they enjoyed making the exercise of war. there were very close to war. the population in general was outraged by the piracy, american ships were being -- being taken on seas. american diplomats were being badly treated. >> we have a few key dates in years, and a smallear point. presidents were inaugurated in march. you can see things such as washington, d.c., selected at the capital in 1800. 1801, chief justice marshall was selected. what about the passage of the

alien and sedition act. what is the view of those -- both of them on this? >> some people thought we were about to be overrun by french revolutionaries and the a were influencing people in america. there were rumors that cities would be burned. it was terrorism they were anticipating. for example, the opposition party, the democratic republican party was very enthusiastic about the french and some of the ideals of the french revolution. >> jefferson in particular. >> this is where they begin to go in different directions. also, some of the press is very vehement in their criticism of

the administration. so they muzzled the press and said that this is probably the thing that john adams is most criticized for. abigail, i believe, supported john. abigail was even more vehement during i think she is even more conservative than john during that time. >> the upshot of this, the people who were breaking the alien and sedition acts -- >> you could be jailed. >> it was said that the press made things up. he had no standards. it was not the they were supporting the french, but they were making up stories that were not the truth europe adams was

very seriously worried about this. jefferson -- that were not the truth. adams was very seriously worried about this. jefferson felt that the states should be passing the alien and sedition laws. he was very much in favor of the states. at that time, people did not have the same or about suppressing the press that we have today. >> it was in the heat of the moment. rex right. >> stephen from chicago. >> they say history repeats itself. i was wondering if there any presidents and first ladies or first couples that most resemble or are analogous of the

adams is -- of the adamses? is that the relationship standard? >> i hope you will take that question. [laughter] >> there was no one else like abigail and john. thet of all, we don't have insight into anybody else's lives. these letters were recently revealed. lyndon johnson's love letters to lady bird were revealed. but there is nothing like the abigail and john exchange. [laughter] >> it is when they are situated in such a important time and there were so many players in so many stages. that is what sets them apart. this is from twitter. >> people came by, but not so

much during the presidency. there is a time when john is really quite ancient. and it is some time at your abigail has passed. cadets from west point came and they had a band and they played and marched and they were served punch and john adams gave a talk -- a patriotic talk to the troops. occasionally, people would come by. but they did not entertain in the sense of politically entertaining. it was family for the most part. >> at mount vernon and the washingtons, they seem to be constantly be welcoming people to their house. >> people wanted to be close to

the president. social standards would different than. and standards of hospitality were different. if someone came to your door, you just didn't turn them away. although they might like to have done so. >> they continue to read letters during the time they were separated? >> she did. when she is with john, it isn't that she's at writing letters. she is writing letters to other people. while he was president, two of their children were in europe on a diplomatic mission. so there are a lot of letters between thomas boylston and john quincy adams to their parents, especially to abigail, and she writes to her sister. she writes wonderful letters to her sisters who were back in acid usage and new hampshire. >> -- who were back in massachusetts and new hampshire.

>> i have been much diverted with little occurrence and it shows how little founded in nature the so much posted notion of liberty and equality is. neighbor paxon came in and requested to speak to me. his errand was to inform me that, if james went to school, it would rick at the school because the other lads refused to go. why, mr. paxton? has the boy misbehaved? there was no problem at that time. they refused to go to school with a black wife. it continues on in this vein saying that they allowed him to play at the dance and they would still go. and she closes this section saying, "the boy is a free man as much as any of the young men. and as because his face is black he is not to be denied instruction. is this the way we would have done to others as we would have done to us?

>> she is hoping to influence his thinking. how concerned was he with rights and equality's at his point in his presidency? >> it is a little different thing. this is jean who she is talking about, who it is -- who is an adams servant. james was a special person to abigail. one abigail goes to philadelphia a few months after this, john goes don't bring james. he didn't want blacks in philadelphia as his servant. not really clear why, but i think he sensed that they could

be corrupted. her were much fewer blacks in massachusetts. and there were more blacks and slaves in philadelphia. he said don't have them -- don't have him come beyond new york. he says, you have a beat him. i think she taught him to read. i don't know that she was instructing john adams so much on this as that she was showing her love and affection for james as an individual regardless of his race. >> here is something from our viewers. it looks like she is quoting a letter from john to abigail. do you have any thoughts on that that's -- on that?

>> it is a wonderful quote. they had no idea there would be a war. they may have suspected there would be a war. they had no idea of its duration or that it would separate the colonies. we would have to go back and view it from their point of view. he is saying we don't know what is going to happen. >> we said at the outset that she was criticized by the press who sometimes used the phrase to describe her as mrs. president. what is the context of that reference? >> the context is these. press at the time.

he was the american minister to great attend. she was accustomed to having those relations with the press. >> did she complain to family members about this? was she hurt by the way she was treated in the press? >> i think she was more defensive about her husband. abigail did not have great ambition for herself, but she had great ambition for john and for boys. but particularly for john quincy adams. and she was very defensive of them. i think this is one of the reasons why the relationship with jefferson is so difficult

because she had really loved thomas jefferson as a friend and she believed jefferson turned on her husband. >> how did she express her support of her husband? >> she went there. she was with him all of the time. when he needed her, she was there. >> was there an avenue for her to respond to the press? >> not that i can think of. her avenues to responding to the press was that she was in favor of the sedition laws. she liked the idea of curtailing the press. >> let's take our next phone call from oka raton, florida. >> good program. thank you for taking my call. i am a member of the press. two callers tonight kind of insinuated that she was not a good matter.

i believe john quincy was a leading abolitionist and here we are following american history. whether it is the kkk doing their thing in the south today, the john birch society, the tea party now which is 97% caucasian, can we at least give abigail -- throw her a bouquet of roses and say that she might have influenced john quincy in terms of the color of a man's skin should not be placed -- >> john quincy lived with her until he was 11 years old. then he went to europe with john. she did not see him again until

he was 17 or 18. so he became a man. >> under the tutelage of his father. >> but she was very influential in the first 11 years. i balk at this tendency to blame the mother every time something goes wrong with the children. circumstances happen. there are genes. there is possibly a genetic disposition to alcoholism in that family. abigail's brother died of it and there were apparently other family members. a revolution happened when her children grew up. they grew up in wartime. that can be very damaging to children's psyches. >> the year 1800 was a very,

very difficult year for the adamses. a campaign for reelection hard- fought. thomas jefferson, he lost that good the year that he moved to the white house. and they also lost their son. let's talk about the decision to run for office again. did abigail support this? wewe don't have as much as had in the decision for the previous election where they agonized over it. it went back and forth. there are letters -- should i or shouldn't i? i don't have as much of that for the second term. part of it was, because by this time the political parties were so strong, he felt he didn't want the other party in. he wanted to follow through with what he was doing. even though there were several bad things happening around or

to the adams family during that time, actually, in 1800, he had one of his great successes. the convention with the french that ended the undeclared war. >> i would also emphasize that the political parties were not written into the constitution. and washington and adams both and many of the people around them did not anticipate political parties. they thought they had a constitution. they had a government. everybody would agree to it would be harmonious. it did not work out that way. and it was a surprise to them. it was a surprise to adams that there was so much dissension during his administration. >> they lived the last four months of his administration as occupants of the white house. it looks pretty miserable. what was life like in the mansion for the adamses?

>> it was pretty miserable. they didn't have heat. they had to gather wood in that area. the mansion was not finished when they moved in. abigail describes georgetown as a swamp. the city was not yet built. they moved in before there was a proper white house. also, i think it affected the way she entertained. it affected her entire role as first lady. dos limited what she could in that drafty, cold, incomplete house. >> it must have been shared misery by the members of congress who were arriving in the city. >> most of them lived in rooming houses and boarding houses. it was seasonal.

congress came and went. there weren't a lot of people who lived year-round in washington at that time. >> we have this graphic we have been showing of laundry being hung inside the white house. did that really happen? >> i don't know. >> i don't either. it sounds like abigail [indiscernible] >> it would not have been a good place to dry laundry because it was drafty and cold. >> we talked about charles dying. anymore on how that affected her and the death of the sun in that turbulent year? >> it was a terrible heartache for her and for him.

>> he did write to jefferson in later years that it was the greatest grief of my life. >> jan from boise. >> thank you for putting on this series. i am curious about what role religion played in her life given that her father was a pastor. my sense is that john was raised with more calvinist bent, but was more unitary as an older man. what about abigail? >> thank you for that question. abigail was a very religious woman. she was so religious that, in times of turbulence, when things went wrong in her life, she thought it was a case of punishment. there was an during the years when john was away. she truly believe that life was providential. her letters continually reference the bible. i think that, when things got

bad in her life, she became more religious and more conservative religion. >> we continue our series about the first lady's. when john adams realized he lost the presidency, how did he take it? how did abigail take it? >> by the time the electoral vote was counted, they very well knew that he would not be elected. i think they were disappointed. one of the things that johnson throughout his public life was that he would always retire, that he would always go back the farm and retire. he loved the farm. in that sense, it wasn't so bad.

but i think it was the defeat of the ideas and what some people refer to as the revolution of 1800, because it was such a dramatic change in the other party coming in. he did not attend the in migration. some thought he was being spiteful. he had to catch an early stage to get back. part of it was a man who, in a sense, he felt the trade him and defeated him. i think that was probably the hardest thing to get. >> the couple that's been so many years apart and the development of their country and now had this opportunity to live together, how long did they live together in the white house years? >> abigail lived to 1818. he lived together for 18 years. >> how was it for them? >> they were idyllic for them and very difficult in some ways.

abigail refused to visit her daughter because she said i can't leave john. during that time, her daughter had a mastectomy in 1811 without anesthesia. >> that is so hard to think of. >> she ultimately died two years later. it was a time of satisfaction and peace and also very great disruptions in their lives. they had problems with grandchildren and children and constant drama going on. one grandson went and fought in the revolution in venezuela and they had to bail him out.

or not bail him out. john refused to bail him out. >> they had some financial difficulties during there was a bank failure that their son had invested in. but this is when it sounds like "downton abbey." >> the daughter had a terrible husband and they were terribly worried about her. >> from the perspective of your life's work and the letters, they were together. they start writing letters at that point? >> they stopped writing letters to each other. but they wrote letters to others. >> was more prolific? >> john quincy adams is frequently away on diplomatic assignments or would later be secretary of state. he was in washington and a senator and at sort of thing.

abigail has a sister who lives in new hampshire at that time. i think mary krantz is her favorite, her older sister. they lived allegedly nearby so there was not a lot of correspondence. >> she was close to her granddaughter caroline. so there is correspondence between her and this young girl. >> when john quincy goes to europe, he meets his wife. what was the relationship between the two adams women? >> i think lisa cochran was quite shocked by the culture he knew in length after having had a rather genteel upbringing in england and entrance and was quite shocked by the people and the customs. even church attendance. >> when she went to the old house, she said it was like going to noah's ark.

