known for saying we want to read station or blue nation -- red nation or blue nation. >> hey, david. david jackson. >> thank you. walter alluded to citizen journalism earlier, but no one really picked up on it. let me ask you specifically, how would you describe psittacine journalism, and do you think there should be a place for it at the washi"washington post" or "new yorker" ? >> think about the arab spring. how did we witnessed what was going on?

citizen journalism. people on their cell phones and facebook and twitter. that is pretty amazing. hurricane katrina. events where we are not present, does not have reporters there, and his paper is relying on information from citizens. are they journalist? no. i would make the argument, at the risk of being called an elitist, which i would plead guilty to, that a journalist should think of themselves as professionals. the presumption is that you have enough experience or training, not necessarily in journalism school, to decide what is on the front page, what is fair and balanced, and i do not think citizens necessarily have that, but they have a very valuable function. increasingly, you have people

going out in deputizing them to run information. some of it was very valuable. remember the person -- you learned a lot. >> are you going to deputize more citizen journalists? to go we should probably find ways to incorporate more of the reporting of the conversations that take place in communities. we have looked at this. the lip service is probably citizeng closest to satel of journalism. there is a string of robberies in northwest washington. it lit up all of the lip service in northwest washington. and from that, we picked up the idea of doing some stories. you can see when the community gets going on something.

i agree that there is a quality to journalism that may be different from having and reporting information. when china had a big earthquake, there were all of the cell phone videos that surfaced that allow people around the world to know what was happening. it is information, rawl information. in the end, there is a journalism process that makes some sense of it that provides context and historical balance, and the kind of independence and some what setback analysis that you need to feel that the information is not just one way, because otherwise the danger of journalismd citizen will not have an effect. journalists are not always right, and we try really hard to

get as close to right and the truth as we can. that is our core principle, we want to get people as much truth as we can get them. i am not sure what is called citizen journalism,>> money -- s changed the debate this -- the business model? people with money are forced to come to you to buy advertising to fund your work. now they have access to new tools as well. they do not need you as much. has that changed your financial model? >> obviously. >> what more difficult. >> our view is if we have an audience and can maintain that audience -- and we have done

well the last couple years in building our digital audience -- if we can build that audience we will find ways of making something up it economically. the path is not clear. our newspaper is the big metropolitan newspaper. we're the second-biggest among the country. people in washington love their newspaper. it is not a great business right now. we do well in digital display advertising because we aired good website, disproportionately large, but it is not enough money to cover the costs of our operations. we are not losing money. we're doing ok. we face the challenges. we will work through them. >> here is the problem they give you fax to illustrate the problem. "the new york times"has 425,000

subscribers to their website. that is a wonderful thing. here is the problem -- the average reader of "the new york times" spends 35 minutes a day reading "the new york times." the average reader online averages 34 minutes a month. an advertiser pays when 10th for the same ad online -- 1/10 for the same ad online as they do for the newspaper. that is when people talk about exchanging digital dimes for analytic -- for analog dollars. we have to see what sticks. the real problem is the economic

side. the real problem in journalism is a business problem. five or six years ago i thought the problem was between the people who signed our checks and the journalists. the brand was about trust, not recognition or people familiar with the knee. the real problem is a math problem. >> if you are going to do journalism, you need to have two revenue streams -- advertisers and leaders. -- and readers. otherwise this self-defeating because you end up being beholden to advertising and you do not have the insurance that says i can write a bad story about general motors because i do not care that at the back of the magazine is a chevrolet at. one of the changes in the digital age is we gave up trying to get money from users or

readers and became solely dependent on advertising. is that a danger? >> it is, and there is a change taking place, which is hopeful. when i started the google book, were talking about how advertising was the key. we have to do it free, it is free to the consumer. one of the reasons google is so popular is it is free. who would not like that? the cable guys. then what happened? they do youtube and they realized, advertising is a very weak reed to lean on. the economy downturns and the advertising drops. they said, maybe we made a mistake. i got the ceo of google to read missed -- to admit this.

maybe we need two revenue streams. the polarization that exists between digital and analog or traditional media is much less severe. they are coming closer together, because itunes comes and says we need your content. facebook is going to be doing movies. google says on youtube we need professional content. cbs says it is willing to sell to msn, that flex, -- to amazon, netflix, but who is gone to pay for it? >> apple did -- what apple did -- people can have a mix.