>> we have a closing video, "a return to peace field." >> abigail enjoyed 17 years of retirement here at sealed with her husband john adams. here, the old couple could dote on their children and grandchildren and enjoy the peace and tranquility that this place offer them throughout their lives. the president's bedroom was inviting, sunny and right. abigail enjoyed many hours in this room writing to her friends, writing to her emily, enjoying the time with her husband. on october 27, 1818, abigail passed away from typhoid fever. she was 74 years old and john adams had lost his dearest friend. the only way he could find comfort was in the 10. he would pen a letter to thomas jefferson, leading jefferson know that he had lost a dear

friend and he would say to his family, if only i could lie down beside her and die, too. >> can you talk about john adams life in the years after abigail died? >> john was surrounded by family. so he was not isolated. he had always is hostess and caretaker a niece who had lived with them for most of her life. grandchildren came and children came. there was always traffic through the house and people came and militia came from boston, as you said. so there was a lot going on during those years. he was quite palsy. he couldn't write his own letters.

he kept this incredible correspondence with jefferson in those years. >> culminating with the two of them finally coming to peace and dying together on the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence, july 4, which is really quite an amazing piece of american history. there is a question here about whether or not there is a lead line still living for john and abigail. >> oh, yes. why don't you respond to that? >> there were several messages. the historical society and the addams family have been close over the centuries. the adams family association have more than a hundred members. we were joking about it we frequently get questions from people thinking, believing that they are related or a descendent of john and abigail. some of them may be, but there

are many more descendents than we think are possible. >> the name is lost because women marry out. >> stephanie, you will be our final question. >> what became of her children after she died very young? did they remain with the adams at peace field? >> they were adults when they died. the daughter caroline was married at the time. and son was also an adult. so there were no small children. >> our last video of abigail's death at peace field. all right, we don't have that during we have a very little bit of time left.

in bringing this full circle, for people who have been introduced to abigail adams tonight, what is the take away? >> as we think that to the american revolution, her letters provide the only insights we have of the revolution at a sustained level during that entire period of the revolution and the national period. she talks about women's lives at the time and what it was like to be america's first lady and not just the wife of an american minister, but to be a wife and a daughter. >> the thing that i always think about with abigail is the relationship, the partnership. without abigail, there is no john. without john, there is no

abigail. >> don is important to history. >> john is important to history. >> with the support he provided -- she provided to him in the puck -- the presidency, the vice presidency, she was so trustworthy, she could take care of things. he could go off and be a great public person. which is exactly what she wanted. >> edith phyllis and james taylor, dom offer a helping us understand more about the life and legacy of america's second first lady, abigail adams. , for your time. -- thank you for your time.

♪ host: >> next monday on a "first ladies," how young quaker winnowed transformed into the women -- the woman that history remembers, dolly madison.

she hosted afternoon parties for politicians on different sides of the idol to help the agenda of her husband, james madison. although she was frightened as british troops made their way to burn the white house, she boldly saved the portrait of george washington. we'll take your calls, facebook posts, and tweets on dolly madison next monday on c-span. our web site has more about the first ladies, including a special section, welcome to the white house, produced by our partner, the white house historical association, which chronicles life during the -- in the executive mansion. we are offering a special edition of the book "first ladies of the united states of america." it includes comments from noted historians and thoughts from michelle obama on the role of first ladies throughout history. it is now available for $12.95 plus shipping.

>> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> coming up, the three people to serve as homeland security secretary marking the agency's 10th anniversary. then from this year's national association for business economics, we heard on the u.s. economy from a vice chair of the federal reserve and janet yellen, a former federal reserve chairman paul volcker, and douglas on the north. -- elmendorf. on monday, the three people to serve as homeland security secretary marked the 10th anniversary of the agency. immigration and the impact of sequestration were the main topics at this event with tom

ridge, michael chertoff, and current secretary janet napolitano. there were interviewed by mike allan from politico. this is an hour. -- mike allen from politico. this is an hour. [applause] >> governor ridge, welcome. instead of our three tenors, we had three secretaries. i appreciate you all coming together for this. secretary in the pala tunnel, -- napolitano, we will start with you, make some news this morning. everybody in washington is very concerned about the sequester. it has landed. you said you're already seeing

defects at psa. -- at tsa. >> as i shared with the congress, now that we are having to reduce or eliminate overtime, both for tsa and customs, now that we have institutionalized a hiring freeze, we cannot fill vacancies, and we will begin today sending out for loan notices -- furlough notices. we are already seeing defects at some of the big airports, some with very long lines this weekend. >> particularly where? >> ollanta say au pair, lax -- i the newsay o'hare, lax, york airports got through ok, but that will be temporary. we will see these attacks cascade over the next week. >> what kind of lines are talking about?

>> i would say 150-200% as long as we would normally expect. i'm trying to give you your story. you can say it is really long. [laughter] what i would say is, look, i do not mean to scare, i mean to inform. if you're traveling, get to the airport earlier than you otherwise would. there is only so much we can do with personal. please do not yell at customs officers. they are not responsible for sequester. >> has that been happening? >> i have not heard yet today from a customer, traveler interaction, but you know, nobody likes to wait in line. nobody likes to wait in a long line. i will say, as a matter of sequester, this is happening and will continue. >> last question on this, what will you be doing to me to get it? will it get worse as the month goes along? >> there is very little we can

do to mitigate it. the procedures we use to clear passengers and cargo, they are responsible for the fact that we have a very safe aviation system. we had a very good migration system where we know who's coming into the country. we're not willing to cut back on those security needs. the end result is fewer people doing the same thing. >> we will pull back the camera on the department of homeland security and the anniversary we are celebrating. in the sequester report put out by the white house on friday night, the secret service is taking a 5% cut to its operating account, $84 million. how does the secret service skinned? -- skimp? that is part of your empire. [laughter] >> obviously one of the major

responsibilities, if not the major responsibility, is the protection of the president and vice president. on the protection side, we're going to keep that. on the investigative side, where we had all kinds of financial, identity theft, cyber crimes, counterfeiting cases that originate not just here but around the world, secret service is the lead in many of those. a lot of those activities are being cut back. >> what is interesting is that all these secretaries get together. the alumni get together. the three administrations have joined alumni event. there is a happy hour coming up on wednesday for some of the alumni. how many people here were in dhs on day one? [laughter] we have a bunch. i asked governor ridge if should

call and secretary our governor, and he said governor, so i will go with that. governor, tells about a day one. >> what must people do not realize is that although the gates opened on march 1, the national security council dropped by a couple of days before, and thank god we had a guy who said, in a couple of weeks, we're going into iraq. we want to discard button up america. we had liberte shield. -- liberty shield. the work of homeland security actually began before the doors even opened. >> governor, in your book, you have a chapter called by coming up -- buttoning up america. there is this narrative in the

media that the department of homeland security was foisted on the bush administration, that you resist ied it. your in the white house as homeland security adviser. is that how it happened? >> that is not a narrative with which i am familiar. we have heard it clearly. president bush very early on, after i received a phone call in september, professed there is no architecture with how you deal with an asymmetric threat. his challenge to me was, see how this plays out. we literally worked for several months within the department. i recall very early on trying to do the budget discussions, tried to move some people and money around in order to create a quarter-centric agency without -- a border-centric agency.

there were members who felt we needed better communication, better coordination. i suspect my successors have run into that as well. ultimately, it was quite clear we needed something in the 20% rate, even before a 9/11, there had been conversations who said, we need a border-centric agency. finally, the president decided we need to do more in that. frankly, there was a lot of batting -- vetting to what a long and what did not belong. once the president suggested it, the cabinet finally decided it was a good idea. >> i talked to some of your colleagues who were there when you're trying to do it in the white house. the meetings got crazy. it was unwieldy all the people all the people who thought they had to have a seat at the

homeland security table. it cannot be done in the west wing. >> truth be known, the president with others in the white house and the national security council, had a very deliberative, intends to go or three week process within the white house. they went through every agency that should belong or should not belong. should fema be under the new department? should sosa -- should secret service be under the new department? without any leaks, they pull together based on a national strategy that had men built a year before. -- had been built a year before. it was done thoughtfully, energetically, by a handful of people who worked 247 four two or three weeks to understand what a long and what did not belong. should the fbi the part of common security? the president said, no, that is

in justice, that is where it should stay. the unsung heroes around the organization were those who labored rather intensely and intensively in the bowels of the white house for three weeks. when that was all said and done, it was brought before the president, and he approved it. >> each of these secretaries was suited to their times. tom ridge, a congressman and governor. a comforting figure. michael chertoff, a double harvard, a clerk at the supreme court to justice william brennan. he is now chairman and co- founder of the chertoff group. he dove in and made the department work. i want to ask you about the maturing the department of homeland security. it took the defense department 50 years, some people in this room or member, initially secretaries were very powerful.

they tried to impose pentagon authority. it did not work. it took until 1986 that we had on unquestionably powerful secretary of defense. where is department of homeland security in that evolution? >> one i took over -- when i took over, tom had stood up the foundational architecture. it was not a mature department. a lot of the prophecies you're used to in a department like the department of justice or simply absent. the was not a police flesh out we to manage schedules are briefings or press. there was a lot of filling out the frame. there is one advantage that we had that d.o.t. did not have. -- that dod did not have. there was a reshuffling. that made it more difficult in the foreground, but the entrenched way of doing

business, which i think they face at the pentagon, was not really present in dhs because nobody was in any trenches. everything had to be built from scratch. that gave us the opportunity, which was continued under my successor janet napolitano, to bring in a sense of joint ness. -- jointness. how can we promote people -- people operating in a joint fashion? that is what the value proposition of the department was. >> within the u.s. government, and because you have distance, you can talk more candidly -- within the cabinet, the government, how much credibility does dhs have? how much of that is still to be turned? >> just over mike four years, -- my four years, i saw a tremendous transformation. when i came in -- it is the

third largest. it owned a lot of missions that were previously owned by other agencies. , remember this, when i got there, it was still to protect your own rice bowl mentality. getting to work in tandem with dhs rather than resist dhs was very difficult. by the time i left, a lot of that had fallen away. frankly, we lived through a series of significant events terrorist attempts, natural disasters, which over time accustom people in other agencies to work with dhs. that was a positive development. but one of the advantages i have -- >> one of the advantages i had, there was a sense of mission internally. the offices and headquarters --

they were all over town. we were building a new department and assimilating agencies and bureaus, some of them had a 100-year histories. you have to deal with i.t., the budget, but the sense of mission among those men and women with whom we serve really was the glue that held together during some chaotic times. michael is absolutely correct. i recall that first meeting in the roosevelt room when this was before the president, there was tremendous resistance from everybody else that we had to do it. once it was done, that sense of mission, once the decision was made, the sense of mission among everybody that worked there was rather remarkable. >> 247, 365, nobody worried about overtime. they did it. >> did you push for it?

>> i thought it was necessary to have it. i thought the president made the right call. there had been plenty of studies in creating, war-centric agency. i remember anthrax and 9/11. whether you had a terrorism incident or not, it made sense to build a federal and network system within america to help protect us post-9/11. i think the real challenge was the unity of effort horizontals and vertically to defeat an asymmetric enemy. all these other agencies had traditional missions. we laid it on top of what they were doing a remarkable group. >> the dream of the department was that it would become a melting pot, when a unified department, rather than the previous pieces with a disembodied head. this is a hard group to assert

control over. these are proud, independent agencies. customs has been here for 100 years. >> i think a lot of melting has been done. the business of focusing our missions as we have matured from the governor to secretary chertoff toomey -- to me, the ability to say, what is our major mission? counter-terrorism, the work on information sharing, air, land, and sea border security, all the issues involved with that, immigration enforcement, a cyber security, which has evolved the most in the last couple of years, and disaster response. for example, when we were dealing with hurricane sandy last fall, fema was up there on the ground, but the coast guard

was their leading search and rescue efforts among other things. we had employees throughout the dupont -- the department, who had taken some extra training, they came to the new york area, they lived on the marine vessel, and they were checking and people, making sure things were going right. pulling on that sense of mission that our employees to join us with, and melding them as we do a lot of our different activities, that has accelerated. >> secretary napolitano, you made your third annual address on the state of homeland security, the evolution and future of homeland security. in that speech, he talked about dhs 3.0. what do you mean by that? >> we are rapidly maturing

department. 10 years is nothing in the history of large, complicated government institutions. this is the most significant reorganization of the federal government since the creek nation of -- the creation of dod. we can take some of the evolving technology that has changed, we can really focus on trying to identify passengers and cargo that require more attention versus those that are very low risk. we can focus our attention on getting more and more people into pre-check or global entry, which is doing your security stuffed before hand, before you get to the airport. we can focus on the team's building out to states and local governments to have that kind of network that secretary bridge was talking about. >> you brought up tsa.

this is not a beloved department. one of the reasons is that most people encounter with it at the airport. how will we see checks evolves? there is a new york times reporter who has a crusade about using devices on their plans -- that is something different -- taking liquids. >> liquids, the gels, and issues. -- and shoes. we have already been carving out things. if you're 12 or under or over 75, he did not have to take off your shoes. those are very low risk groups as a whole. i hope technology is the answer ultimately, that we will be able to move to something that allows almost every passenger keep their shoes on. in the meantime, however, we

really have melded databases, another advantage to having things under one roof, to check multiple things very quickly. we started these traveler programs called global entry for those coming internationally, pre-check for those traveling domestically, and our goal is to have a 25% of the travelling public in one of those pre-check programs. that takes them out of the main line. it allows them to accelerate through. that will help every traveler. most airports are not configured to add lanes. given sequester, we're having difficulty staffing the lanes we already have. what we can do is make common- sense decisions to focus and remove some people from those lines. >> as we get on planes overseas, including last week was in argentina, and when i got on the plane to come back, i do not

have to take my shoes off. what are the chances that one president obama has coffee with his successor on january 20, 2017, that we will be able to go through a scanner at the airport with our shoes on? but i cannot put a number on it. believe you me, if i could snap my fingers, i would let everybody keep their shoes on. i understand the frustration. >> i think john pistol and secretary dupont tunnel 8 derecognized -- napolitano need to be recognized. whether you are concerned about the terrorists, at the airport, it is always about risk- management. you cannot eliminate the risks. what can be to manage it? the secretary has decided, we're going to move in the direction, we are going to prescreen people.

it is about risk-management. you cannot say, we have this department, we are connected with the intelligence community, we are connected with the defense community, we've eliminated all risk. nope, nope. there is always a risk. this is a significant statement on the department -- on behalf of the department of security, we are going to start managing the risk. let's not be breathless about this is a missed -- asymmetric threat. >> also recognize in 10 years, there was a huge amount of change in technology. and 10 years ago after 9/11, we were just beginning to talk about what kind of data was out there, how you could manage it, make risk assessments. 10 years has seen a transformation in both elements of that. that allows a more carefully sculpted system for screening

than we had 10 years ago. >> we will continue to have that. we will improve on the technologies. we have cutting edge research being done on technology. sometimes you will say, in this country, i do not have to take off my shoes. i could keep my shampoo. the threat to the united states is different. we have to manage risk as it is represented by threats to the united states. when you have a group like al qaeda in the arabian pal -- peninsula, who is focused on taking down and aviation asset, a plane, either passenger or cargo plane, we have seen several activities by them over the course of our 10 years -- tenures, you've got to manage that risk. that is an example of the kinds of things we are managing to keep the traveling public safe. >> the last question on tsa, the

former administrator, he has a book out about flight screening called "permanent emergency." it sounds like it does not seem doing issues or liquids is in the near future? or is that part of the process and that might be feasible? >> i would say option being -- option b. we are working on technologies and formulating some pilot programs to see we can relieve that. in the meantime, this aviation system is the largest, most complex in the world. we're screaming and running 2 million passengers each day. i do not think people who get on planes were about their safety. they know they are going to be safe. there is a value to that we should all recognize. when an officer is looking at

something or we are making a decision about who could be in what line, it is all done to keep people safe. >> based on what you know, are we more likely to see a change in liquids or shoes first? [laughter] >> that is a hard question. let's just say, we are moving with every bit of wisdom we have to do both. >> how about the belts? [laughter] >> same. realize that it is easy to get into one of these programs. at that point, you do not have to go through the other screening mechanisms. >> i'm going to bring you into the conversation. there are a couple of people with microphones. secretary chertoff, one of the things you're known for was a great relationships with both sides of the eye when you worked there. you maintain those even through katrina. there is a book about the

origins of dhs. they summarize after katrina, they say that you had an internal review of organizational structure after it. he did not call for organizational change, but called for the integration of the unified incident command. was there a time where fema would have been changed, got rid of, got a new name? did we come close to a big change? >> tom will remember this. i would say there was a period of time early on were there was a lot of resistance on the part of the now becoming part of the department. -- of fema becoming part of the department. i believed the answer was closer integration. if you think about the capabilities you want to have in an emergency, fema does not have operational personnel. you want to integrate and deploy

your customs, or other agents -- your other agents, and bring that to bear to support what is going on. the key here is planning. i used to say this over and over again -- who is in charge? people had a mental model that we would have a domestic model of a combatant commanders. the secretary would order all the elements to move around. that is not civilian governments. in the united states with a federal system and state system, you cannot have unity of command. you need to have a planning capability and a training capability that gets people to understand what they have to do when there is a crisis. the example i used to use was a baseball team -- the train and exercise and to play practice, but when you're actually in the ballgame, the manager is not out there yelling instructions to the shortstop and third baseman.