>> in 1991 i came out with a book on television networks. broadcasters at that time had one revenue stream. they then sold in the secondary market, syndication. if you are a broadcaster you get money from facebook, so you're getting money from amazon, flix, you have retransmission consent from cable. [unintelligible] it is a little late to be doing that, and the problem is global say we can get information from other sources. >> i do not think the payments question is answered yet. i think there are a lot of experiments going on right now. setting out to solve the problem

of a single institution is not going to lead you to the answer to payments on line, generally. in the end, we in the newspapers will benefit probably buy some broader payments edition, where people are paying for information the way that people pay for electricity or water. information becomes a utility. you pay a bill at the end of the month which includes "new yorker," and if we get to a place like that we will benefit. >> they do that in europe. there is a website that pools newspapers. [unintelligible] i am in email touch with him. [laughter] >> in a historical context, when

they did requests for comments on protocol, there was going to be a metering function where it kept track of everything that came -- that happened. many felt that whoever was putting the information up should allocate resources to it, but that -- it is still deeply imbedded of the dna of http, but has never really kicked in. >> last question here. we will make it a resounding and end. >> i wonder if there is a third possible source of revenue beyond advertising and direct subscriptions and things of that storks. call that the philanthropy, investments. there are experiments tried to aggregate money to commission content that is more of the

reflective, in depth sort we have been bemoaning in the discussion. do you foresee any conditions under which that would be more than an isolated event of a community foundation or someone else here or there to become a much larger phenomenon, where more citizens are involved in the creation of content? >> there are foundations that are willing to sponsor journalism in certain strains of content that interest them. i do not see it as a big solution right now. i think right now there is no single model. we need to look at everything the and if it turns out that is the source of funding for journalism that can be independent, objective, then we would consider its. i do not see a model emerging depend on philanthropy and foundation money right now. publica -- i'm sitting

out reading the livingston awards thing, and every year now i see and trees from pro publica. that is good, but it is an isolated model. if i were running a journalistic institution or any media institution, one of the first things i would do -- and i learned this living in silicon valley -- i would hire an engineer who spoke english, put them in an office next to me, because engineers are the content creators. those apps are created by engineers. they know how to reinvent

content, to think in fresh ways about how to ride at a digital content. >> the languages you should learn to speak -- chinese and arabic, and coding. python -- you got to know how to use the language that engineers a product. >> what makes you hopeful, coming down over the puck over the next five years? >> everything is continually gravitating toward that hand- held device, and you are going to see many more things straight the internet speeds are going to be greatly enhanced. you are caught see a lot cool new apps. if he said to me, ken, five years from now, what is the hot new thing? if i were mark september, i

could not answer that question, and one of the reasons he is right because they know everything is happening so fast that tomorrow he may be extinct himself, just as newspapers worry about extinction. that is a hopeful sign, but that is what is different about this luce,rom gutenberg's age, the speed of change is exponential. >> i would reduce it to mobil, social video. those things are going to be transforming and transformative. i am encouraged because every in the condition we have is that what our audience cares most about is strong, original, interesting journalism. good journalism works. and that fact across any platform is hugely encouraging.

>> the new thing that may be transformative is the advance ec in syria with your iphone, but in voice recognition, which leads to an artificial intelligence where you can communicate with any device. it learns everything you want. the interface is so simple you just say show me somebody interesting on charlie rose, and your tv will do that for you instead of working with a brain dead cable tv system. interfaces ander aggregate the wind system of your friends and your own preferences by just allowing you simply to talk to them will help transform media in the future. >> that is well said, walter, and it is like the new remote- control petrels -- that controls everything in your life. syria is a much -- siri is a

much more efficient search engine. that is what they have to worry about. >> thank you. thank you to our friends who sponsored this period that we say this communications series is starting with a narrative ar c, we have started with those three of us who for 20 or 30 years at been part of traditional media and looking into the new age. we hope in each successive one we will bring in new waves of people who started different parts of the new media spectrum, and we will invite myself and walter and marcus back for the last one so that we can make a synthesis and see where it all comes from. thank you very much. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tonight on c-span2, it is booktv in primetime. first, maggie anderson talks with a washington post report on "our black year." then jack abram loft is interviewed -- abramoff is interview. after that, chris matthews on the books "jack kennedy: an elusive hero."