they know what to do because they played together. that is the model we try to bring into the department. >> there was conversation about replanting -- rebranding fema. how close were we to that? >> we were not very close. the least productive thing in washington in response to a challenge is either moving boxes around or worse yet, renaming things. as if that is when to change them. [laughter] you got to get to the mechanics. >> a question. josh? >> good morning. for secretary napolitano, i wanted to ask you -- the government's powers in this area of counter-terrorism expert and people in the american public nervous -- make people in the american public nervous.

in one book "kill or capture," when did administration was deciding how much the administration should share with the public about the targeted killing provision, you're one of the skeptics about releasing information. is that correct? can you lay out your philosophy on how much the public has a right to know about these matters with a balance with national security? >> here is what i think the public needs to know. in terms of kill or capture, these are among the most difficult decisions that are made. i think there is an emerging policy framework around those decisions. it is a policy framework -- there is a legal framework, which when you read the law and you read, for example, what the

attorney general has said, there is a very broad legal framework in which you could operate. the policy framework is and should be much narrower. i think that is the framework people should have confidence that is being exercised. know that these decisions are made very, very carefully. >> we are going to drill down on border enforcement. secretary napolitano, there has been publicity recently about some releases of immigrant .etainee's you're explaining on numerical issue. >> there was a story that ran that released 2000 detainees because the sequester. that is really not accurate. it was not a political story. -- a politico story.

as in all things immigration, it develops its own mythology. here is the deal, we are constantly moving people in and out of detention. these are immigrants, illegal immigrants who for one reason or the other are judged better in detention and under some alternative. with sequester looming and the end of the continuing resolution in a couple of weeks, it is like the perfect storm. we really have to manage so many different things because we do not have a budget. the normal and flow -- ebb and flow accounted for many of these releases. their status change, they were bonded out, whatever. for sequester, getting ahead of the looming deadline, career officials made a decision that there were very low level, low-

risk detainee's that could be put into a supervised release program. that is what happened. we're going to continue to do that, recognizing -- secretaries understand the rock and a hard place analogy -- congress has maintained all of this, but we will not give you the money with which to do that. they do not give you any flexibility to move money from another account to handle that. we're going to manage our way through that by identifying the lowest risk detainees and putting them into some kind of -- some kind of alternative. >> related to sequester? >> several hundred, but not thousands. >> will it continue? >> for the foreseeable future. >> let me make an observation. you have had three secretaries who have had to do to rehash because congress cannot find a way -- traige because congress cannot find a way to form a

broad based immigration policy. we get sidelined with, did you release 2000 detainee's? secretary chertoff and president bush tried to do it. right now, there appears to be a bipartisan coalition around immigration reform. let's be clear -- the job of the secretary of homeland security with regard to securing borders would be easier if the united states congress would forget about partisanship and come up with a broad based, comprehensive immigration plan. the story ends right there. [applause] >> secretary chertoff, your president bush paused point person on immigration -- bush's blight person and immigration. your in the key meetings. there was a big effort made. now we're in a new push. what was learned? >> this is to follow up on the point tom made.

i used to struggle with this -- there is a resistance to recognizing that things have gotten better. i'm not want to tell you that we have a perfectly secure border. if you look at a series of different metrics over the period of the last 10 years, there has been a steady improvement in terms of operational control of the border and in terms of the net flow. we need to continue to invest. to never acknowledge progress is really self-defeating. that is the first thing. the main lesson is this -- it is reflected in the discussions we have seen -- there are three major pillars, and they are each important. one is making people confident there will be continued enforcement and security and that it will not go away once you have some kind of amnesty. that is a lesson of 1986. second, the business community has needs not just for high tech

but also for less skilled workers that will do work that americans will not do. the reality is, people would say, you have agricultural workers -- i have never met a person who said to the graduating high-school senior, i wanted to be a lettuce picker. americans do not want to do these things. the third issue, you do have to have a resolution for the people here illegally who have otherwise been law-abiding that will give them some pathway to straitening themselves out with the law and having a sustainable situation where they can contribute to this country. if you get those and to make achieving each of those goals a priority, not train them off, then you get reform. >> >> top mechanics. what are the mechanics of moving something on the hill -- let's talk mechanics. what are the mechanics of moving something on the hill? >> here we have at president

obama, starting his second term with this. although we had a broad agreement, everybody from ted kennedy over to jon kyl, the time between getting the agreement and getting it to the floor, it allowed a lot of erosion from both the right and left in terms of what it did not like about plan. the third thing is, you do have to send a message that things -- you have to put facts out there, so that people understand that while we have not accomplished border security, you got to realize the progress. >> if you have a question, i will go to a question on twitter. how is the deterioration of our manufacturing base, one-third of jobs in the last decade, created new homeland security threats? jump ball. >> there is a lot to be said --

it is interesting -- to restoring manufacturing in the united states. you can look right to the homeland security arena and take a look at critical pieces of our infrastructure that we have offshore, so that you have a problem with the electric grid or other areas of our economy, the dependency on foreign sources of some basic manufacturing goods as a national-security problem. -- is a national-security problem. whoever reference that, i think we need to be more progressive in how we bring these basic capabilities back to the united states. not only as a matter of economics but national security. >> transformers, utilities use these transformers, they are all made overseas. we have lost any domestic production whatsoever. they are big and expensive and

take a long time to move. they are so big that you have to get governors to sign something waving highway light -- weight limits -- waiving highway weight limits. after sandy, we needed transformers. that played into some of the ballets about getting lights turned back on. we have to say, that is the reality. thee not going to rebuild manufacturing capabilities for transformers in the near future. we have to do our planning around that. we need to think about, if agreed is down, if transformers are destroyed, what is our plan? >> let me add one other thing. one way to create jobs is not to export highly skilled engineering technology. when you allow it to stay here,

it creates jobs. there is an ecosystem. i was in california last weekend at a conference, and it boggles the mind how many smart folks there are out there using their ingenuity to create businesses and that creates jobs. to do that, we've got to bring in smart folks, and that is the number one way. >> if we could staple a green card to those undergraduates and graduates in a certain discipline, and invite them to stay, the whole notion that we need a broad based immigration policy that gives people a talent the opportunity to stay here and utilize their talents, that would advance our interests. >> question in the front row. >> i am with national defense magazine. i would like to hear from the secretaries about the evolution of the acquisition programs. as we all know, there have been high-profile failures, some successes, but i would like to know about how it evolved and

what the future might be and what the current state of the acquisition community within the dhs is. >> we will take one of you on that. >> that evolution has been one of the largest ones of the last few years. as secretary richard said, the nuts and bolts of the department did not exist as they were teen it together. procurement, human-resources, all those kinds of things. here is what we have moved to. we have an acquisition review board. it is interdepartmental. they look at acquisitions of $1 million or more. we have and acquisitions program officer training capability. we train our acquisition officers, what it is we are looking for, what our policies are.

the undersecretary of management, that part put good governance are around acquisitions, which is what you want. that being said, when you're dealing with new technologies, particularly new technologies in a new dam -- domain that have to be scalable to something as large and complex as the united states, when you're pushing the envelope, you are bound to have failures. that has happened. what you want to do is have an acquisition program that allows you to ascertain as early as possible whether something will work or not. to cut it off as quickly as you can once the decision is made -- we thought this was going to be great, it would allow us to do this, and it turns out it does not work or it is very expensive or whatever the reasons are. >> secretary chertoff also has a book, "home land security: the

first five years." you say the biggest threat we face is the subtle encroachment of complacency. how worried are you about that? >> i think it is a challenge all three of us face. it has probably gotten harder. to be honest, the department is a victim of its own success. after having years to buy or there has not been a hijacking or a successful attack on an airline in the west, where there has not been another 9/11 -- thank god -- there is a tendency for people to think, why do we need all of this? what is not realistic is to somehow believed because there has not been a successful attack and because people have not tried, given the nature of the defenses we have, that that means the problem has gone away. the proof of the pudding is the occasional efforts we seek to penetrate our defenses, like the

printer plot involving a cargo jet. it is about -- it is like being vaccinated against polio. everybody got vaccinated against polio, but polio is still out there. if stopped vaccinating people, it does not mean it would not come back. the answer is we do need to ask ourselves, do we need everything? can we change it as technology changes? we should not kid ourselves, the threat has not gone away. >> is the biggest threat a bomb, a container in cargo? >> the two things i worry about most -- but from the standpoint of frequency, but catastrophic result -- or biological attack. we have had one in this country. that could be one that could occur again. and a cyber attack, where the tools and capabilities of the adversary have increased, and at the same time, we have put more

and more of what we do on the internet, not just information and intellectual property, but operational systems, have those become vulnerable? >> secretary to paul tunnel, the president put out an executive order -- an appalling tunnel, the president put out an executive order on cyber -- napolitano, the president put out an executive order on a cyber security. can you describe that? >> it says in a civilian world, dhs has lead responsibilities, particularly for working with the private sector to identify and protect the nation's infrastructure. that is very congruent with our requirement in the physical world to protect the nation's core infrastructure. we are implementing that order. we have been planning that implementation for quite awhile. we work with the nsa, the fbi,

but implementation is moving forward. there are certain things that cannot be done by executive order. i will give you one example -- we would like to have the same hiring flexibility for those in the cyber realm that the nsa has, where they are able to make different kinds of offers and hiring packages then you would if you are just following the normal civil service rules. that would be helpful to us. that has to be done by statute. >> i think any time the whole issue of cyber security is raised at the presidential level, it is a very good thing. i am delighted the president signed the order. implicit in the order, however, were a couple of problematic observations -- one, there is a notion that the private sector has not invested to protect our critical infrastructure. all three of us who have worked in the private sector understand they have invested billions of

dollars. the second thing i found in that order -- there are some good things in standards and technologies -- the notion that in 2013 the president of the united states has to sign an executive order compelling the federal government to share and classified information -- unclassified information when there is a specific target -- it makes me think, where have we been for the past 10 years? i used to say, homeland security is a consumer of information. we do not generate our own intelligence. the fact of the matter that now, 20 years after we began using the internet, we have a president who directs the federal government, you are allowed to share on classified information -- unclassified information, it is almost unspeakable. that shows you the problem with sharon relevant information and

treating the state and local governments and private sectors as partners, "= -- coequals. i think some of the provisions in that executive order to show you the challenges that secretary napolitano and the private sector have going forward, protecting the critical infrastructure that the federal government relies upon. >> it is an area where legislation would be helpful. there is a network of rules and laws governing what the intelligence community can look at, cannot look at, and what they can talk about and not talk about, which grew up in an age where things were binary and simple, the cold war, that would make no sense in a world where attacks come from export because they are controlled from overseas. eliminating that thicket and allowing the freer flow of information legally, which is

often on impediment, would be a big step forward. >> efforts to pass a law last year were not successful. what can be done differently this year between the administration and the hill? >> there is a lot of interest on the hill. we were disappointed that congress cannot act last year. -- did not act last year. one of the things that did happen was that a number of members in the congress began being educated on what cyber threats being mean and what cascading effect can occur if cyber networks are interrupted or taken down. we're dealing with the congress whose basic knowledge is greater than we were one year ago. there is still a lot of interest on the hill to see what they can do to fill in the gaps from the executive order, and we will support that effort and do whatever we can to help them move forward. >> how optimistic are you about a law this year? >> i would not put odds on it.

i would say there is a lot of interest, whether a bill is introduced -- if it does not happen, i will say this -- when we're talking about the nation's core, critical infrastructure, the fact of the matter is that information sharing from us to them and them to us is really what we need to have. if we get notice that they are seeing unusual signatures or behavior's on their networks, we had the wherewithal at the civilian level -- because we rely on technology from the nsa -- we too have the ability to come in and help deal with the threats, mitigate the threats, the drought if it is going to other institutions. but we do not know about something or we hear about it three weeks after the fact, it is already done. >> there is a lot in the

pipeline. a lot of it is part of your empire. how high a priority is a cyber security law this year? >> it is a very high priority. i would say frankly that our number one priority in terms of legislation is immigration. it is high time for immigration reform. we really are supporting both houses in that regard. >> i think there is a pretty good bipartisan group. i think they are good at trying to resolve the differences. i am optimistic. >> secretary chertoff was talking about improving metrics at the border. are you concerned that some of those have to do with the downturn in the economy? as the economy picks up, do you worry could have more trouble at the border? >> that is a legitimate concern. the last few years, record amounts of manpower and

technology has been down at the border. you can always do more. i worked that order for 20 years. -- border for 20 years. the huge effort has been happening. the numbers prove the case. the numbers for illegal entrants are trending way down the numbers of seizures of drugs and guns are going up. as the economy comes back, we're likely to see more attempts to try to get into the united states for jobs. this is one of the reasons why we need to address the immigration system writ large. we need to do with employers who hire illegal labor. it needs to be national in scope. we too have a culture of compliance. we also need to let our people and legally. the caps are too low. there were set years ago. they make no sense in most

cases. we need to deal with a piece of reform so people can cross into our country illegally through our ports. >> you say you do expect more illegal encroachment? >> we are preparing for that. it could occur. senator carper said, congress does not need more buckets, it needs to fix the ship. >> i think we all agree that part of your number one priority, immigration, part of the three leaf clover chertoff was talking about, more enforcement will be part of the package. what needs to be done that is not being done? >> we need to continue to put technology at the border, new technology, some technologies that are immediately deployable. things that could be deployed at

night. different kinds of sensors, radars that can be moved around. there is a menu of things that make sense that the physical border we're going to continue to put that down there, if we can get, given the budget and sequester. it is our intent to focus on the border, recognizing, look, the major driver -- there are two major drivers of illegal immigration -- one, a very large one is economic, people want to come here to work and support their families and send money home, and another is a drug demand. we want to focus on the marco - - the narcotraffickers. >> another challenge is those that come in legally and overstate. that is not an issue of putting more guards at the border. that is an issue of having an employer verification system.

look at the march of technology. we were dealing with this issue five or six years ago. technology has matured and awful lot. >> one more question on the border. as part of the immigration package, we have all these games. -- gangs. one component that has been talked about -- senator schumer said he was explicitly for it -- some sort of electronic, non forgeable identification card. what is the likelihood that we will end up with that as part of a final package. >> i do not think the gang of eight has decided upon that. >> are you for this? >> something in that room, it may not be a social security

card, it may be something else, but something in the realm that allows employers who hire to make sure they have the right identification, something that is easy, relatively inexpensive, we are aiming for that. there'll be a biometric association. >> when we were talking about cyber, there has been so much publicity about china hacking into news organizations, corporations. what specifically is being done now that we know where a lot of this is coming from? >> the issue of attribution is easier said than done. just because an attack may emanate from china -- >> the specific block where a military has a building.

>> that tradition has to be careful. in a worldnt, we're where hacking originating from china is a very serious issue. it needs to be viewed as such. they are stealing billions in intellectual property. in my judgment, the cyberworld is one of our chief problems. >> before we say goodbye, we always do a little bit on the personal side. governor ridge, you are a personal friend with arnold palmer. you are a big golfer. give us a tip. [laughter] >> don't cheat and a handicap. it does not help you. -- on your handicap. it does not help you. >> what does like golfing with arnold palmer? >> his success as an athlete is overshadowed by his personality and his commanding presence. he legitimately deflects --

likes people who like a golf. i remember watching him on the black-and-white my dad and i were part of arnie's army. frankly one of the benefits of public service. i only know one king and that's arnold palmer. >> on april 7th, i'm running my first race, a 10-miler. will you run so miles for fun? tell me what kind of traping i need to be doing. >> if you're starting a 10-mile race you're starting very big. >> go big or go home. welcome to the nfl. >> be careful what you eat the night before and the day of. don't break any new pairs of shoes when you run the race. get there early so you get

yourself positioned and try to have fun. >> what should i do with those five weeks. you definitely want to run some 10-mile flats or just to test yourself out. you don't want to overtrain. >> and secretary, is it true that on one airplane flight you read two robert terro books? >> i did. >> that's going big. >> i moved to the most recent one and they're marvelous. and i would -- anybody interested in history particularly in how legislation moves and how big ideas can be forged within government, they're phenomenal books. >> serious question. u.s. attorney in arizona, u.s. attorney, governor, you are now working washington. what did you learn? what could a layperson take away from master of the senate?

what's practical? >> well,er think that was a different day in time and i will tell you the 24/7 news cycle changes the dynamic here a lot. one of the things that you appreciate when you read this stuff is you normally don't get -- you normally do not get whole policy done in one fell swoop. and sometime you've got take this much, then we'll get this much, then we'll get this much. and we sthaw with the civil rights act. you had the various acts in the 1960's building on each other. the other thing you recognize is that timing is critical. when politics and policy align is when you have your best shot at getting something done which is why i'm still -- i am not still but i am cautiously optimistic that comprehensive

immigration reform is doable. we need to get it done now. >> and second tar napolitano, this will be a huge surprise to your predecessors but your dream job is not to be secretary of the department of homeland security. in the past you've said that your dream job is to be commissioner of major league baseball. >> oh, yeah. that would be great. no, that would be great. i always look forward to when pitchers and catchers report. then i start following how the teams are doing. by the way, i think the nats will have a great season. >> we can end on that. the two secretaries were kind to sign their books. who is from the administration? great. you have a book. chertoffed a minute trakes? there you go. >> i haven't written a book --

chertoffadministration? there you go. >> i haven't written a book. >> thank you to our political colleagues that made this possible including the 10th anniversary background that we have here. thank the bank of america for making these conversations possible. thank you for coming out so early. and thank three secretaries for fantastic conversations. thank y'all very much. [applause] >> coming up next on c-span, from this year's national association for business economics, remarks from the u.s. economy by vice chair of the federal reserve janet yell everybody n, paul vole kerr and douglas elmendorf. the house agriculture committee

hears from secretary tom vilsack including sequestration, the rule economy and the farm bill. you can watch at 10 a.m. on c-span 3. on monday hal rogers introduced legislation to keep the federal government running until the end of the fiscal year on september 20th, 2013. the house rules committee holds a meeting and will be live on c-span 3. john shaw congressional correspondent talks about the federal government and how the funding levels will reflect the cuts ordered by se question tration. what are you -- se quest

tration. what do you expect to see on the bill? >> it's interesting. we'll turning the page. there's been a fierce debate on the sequestration, the across the board spending cuts. the leaders talked friday. they were at that meeting so that they wanted to pass the stop gap funding bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, the 2013 fiscal year. there's broad agreement that the funding level will reflect a budget agreement in 2011 over the debt ceiling. i think there's general agreement in the top line number but the republican bill which was introduced on monday allows for the defense department to move in a way that i think democrats might believe should also be provided

for domestic agencies. so i think we're likely to see some questions as to whether funding flexibility should be allowed on the domestic side of the budget as well as the defense side. >> why are those programs getting special consideration? >> on the republican side they believe that the defense department has taken some big hits in the last several years an they think that -- the big hits will affect the readiness of the force. republicans believe that this should be protected. but when this package comments over to the senate -- comes over next week, i think the democrats will rewrite it so that the domestic part of the budget will enjoy some of the same flexibility. this reflects in part of the republican view which of course is the majority part and then the house chamber that the defense needs to be protected.