>> this weekend is the anniversary of the bloodiest battle fought during the civil war. up to that point, the battle of shiloh, which 24,000 casualties, and we will toward the battlefield with a chief park ranger saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. sunday night, the angel of the battlefield and founder of the red cross clara barton operated the missing soldiers of us in a washington, d.c., boarding house until 1868. join us as we rediscovered the third-floor office as it is prepared for renovations. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. >> this sunday, u.s. senate youth program. >> one of the greatest experiences was when i got the opportunity to meet both of my senators, bob casey and pat to me,-- toomey. >> he talked about how

important it was to be financially sound. >> high school students from all 50 states have participated in a week-long program in the nation's capitol. share observations and experiences with their interactions with congress, the supreme court, and the president. >> everybody we have met here from congress --in the east we wonder if everybody is saying that, but it is not actually happening. is there a discrepancy between what they are saying and doing it. >> suny night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> fbi assistant directors of

counter-terrorisms addressed the conference and talk about measures around potential threats and combating cyber fraud. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> our theme is counter- terrorism and cybersecurity. we are proud to have both topics delivered here this morning by our keynote experts, the assistant directors of the fbi counter-terrorism and cyber divisions. at the end, we will hold a question and answer session with both assistant directors. it is my pleasure to introduce morning. jeanetkeynote this he began his career with the fbi in 1991, and to route his

career served in various leadership positions. in april 2011, he was appointed deputy assistant director the strategic operations branch, counter terrorism division, at fbi headquarters. on december 12, he was appointed by robert mueller as assistant director of the fbi's counter- terrorism division. in his keynote session this morning, the assistant director will highlight the top priorities of the fbi in regard to terrorism threat and various ways the fbi mitigate potential threats. he will also share with the audience some recent successes the fbi has had in stopping terrorist attacks. please give a warm welcome to ralph boelter. [applause]

>> good morning, everyone. can i be heard? very good. if i tried very hard, i can almost see the back row. thank you for coming today. i know we are now 10 years-plus after the tragic attacks of 9/11, in 2001, so i often wonder there is terrorism fatigue out there in the country. i am pleased to see we have quite the crowd today to listen to my address and my colleague's address, which will follow. good morning to all. it is a pleasure to be here today and to speak to you about the fbi at's continuing efforts

to address the persistent threat of terrorism to the united states and her interests around the world. terrorism, as i like to say, is the national security issue or challenge of our era. it is a complex asymmetric threat has -- that has challenged and hurt us both overseas and at home. in the years since 9/11, we have come a long way, to be sure. we have accomplished much in that time. even so, on the road for, there is still much to do. as our adversaries a just and evolves there strategies, and their tactics, as they move to greater degrees into cyberspace, for instance, where physical distances between people and places are less relevant, there are challenges before us, significant challenges.

after the demise of osama bin laden last may, president obama reminded the world in essence that america and her allies will continue to be relentless in pursuit of al qaeda, its affiliates, and it's adherents. to be sure, the achievement has stand -- the achievements stand as significant. the rank of the outcry that correlation has been degraded substantially during the last few years. many prominent figures or operatives in plots of groups affiliated with core al qaeda have been disrupted. numerous violent extremist plots in the homeland have been identified and disrupted, including the recent plot by homegrown extremist in tampa, florida. he planned to attack a popular

commercial district, filled with restaurants and clubs, during its busiest hours to inflict mass casualties. and a separate plot was disrupted just a few weeks ago. these and other achievements are the product of a composite of measures and actions that have improved the effectiveness of the fbi in its many partner aids is -- a disease through intent -- through information sharing, and the protocols that facilitate that. through those improvements and a high degree of enter-agency cooperation that exists today between our local, state, federal, an international partners, we are better able to identify and locate our

adversaries. and better able to discern an existing and emerging threats, threats that we can strategize and mobilize against and disrupt before harm is inflicted on americans, its interests, or its allies. director mueller ascribes the fbi's remarkable transformation over the past 10 years, from a largely reacted organization primarily focused on criminal matters, not exclusively, but primarily focused on criminal matters a lot to a robust, proactive intelligence-driven agency that the fbi truly is today. focused first and foremost on protecting the united states from terrorists and other national security threats. i often say having been in the

organization for the past 20 years i had in a sense served in two at the i's -- the bureau existed before the 9/11 attacks and the bureau after that seminal day. in that regard, i stand as a witness of sorts and a participant in the transformation that the director often speaks of. including the establishment and the maturing of the directorate of intelligence within the at the gatt -- within the fbi, a new creation for this organization. and a creation of the field intelligence groups now placed in each field offices across the country. these constitute significant steps in the developing -- in developing our capability to understand the action and shared intelligence we collect.

the necessary expansion of the size and capabilities of the counter-terrorism division and the increase and then number of joint terrorism task forces around the country that gave us the capability to investigate terrorism leads and cases in a manner that overall is more timely, more consistent, and more effective, and those jttf's are set by state officials as well as fbi agents and other federal officials, other federal law enforcement officers. it is in part through the jttf's that we have joined forces with hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies.

we continue to evolve and seek ways to enhance our operations and further refine our analytical capabilities. for an example, about a year ago, in my division, the counter-terrorism division, which established the strategic operations branch within the division, a branch dedicated solely to accessing existing and emerging threats around the world. the threats that indicate the homeland -- implicate the homeland. it assesses our posture against each of those threats, identifying where we are well- positioned, strong, and where we need to redouble our efforts, where we need to become stronger. we need to improve our posture. this branch solely works on

those issues. identifying threats, assessing our posture, and then driving, resource decisions that i make to allocate the resources available against the threats that confront us. we're not just operating become as i lot to say, using a lot of resources at a particular problem. ,e're operating smart identifying the landscape, the threats across polanski, and focusing on the threats that matter most, and danger us most, that pose the greatest risk. i recently read a biography of steve jobs , and an anecdote in that book tells the story of steve trying to encourage his

engineering staff to speed up the mac in the 1980's. he said to his staff, if a life was at stake, could you make it blew it up faster, because the staff told them it would be difficult to do that. they took his words and they said, if life was at stake, we could do it. if you read the book, you are familiar with the anecdote. they not a significant amount of time off the boot-up time. when i was reading that, i imagine we do not in my line of work have to imagine that if a life were at stake, because a life is at stake, many lives are at stake in this work. when we look to improve, i

think of that anecdote of steve jobs, and i apply it to my work force. let me be clear on this point. even in light of our recent successes, our counter- terrorism successes over the last few years that i have mentioned earlier, will not stop to celebrate those successes. why? because america is still at risk, because even as we have improved and it evolves and sharpen our focus and our capability, our adversaries likewise continue to evolve their capabilities, and they are still committed to attacking us. that is clear. that is clear. the terrorist threat has become more centralized, more complex.

with the establishment of al qaeda affiliates around the eastern hemisphere, 10 years ago, the threat emanated from the region of asia -- the afghan region of asia, and that is what we focused on with laser focus. al qaeda is still committed to attacking the u.s. and the west. it still presents a danger to of us. the al qaeda affiliate based in the arabian peninsula actually constitutes a more serious threat to the united states today. it was aqap, as the affiliate's is commonly described, that attended the bombing of flight 253 in december of 2009. and it was aqap that attempted

to bomb carter flights bound for the u.s. in 2010. and other affiliates, such as the times square bombing attempt by the al qaeda affiliate, ttp, in may, 2010. in addition to spreading out around the globe, al qaeda has employed new methods and new tactics. of particular concern today is their use of on-line forums, website and social media to recruit and radicalize followers to commit acts of terrorism. in this way, terrorist organizations seeking to hamas have, like i said earlier, dispensed with the limitations imposed by geography or distance.