>> is the funding bill expected to attract support from both plupts and democrats in the house -- republicans and democrats in the house? >> i think everyone says they don't want a government shutdown. the current bill expires march 27th. everyone agrees on that. it's unclear how house democrats will view this package. it's not what they want candidly. and it seems that they have two amendments. they're going to vote for wit the understanding that this is not the final package or they could oppose it and say this is not what we expected and when we get it back -- acceptable version we'll vote for it. they're trying to assess it. and try to see the minutia of the package. the house will vote on it on

thursday. >> they might attempt to stop or curtail the sequester. does it do that? >> it doesn't. there's a general view and even president obama in his press conference said as much as he opposes se quest -- sequestration. it would be against the law to overturn the sequestration. >> john shaw with market news international. thanks for the insight. >> one of the things that i don't mention in the book but also grabbed me was a report in the are -- a paragraph in the interview with mark kay. i think it encapsulated the mentality where he said, look, i don't do research are going

to do some good. i'll do research. i don't need to do the research for charities. i think that actually captures the prevailing ethic among do nors. part of my book is really, i would say a plea to the community to rethink. all charities are not alike. we've got to get money to the best in breed so that they survive and that the others and the others don't. >> with little accountability, with charities for all author ken stern looks at the world of nonprofit on "after words," sunday night at 9:00 part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> federal reserve vice chair janet yellin defended the

economic pollity. this is 45 minutes. >> at brown and a p.h.d. at yale, dr. yell, n helped various positions at m.i.t., harvard, london schools of economic before becoming a professor at berkley. she has shared her skills in the policy arena. first as a member of the formc. then president of the st. fed and vice chairman of the federal reserve. her willingness to discuss and

consider some of the thornier issues of economic thought and monetarily policy assures that she is considered one of the most important monetarily policymakers of our time. as a business economist i particularly value dr. yellin's high interest of the people of this room to understand how monetarily policy is impacting the real world. she is no stranger to the nabe and supporting us several times in the past several years. the adam smith award is well earned as -- earned. the pattern is that she always states out ground where she thought she was right at the risk of being unpopular whether you agree with her ideas and policies or not, it's difficult to deny that it is a courageous

and authentic life. during these times of extraordinary monetarily policy from not only the federal reserve from the e.o.j. i look forward on hearing her thoughts on the monetarily policy. thank you. [applause] thank you. for that lovely introduction. thanks for inviting me to the nabe. i'm delighted to address the national association for business economics (nabe), a group that has done so much to promote understanding of the economy and the appropriate role of policy. my topic today is the challenges confronting monetary policy in what has been an unusually weak recovery from a

severe recession. i will discuss the federal reserve's ongoing efforts in these circumstances to speed the u.s. economy's return to maximum employment in a context of price stability. as you know, the federal open market committee has recently taken new steps to achieve this objective. in september, the committee approved a new program of agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities purchases, pledging to continue the program--contingent on favorable ongoing evaluations of its efficacy and costs--until there has been a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market. most recently, in december the committee announced that it would purchase longer-term treasury securities after completion of the maturity extension program. at the same time, it revamped its forward guidance for the federal funds rate, explicitly linking the path of that rate

to quantitative measures of economic performance. my goal today is to explain these policies and why i consider them appropriate under current conditions. with respect to the asset purchase program, i will discuss several economic indicators that i plan to consider in evaluating the outlook for the labor market and then offer my perspective at present on the program's efficacy and costs, an assessment i will continue updating in light of experience. the committee's recent actions are shaped by the fact that the labor market is still far from healed from the trauma of the great recession. despite some welcome improvement, employment remains well below its pre-recession peak, reflecting an economy that is still operating far short of its potential. at 7.9 percent in january, the

unemployment rate has declined from its recent peak of 10 percent in october 2009. but that's still higher than unemployment ever reached in the 24 years prior to the recent recession and well above the 5. 2 to 6 percent that is the central tendency of fomc participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment. with economic activity constrained by fiscal consolidation, the lingering effects from the financial crisis, and the added headwinds of europe's recession and debt problems, most fomc participants reported in december that they expected only a gradual decline in unemployment over the next two years, to about 7 percent by the end of 2014. the official estimate of 12 million currently unemployed does not include 800,000 more

discouraged workers who say they have given up looking for work. in addition, nearly 8 million people, or 5.6 percent of the workforce, say they are working part time even though they would prefer full-time jobs. a broader measure of underemployment that includes these and others who want a job stands at 14.4 percent, nearly double the 7.9 percent "headline" rate that is most commonly reported in the media. developments that would have an adverse effect on structural productivity. in contrast to the large gap between actual and maximum

employment, inflation a part from fluctuations due to energy and other commodity prices have been running for some time no a little below the rate of less than 2%. the committee anticipates that inflation will continue to run at or below 2% over the medium term. moreover, expectations for inflation over the next five to 10 years remain well anchored according to surveys of households and froifl forecasters -- professional forecasters. with inflation running below the committee's 2% oifpblgt, i believe it's appropriate for progress in the labor market to take center stage in the conduct of monetarily policy.

let me therefore turn to the fomc's recent actions and describe how i see them promoting this important goal. i'll begin with the committee's forward guidance for the federal funds rate. the fomc has employed such forward guidance since 2003 but has relied more heavily on it since december 2008, when the target for the federal funds rate was reduced to its effective lower bound. in current circumstances, forward guidance can lower private-sector expectations regarding the future path of short-term rates, thereby reducing longer-term interest rates on a wide range of debt instruments and also raising asset prices, leading to more accommodative financial conditions. in addition, given the fomc's stated intention to sell assets only after the federal funds

rate target is increased, any outward shift in the expected date of liftoff for the federal funds rate suggests that the federal reserve will be holding a large stock of assets on its balance sheet longer, which should work to further increase accommodation. starting in march 2009, the fomc's postmeeting statements noted that "economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period," and in november of the same year added "low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations" as justification for this stance. in august 2011, the committee substituted "at least through mid-2013" for the words "for an extended period.

this date was moved further into the future several times, most recently last september, when it was shifted to mid-2015. also in september, the committee changed the language related to that commitment, dropping the reference to "low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation. instead, it emphasized that "a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens," clarifying the committee's intention to continue to provide support well into the recovery. finally, last december, the

committee recast its forward guidance for the federal funds rate by specifying a set of quantitative economic conditions that would warrant holding the federal funds rate at the effective lower bound. specifically, the committee anticipates that exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate will be appropriate "at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. an important objective of these changes in forward guidance is to enhance the public's understanding of the committee's policy strategy and its "reaction

function"--namely, how the fomc anticipates varying its federal funds rate target in response to evolving economic developments. and the specific numbers should confirm that the fomc expects to hold that target lower for longer than would be typical during a normal economic recovery. it will spur a faster recovery. the committee's calendar base guidance and contrast did not

clearly convey the rationale for the specified date. when the committee extended the calendar date, the public was left to infer whether the change reflected a deterioration in the committee's economic outlook, or instead decrease the accommodation. a considerable body of research suggests that in normal times the evolution of the federal fuppeds rate target can be reasonably well described by some well described variance of the taylor rule. rules of this type have been shown to work quite well as guy lines for policy under normal conditions. and they're familiar to market participants, helping them judge how short-term rates are likely to respond to changing economic conditions.

the current situation, however, is abnormal in two important and related ways. first, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, there has been an unusually large and persistent shortfall in aggregate demand. second, use of the federal funds rate has been constrained by the effective lower bound so that monetary policy has been unable to provide as much accommodation as conventional policy rules suggest would be appropriate, given the weakness in aggregate demand. i've previously argued that, in such circumstances, optimal policy prescriptions for the federal funds rate's path diverge notably from those of standard rules. for example, david reifschneider and john williams have shown that when policy is constrained by the effective lower bound, policymakers can achieve superior economic

outcomes by committing to keep the federal funds rate lower for longer than would be called for by the interest rate rules that serve as reasonably reliable guides for monetary policy in more normal times. committing to keep the federal funds rate lower for longer helps bring down longer-term interest rates immediately and thereby helps compensate for the inability of policymakers to lower short-term rates as much as simple rules would call for. i view the committee's current rate guidance as embodying exactly such a "lower for longer" commitment. in normal times, the fomc would be expected to tighten monetary policy before unemployment fell as low as 6-1/2 percent. under the new thresholds guidance, the public is

informed that tightening is unlikely as long as unemployment remains above 6-1/2 percent and inflation one to two years out is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the fomc's 2 percent longer-run goal. the evidence suggests that the evolution i've described in the committee's forward guidance, particularly the new thresholds, has shifted the market's view of how forceful the fomc intends to be in supporting the recovery. in the federal reserve bank of new york's survey of primary dealers, for example, participants have repeatedly revised downward the unemployment rate at which they anticipate that tightening will first occur. i mentioned that the fomc's new forward guidance offers considerable insight into the

committee's likely reaction function, but i should note that the guidance it provides is not complete. for example, the committee has not specified exactly how it intends to vary the federal funds rate after liftoff from the effective lower bound, although it has stated that "when the committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach. this language is consistent with optimal policy prescriptions that call for lower-for-longer considerations to pertain to the path of the federal funds rate both before and after liftoff.

that's an important reason why the committee noted that in determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative expansive monetarily policy, it will also consider among other things additional measures of labor market conditions. i'll discuss some of the specific indicators i plan to consider in judging the strength of the labor market in connection with the committee's current asset purchase program. so turning next to that program , the federal reserve initiated a new asset purchase program last september and extended it in december. under the program the federal reserve is currently buying agency m.b.s. at a pace of $40 billion per month and longer

term treasury securities to the pace of $45 billion per month. as with the guidance for the federal funds rate, the committee tied the new program to labor market conditions stating that purchases would continue until there is a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market in a context of price stable.