in fact, they can reach inside our borders and attempt to influence and direct their followers, or others who might be susceptible to their methods of promoting violence. similarly, aqap has produced a full-color online magazine, highly professional production. it is full of propaganda, extremist propaganda, and available at the click of a mouse. terrorists are not only sharing ideas. they are soliciting information, inviting communication, and improving their communication methods. they are becoming more secure. al-shabab, the al qaeda affiliate in somalia uses twitter to target its enemies in english, and encourages

terrorist activity. the increase in online activity by extremists, coupled with the rapidity that one can be radicalized again presents a serious challenge for us. and where these two factors intersect is a concern of ours today. in the case of the zachary chesser, from this area, who was radicalized online over a time frame of just a few weeks in mid 2008, the sentencing judge, liam o'grady, observed that his transformation from high school athlete to highly energized trader of his country -- traitor of his country was startling. how quickly went from high school athlete to one dedicated to the principles advocated by al qaeda, the violent rhetoric,

the violent ideology. chesser himself was surprised, looking back at how quickly the transformation occurred. let me say a few words about homegrown violent extremism in a broader context. because that is what we are concerned with today. again, a homegrown violent extremism that arises from within our borders. it provides us fewer opportunities to discern in a timely manner and disrupt before harm is inflicted. these homegrown violent extremists, or hve's, as we refer to them, they come from all kinds of backgrounds and in

various shapes and sizes. trying to find any commonality between them, upon which you can develop an effective strategy, is challenging. and yet, we are doing just that. we are in the process of analyzing every one of those hve's from where they came, how they became radicalized, how they've mobilized so we can understand going forward and become more effective in dealing with this threat. as i indicated, hve's are challenging because they are already in a country. there is no travel necessarily on their part. they are familiar with their prospective targets. they understand the culture. and in the case of loan actors, they can operate in relative

isolation. they can prevent a few signals that they are out there, few signals of what their intentions are. and they can use readily available weapons or materials. when i talked about the attempted attack in tampa , in tampaan hve, somebody who radicalized here. -- talking about an hve, somebody who radicalized here. and the threat on the capital, again, that is an hve. there are many more. this is the trend. since 2008, there has been a substantial of take in these hve cases. the trend is -- and the internet

has a role to play in it -- but the trend is a threat inside the borders is a significant one, and one that has occupied more and more of our attention. we need to do several things in this regard. the counterterrorism strategy, a national strategy is a multidimensional strategy. it involves going after your adversaries. but also means entering the counter-radicalization process, understanding why people get radicalized, and delivering counter messages to that in ways that you can do so effectively. the need for community engagement is significant. and the fbi and authorities are around the country have stepped up their efforts to engage in

community. to understand the community better, and to convey to the community what our intentions are, our interests are, and what our concerns are. it is imperative in this day and age with the threat that i have described, to sensitize the public and law enforcement officials alike to the threat, to hve's, to signs of mobilization. to maximize the opportunity of destruction before harm is inflicted. these are the challenges today, in short order, that we are looking at and confronting. let me close by saying that i worked in counter-terrorism for the last year, first as the

deputy assistant director, and more recently as a director. and i have had the personal exposure to hundreds of counter- terrorism professionals. they are people who dedicate their lives to this, and working counter-terrorism is not in nine to five job. it is an everyday job. i feel i would be remiss if i did not give a nod to the people i've had the pleasure of working with in the last year. and to make you understand, to convey to you that this country has some fine individuals on the front lines, who are dedicating their lives, literally, at great sacrifice to keep this country saved. with that, i want to thank you for your time.

we will take questions. i understand, but after my colleague, gordon snow, delivers his presentation. i look forward to that time. thank you so much. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> any questions. -- any questions? >> [unintelligible]

> >> the question was about eclipsing cyber terrorism, in a sense. that is our belief, that as time goes on, cyber crimes -- which, by the way, cyber tend to overlap many of the programs, counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal programs. but you will see a greater prevalence of cyber-related offenses, including cyber terrorism, i would imagine. what we are doing to address that is, within the fbi there is

much more cross-programmatic coordination. the people who -- gordon's people work cyber issues, and my people who work terrorism, and how we work together. -- now we work together. we have not had a significant terrorism -- or terrorism, cyber-related, event in this country, but that is not to say there is not a potential. anybody else? questions? >> good morning.

>> i cannot hear it. >> can you hear it now? now? can you hear me? by marcus rockwell with "government security news." there have been reports -- there have apparently been some extremist websites taken out in the last month or so and there is speculation that it was a cyber attacks. i know you may not be able to comment specifically, but how are those website scene? is that a domestic or international threat? how is that handled?

>> that they were taken down? are you asking about was domestic or international? >> if you could comment specifically on those reports. and also, how does the fbi see those websites? are they get -- a domestic threat directly, or more of a broad global threat? >> i think they constitute a global threat, because they are viewed globally. and the websites that you are talking about are extremist forms, if i understand you correctly. they carry propaganda, published articles on these websites that really serve the interests of our adversaries, for the most part. >> to do the fbi -- do they have an active program to reach out to those websites, or are they monitoring them? >> anyone can go to these websites.

yes, we monitor them. we go to the web site and we do the content on the new website, just like you would. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> he mentioned earlier al- shabab. and what is counter-terrorism doing to prevent the recruitment of first-generation americans, people whose families have recently moved to america, but are still connected back home to these groups? >> i have a great closeness to that issue, because i was the agent in charge of the minneapolis division before i came here. i think the most effective answer to your question is, we are dialoguing with the somalian-american community. it i took much of that on myself when i was there. i met with a young somali males, people susceptible to occur --

to recruitment, so i could gain an understanding of what their life in america was like, and what was on for them. it without talking about law enforcement or terrorism, just taking those topics and building trust and understanding with the community, and at the same time conveying what are as concerned about and what the fbi's concerns were, i think that is the best approach, to get the message out that way. obviously, people have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for attempting to join al-shabab. there are a number of factors that we have put together. we have seen quite a slowdown in that phenomenon, somalia and americans' desire in to go to the horn of africa, to somalia to fight with al-shabab.

>> thank you. >> it is now my pleasure to introduce our next keynote expert, the assistant director of the seiberg division of the fbi. he began his career with the fbi in march urging -- march of 1992. in january of 1999 he was appointed chief of the seibel division, the cyber national security section and a director of the national cyber investigative joint task force. in november of 2009 he, he was named deputy assistant director of the seiberg division. and in april of 2010, he was named the assistant director of the seiberg division. in his keynote address, the

assistant director will speak to the cyber investigations and how the fbi is continuing to develop new techniques and resources that will help protect citizens from these crimes. please join me in giving a warm welcome to gordon snow. [applause] >> good morning. it is my pleasure to be here today among the outstanding group of professionals dedicated to protecting our nation's homeland security. as you may know, last month, fbi director robert moeller met with a similar group of individuals at the conference in san francisco. during his speech he said that in the not too distant future we anticipate the cyber threat will pose the number one threat in our country. what is the threat?

it is no surprise that we are living in a high-tech world. it may surprise you that there are more wireless devices being used in the united states. by the end of 2012, the number of mobile devices will exceed the number people on earth. with this constant schenectady, there are a vulnerability for you and your network. -- constant connectivity, there are vulnerabilities for you and your network. at another point in our history have we had to stretch our awareness, our capability, and understanding of a threat of more than we do now. as we have learned of threats to individuals, businesses, national economies, infrastructures, and even to our governmental economic strength and stability to exceed its financial caucasian. several things have actually tried -- financial calculation. several things have tried to quantify it. it is nearly 400 billion a year,

and are more than 1 million victims of cyber crime a day. a study last august found that the number of attacks on companies this year was up 45% from last year, and they cost 70% more to fix. on average, these attacks are 18 days and four to $2,000 to repair. that is just the beginning. -- $416,000 to repair. it is just the beginning. the threat is real, and intrusions in a corporate network, and personal computers and governmental systems are occurring every day by the thousands. in a suburb criminal world we have three primary actors -- foreign intelligence services, terrorist groups, and organized criminal enterprises. the victims ranged from government networks to defense contractors and private companies from which they hope to steal secrets, or gain competitive advantage for their