. . .

ay encapsulated it. he said i do not do research because i know that charities do not -- i do not need to do the research for charity. that captures the ethics among donors. part of my book is a play to the community to rethink it. all charities are not alike. we have to get money to the best so they survived and the others do not. >> author ken stern looks at the world of nonprofits on afterwards sunday night at 9:00

this weekend on c-span 2. arbors and 10 murphy talks about the federal mental-health programs. congressman jim hines of connecticut talks about the the economic impact of sequestration' robert levinson a bloomberg government examines defense contract spending by congressional district. "washington journal," live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. on wednesday, a journey -- attorney general eric holder testifies before dissident judiciary committee at 930 and eastern on c-span 3.

>> c-span was created in 1979 box to you as a public service by your television provider. >> vice president joe biden spoke to attendees at the annual u.s. israel policy conference. he reaffirmed the u.s. commitment to israel. his remarks, head of president obama's first visit to israel. this is 40 minutes. i am a zionist. these are the words of a man who began his pro israel journey in 1973. over the next four decades, joe

biden treat turn to jerusalem dozens of times. he has called every prime minister a friend. four years ago, month after you were sworn into office, we welcome you to the aipac conference. it is fitting that we have the honor of welcoming you again. [applause] the past four years have seen tremendous -- tremendous change in the total east. likes to president obama and you, we know that we have an administration committed to the security of israel.

iran's never have nuclear capability. [applause] the world community rallied around the united states. we have implemented sanctions that have left the iranian regime more isolated than ever. the islamic republic remains the greatest security threat to both america and israel. and its quest to become a nuclear power continues. we look forward to working closely with the administration and congress to ensure that iran never acquires the bomb. [applause] we thank you, mr. vice president, for your commitment to direct negotiations between israel and the palestinians. he took a stand against the

palestinian statehood bid at the united stations. -- united nations. [applause] we remain hopeful that we can work together to forge a lasting negotiated peace resulting in a jurist that of israel living side-by-side with a demilitarized palestinian state. [applause] but perhaps the most tangible evidence of your support has been through your commitment to forward aid into israel he is so defense programs. because of this administrations dedication, more than 400 million dollars has been invested in iron dome. [applause] your support during operation killer of defense and commitment to the systems enables israel to defend itself while preventing a lict.r -- wider confrenc

[applause] vice president biden, please, give our thanks to president obama for his support and training the u.s.--- in strengthening the u.s. israel alliance. please thank him for going to israel in a few weeks. [applause] this trip sends an important message to the people of israel and the world about america's commitment to the jewish state. ladies and gentlemen, i am honored to introduce and welcome a friend who stands with us now

and always, a supporter of the u.s.-israel relationship, the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause] >> thank you, mr.president. it's great to be here. it's great to be here. ladies and gentlemen, oh, what a difference 4 years make. i look out there and see an old friend, annette lantos. annette how are you? her husband tom lantos, a survivor, was my assistant, was my foreign policy adviser for years. and tom used to say all the time, joe -- he talked that hungarian accent -- joe, we must do another fundraiser for aipac.

i did more fundraisers for aipac in the 1970s and early 1980s than -- just about as many as anybody. thank god you weren't putting on shows like this. we would have never made it. we would have never made it. my lord, it's so great to be with you all and great to see you. mr. president, thank you so much for that kind introduction. and president-elect bob cohen, the entire aipac board of directors, i'm delighted to be with you today. but i'm particularly delighted to be with an old friend -- and he is an old friend. we use that phrase lightly in washington, but it's real, and i think he'd even tell you. ehud barak, it's great to be with you. great to be with you. there is a stand-up guy. there is a stand-up guy, standing up for his country, putting his life on the line for his country and continuing to defend the values that we all share.

i'm a fan of the man. thanks for being here, ehud. it's good to be with you again. ladies and gentlemen, a lot of you know me if you're old enough. some of you don't know me. and understand i can't see now, but on the bleachers on either side, i am told you have 2,000 young aipac members here. we've talked about this a lot over the years. we've talked about it a lot. this is the lifeblood. this is the connective tissue. this is the reason why no american will ever forget. you've got to keep raising it.

many of you in this hall -- i won't start to name them, but many of you in this hall, starting with annette lantos, whose husband, who is not here, god rest his soul -- many of you in this hall have been my teachers, my mentors and my educators. and that is not hyperbole; you literally have been. but my education started, as some of you know, at my father's dinner table. my father's what you would have called a righteous christian. we gathered at my dinner table to have conversation -- and, incidentally, eat -- as we were growing up. it was a table -- it was at that table i first heard the phrase it is overused sometimes today, but in a sense not used meaningfully enough -- first i heard the phrase "never again." it was that table that i learned that the only way to ensure that it could never happen again was the establishment and existence of a secure jewish state of israel.

i remember my father, a christian, being baffled at the debate taking place at the end of world war ii, talking about it -- i don't remember it at that time, but about how there could be a debate about whether or not -- within the community of whether or not to establish the state of israel. andlike the united states. my father would say, were he a jew, he would never, never entrust the security of his people to any individual nation, no matter how good and how noble andlike the united states. everybody knows it's real but i want you to know one thing. with some of you -- i've met with a lot of you over the last 40 years, but the last four years as well -- president obama

shares my commitment. we both know that israel faces new threats, new pressures and uncertainty. the defense minister and i have discussed it often. in the area of national security, the threats to israel's existence continue, but they have changed as the world and the region have changed over the last decade. the arab spring, at once full of both hope and uncertainty, has required israel and the united states to reassess old and settled relationships.in iran's dangerous nuclear weapons program and its continued support of terrorist organizations like hezbollah and hamas not only endanger israel and but endanger the world.and attempts of much of the world to isolate and delegitimize the state of israel are increasingly common and taken as the norm in other parts of the world.and all these pressures are similar but different. and they've put enormous pressure on the state of israel.

we understand that. and we especially understand that if we make a mistake, it's not a threat to our existence, but if israel makes a mistake, it could be a threat to its very existence. that's why from the moment the president took office, he has acted swiftly and decisively to make clear to the whole world and to israel that even as circumstances have changed, one thing has not, our deep commitment to the security of the state of israel. that has not changed. that will not change as long as i and he are president and vice president of the united states. it's in our naked self-interest, beyond the moral imperative. all of you -- i thank you for

continuing to remind the nation and the world of that commitment. and while we may not always time. i've been there for a lot i've been there for a lot of prime ministers -- we've always disagreed on tactics. we've always disagreed at some point or another on tactics.as and you sure you unequivocally

no president has done as much to physically secure the state of israel is president barack obama. president obama requested three $.1 billion in military assistance for israel. that is the most in history. he has direct it close quarter nations -- close quarter nations between our government and our is really partners -- and our israel he partners. in the last eight presidents, i do not know in a times where there has been as much coordination between our intelligence services and our military. we are getting tired of traveling back and forth across the ocean. we have helped the most regular

and largest ever joint military exercises. we have invested 275 million dollars in iron dome, including $70 million that the president direct it be spent last year on american bases to increase the production of iron dome batteries and interceptors. not long ago, i would have had to describe to an audience what's iron dome was, how it will work, why funding it mattered. i do not have to explain to anybody anymore worried everybody gets it. everybody saw. the world saw. they saw firsthand why it was and remained so critical. for too long, when the sirens blared, the only defense had

been a bomb shelter. late last year, iron dome made a difference. when rockets rained on israel, iron dome shot them out of the sky, intercepting rockets in november. it was our unique partnership that pioneered this technology and funded it. it is in that same spirit that we are working to develop new systems called interceptors that can defeat long-range threats from iran, syria, and hezbollah. we are working to deploy radar.

it can by israel valuable time in the event of an attack. this is what we do. this is what we do to ensure israel can counter and defeat any threat from any corner. that is only the first piece of this equation. i share the view of many of you that have been involved with a pack a long time. as me tell you what worries me the worst than anytime in the 40 years i have been engaged. that is the wholesale seemingly coordinated effort to delegitimize israel as a jewish

state. that is the single most dangerous change that has taken place since i have been engaged. ladies and gentlemen, it matters. it matters. there is only one nation in the world that has unequivocally without hesitation and consistently confronted the efforts to june 11 -- to delegitimize israel. at every juncture, we have stood up on the legitimacy on behalf of legitimacy of the state of israel. president obama has been a supporter. wherever he goes in the world, he makes clear that although he wants better relations with muslim majority countries,

israel is not a matter of debate. it is not a matter of debate. it is simple. he means it. it is not a matter of debate. do not raise it with us. do not raise it with us. it is not negotiable. as recently as last year, the only country on the united states human rights council to vote against the establishment of a fact-finding mission on settlements was the united states of america. we opposed the efforts of the palestinian authority's to circumvent negotiations by pushing for statehood and

multilateral organizations. we stood strongly with israel and its right to defend itself after a report was issued in 2009 while the rest of the world was prepared to embrace the report. we came out and express our concern and with recommendation. when israel was isolated in the aftermath of the gaza flotilla, i was in africa. we spent a lot of time on the phone. the defense editor and i. we spent a lot of time on the phone with my interceding and going to the united nations, speaking with the secretary- general, making sure that one thing was made clear. israel had the right to impose that blockade.

ladies and government, that is why i refuse to attend events that shamefully equated zionism with racism. that is why we rejected rhetoric from any corner and from leaders of any nation. that is why i am proud to say my friend john kerry spoke out against that language just this friday. he is a good man. you are going to be happy with him. it was in the strongest terms that we opposed the palestinian bid for nonmember observer status in the general assembly. we will continue to oppose any efforts to establish a state of palestine through unilateral actions.

there is no shortcut to peace. there is no shortcut to paste to face -- face-to-face negotiations. there is no shortcut to guarantees name looking in the eyes of the other party. israel's does understand the imperative of peace. prime minister attanasio, president peres, have caused -- it takes two to tango. the rest of the arab world has to get in and again. -- ending the game. we are under no illusions about how difficult this is. some of you in the audience have said, why do we talk about this? .