own nations advantage. as a primary investigative agency of the u.s. government for more than 100 years, the fbi has become accustomed to changing to leading the threats. the fbi is prepared to address the cyber threat. when the fbi first began to look at computer intrusions as a criminal element in its own right, it was 2002, and there were 600 million users on the internet. the method used were straightforward and the threat more localized the internet now has over 2 billion users and a variety of high-tech criminals, ranging from lawn actors to vigilante groups, and dangerous, often highly organized syndicate groups. they bring specialized stock skill sets such as cutting, hacking, administration, and social engineering and fishing.

between 2009 and 2008, computers at our be as world bank in atlanta, georgia or hacked. in just 30 minutes, a network of cashing cruz recorded from online forms used the cards, withdrawing $9,000. 20 different cities in the u.s., russia, ukraine, estonia, italy, hong kong, japan, and canada. the fbi brought together the secret service and international law enforcement to arrest the ringleader in atlanta by a federal grand jury. in one of the largest crime take down today, fbi agents in omaha, neb., were alerted to a series of automated clearing house-page -- payments linked to 46 different accounts in the u.s..

the fbi is working with groups in the netherlands, the ukraine and others to find some $7 million stolen from individuals, churches, and small and medium- sized businesses. it enabled the destruction of a large criminalize -- organized criminal groups. clearly, high-tech criminals are evolving their techniques in a cyber underground, alongside the developing online environment. whether it is bank fraud, countered -- counter for tracking, -- counterfeit trafficking, or espionage amount it is more complex than ever. as online criminals continue to raise their level of technical expertise, we expect to see several new trend emerging in the next few years. some will include the advanced

targeting of smart phones and electronic tablet. we also expect to see targeting of public safety infrastructure, the system that serves our nation's first responders. the threat of terror attack in the developing infrastructure continues to be of concern. we have already seen criminals so adept at building and adapting now where, they market their own -- by adopting malware and making it available in the market. because the tools are easy to use and customize, it is now possible for nearly everyone with intent to engage in cyber crime. whether the motive is financial, activist, political, or otherwise, cyber criminals are quickly combining ways to get the most from their tools.

for those not familiar, it can eventually lead millions of computers in a myriad of illegal activity. it botnet or copyrighted computer -- or compromise computer is used for different techniques. the value of the theft and intrusion in the financial- services sector far exceeds that of the physical big robbery is many times over. with hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from various institutions and their customers. these crimes put companies at a competitive disadvantage and create significant drain on the economy. what are we at the fbi doing

about it? to address the increasingly complex cyber technologies and actors and the international scope of online krenz, the fbi has made changes to the structure of our organization. we have field offices housing analyst and forensic examiners. we are enhancing our cyber training. and we have changed the way we work to employ more multifaceted approach, leveraging law enforcement and private sector partnerships more than we ever have before. as part of the fbi cyber response effort is a national cyber investigative joint task force. just outside d.c., it provides an operation for employing an fbi-led interagency task force investigating all types of cyber threat. there are dedicated teams of

toregas on specific intrusion sets and problems, including botnet. this includes intelligence and technical panel -- analysts from difference years. -- different spheres. we have developed strong relationships with the private sector and through the robust information sharing that has been created, we prevent attacks before they occur. with the transnational major of cyber crime, our work with law enforcement partners is key as well. since 2010, we have embedded full-time fbi cyber experts with our partners in romania, estonia, ukraine, and the netherlands, and we continue to expand program, paying attention to special threat regions. we have special agents and

support personnel in u.s. embassies and 35 countries throughout the world. we are training with on fourth agencies and more than 40 nations in cyber investigative techniques. this acts as a force multiplier by increasing our time to react, expediting international communications that have previously been tied up in a lengthy international legal process. the expertise that has been shared throughout public and private partnerships has often been an integral factor in the success of the numerous botnet take downs, as well as in the other cyber investigations. we're currently working with a number of industry groups and software companies, research labs, and academic institutions that have a vested interest internet security. these select partners have been instrumental in breaking some of the largest cases today. in the latter part of 2009 and early 201