.t is in all of our interests we all have a profound interest in peace. to use the expression, we have to be caught trying. we have to be caught trying. we remain deeply and changed drastically engaged. those question whether this goal will be reached. we make no polities -- we make no apologies. he will make that clear when he goes to israel. we are mindful that pursuing a better future for israel means helping israel confront the threats it faces. it is a tough neighborhood. it starts with a ran. -- it starts with iran.

it is in the interest of the united states of america. it is simple. it is in the interest of the entire world. acquisition of a nuclear weapon not only would present an accidental threat to israel, it would present a threat to our allies and partners and to the united states. it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and make the world a whole lot less stable. we have a shared strategic commitment. let's make make clear what that commitment is. it is to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

end of discussion. to prevent, not contained, prevent. the president stated that. we will be in the security room. i know that debbie knows this. she hears it. he said, you will turn to other people and say, as joe would say, big nations cannot gloss. president of the united states cannot gloss. president barack obama is not one thing. she is not bluffing.

-- he is not bluffing. we are not looking for war. we are looking to negotiate peacefully. with all options. as i made clear last month, our preference is for diplomatic solutions. while that window is closing, we believe there is still time and space to achieve the outcome. we are in constant dialogue, sharing information with israeli military. we are taking all of the steps required to get there. i want to make clear to you --

god for bid the need to act occurs, it is important for the whole world to know we did everything in our power. we did everything we could to avoid any confrontations. that matters because god for bid if we have to act, it is portent that the rest of the world is with us. we have a united international community. we have a united international community behind the sanctions. we have left iran more isolated. iran was on the ascendancy and the region. it is no longer on the ascendancy. the purpose is not to punish.

it is to convince iran to make good on its international obligations. we are sharpening a choice that the iranian leadership has to make erie it they can make their best they can meet their obligations and give the community confidence in the nature of their program or they can further isolate and mounting pressure of the world. preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon leaves them a dangerous neighbor, particularly to israel. they are using terrorist proxies to spread violence in the region, putting israelis, americans, citizens of every continent in danger. for too long hezbollah has tried to pose as nothing more than a political and social welfare group while plotting against eastern europe, east africa, south east asia to south

america. we know what israel knows. hezbollah is a terrorist organization erie it we urge every nation in the world that we deal with to start treating hezbollah as such and naming them as terrorist organizations. this is about a global terrorist organization. we will do our part to stop him. we ask the world to do the same. that is why we have been talking to our friends in europe to declare hezbollah a terrorist organization. i made the case to the leading

european heads of state. we have to continue to confront hezbollah. the united states and israel have a shared interest in syria as well. assad has shown disregard for human life and dignity engaging in the murder of his citizens. assad must go. we are not signing up for one murderous gang replacing another in damascus. that is why our focus is on supporting a legitimate opposition to a peaceful region. that is why we are betting those to whom we provide assistance.

because they recognize the danger of assad's arsenal, we have set a clear red line against the use of the transfer of those weapons. we will work to prevent this conflict and these weapons from threatening israel's security. while we try to ensure an end to the dictatorship in syria, we have supported a transition to an egyptian democracy. we have no illusions. we know how difficult this will be. and how difficult it is. there has been a dramatic change in israel. it is not about us. it profoundly affects us.

we need to be invested in egypt's success and stability. a stable, successful egypt will translate into a stable region. we're not looking at what's happening in egypt through rose- colored glasses. again, our eyes are wide open. we have no illusions about the challenges that we face. but we also know this -- there's no legitimate alternative, at this point, to engagement. only through engagement -- it's only through engagement that egypt -- with egypt that we can focus egypt's leaders on the need to repair international obligations -- respect international obligations, including and especially its peace treaty with israel. it's only through active engagement that we can help ensure that hamas does not rearm through the sinai and put the people of israel at risk. it's only through engagement that we can concentrate egypt's government on the imperative of confronting extremists. and it's only through engagement that we can encourage egypt's leaders to make reforms that will spark economic growth and stabilize the democratic

process. and it's all tough. and there's no certainty. there's no certitude about anything in the arab spring. i expect president obama to cover each of these issues in much greater detail. i've learned one thing, as i was telling the president. i learned it's never a good idea, ehud, to steal the president's thunder. it's never a good idea to say what he's going to say the next day. so i'm not going to any further detail on this, but much greater detail -- he will discuss this when he goes to israel later this month, just before passover begins. i'm a little jealous that he gets to be the one to say "this year in jerusalem" but i'm the vice president. i'm not the president.

when i told him that, i'm not sure he thought i was serious or not. as will come as no surprise to you, the president and i have -- not only are partners, we've become friends. and he and i have spoken at length about this trip. and i can assure you he's particularly looking forward to having a chance to hear directly from the people of israel, and beyond their political leaders, and particularly the younger generation of israelis. i must note, just as i'm getting a chance to speak to 2,000 young american jews involved and committed to the state of israel and the relationship with the united states, he's as anxious to do what i got a chance to do when i was there last, ehud, with you as you flew me along the line. i got to go to tel aviv university and speak to several thousand young israelis.

the vibrancy, the optimism, the absolute commitment is contagious, and he's looking forward to seeing it and feeling it and tasting it. the president looks forward to conversations about their hopes and their aspirations, about their astonishing worldly and technological achievements, about the future they envision for themselves and for their country, about how different the world they face is from the one their parents faced, even if many of the threats are the same. these are really important conversations for the president to have and to hear and for them to hear. these are critically important. i get kidded -- again, to quote debbie she kids me sometimes. everybody quotes -- democrat and republican -- quotes tip o'neill saying, all politics is local. with all due respect, lonnie, i think that's not right.

i think all politics is personal, and i mean it. all politics is personal, and it's building personal relationships and trust and exposure and talking to people. that really matters, particularly in foreign policy. so ladies and gentlemen, let me end where i began, by reaffirming our commitment to the state of israel. it's not only a long-standing moral commitment, it's a strategic commitment. an independent israel, secure in its own borders, recognized by the world is in the practical strategic interest of the united states of america. i used to say when i -- lonnie's brother used to say, if there were no israel, we'd have to invent one. ladies and gentlemen, we also know that it's critical to remind every generation of americans, as you're doing with your children here today -- it's critical to remind our children, my children, your children -- that's why the first time i ever took the three of my children

separately to europe, the first place i took them was dachau. we flew to munich and went to dachau -- the first thing they ever did, as annette will remember -- because it's important that all our children and grandchildren understand that this is a never-ending requirement. the preservation of an independent jewish state is the ultimate guarantor -- it's the only certain guarantor of freedom and security for the jewish people in the world. that was most poignantly pointed out to me when i was a young senator making my first trip to israel.

i had the great, great honor of getting to meet for the first time and subsequently -- i met her beyond that -- golda meir. she was the prime minister. now i'm sure every kid up there said, you can't be that old, senator. i hope that's what you're saying. but seriously, the first trip i ever made -- and y'all know those double doors -- you'd go in the office -- and the blond furniture and the desk on the left side, if i'm -- memory serves me correctly. and golda meir, as the prime minister and the defense minister, she had those maps behind her that -- you know, you could pull down all those maps like you had in geography class in high school. and she sat behind her desk, and i sat in the chair in front of her desk, and a young man was sitting to my right who was her assistant. his name was yitzhak rabin. and she sat there chain-smoking and reading letters, reading

letters to me, letters from the front in the six-day war. she read the letters of and then told me how this young man or woman had died and missed her family. and this went on for i don't know how long. i guess she could tell i was visibly moved by this. i was getting depressed about it. and she suddenly looked at me and said she looked at me, she said -- she said, senator, would you like a photo opportunity? and i looked at her, i said, well, yes, madam prime minister. and we walk out those doors -- and we walked out the doors, we stood there more statements. and we're standing next to one another, look at this array of

of media, television and photo journalists, take -- snapping pictures. and we're looking straight ahead. without looking at me, she speaks to me, she said, senator, don't look so sad. she said, we have a secret weapon. we have a secret weapon in our confrontation in this part of the world. and i thought, she's about to lean over and tell me about a system or something. because you can see the picture, i still have them -- i turn to look at her -- you know, we were supposed to be looking straight ahead. and i said, madam prime minister she never turned her head, kept looking -- she said, our secret weapon, senator, is we have no place else to go. we have no place else to go. ladies and gentlemen, our job is to make sure there's always a place to go, that there's always an israel, that there's always a secure israel, and there's an israel that can care for itself. my father was right. you are right. it's the ultimate guarantor of

"never again." god bless you all, and may god protect our troops. thank you. >> benjamin netanyahu addressed the aipac conference. he warned that time is running out for a rant to halt its nuclear program. he reiterated his redline warning. this is just over 10 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank all the leadership of a pet for everything you do to strengthening the alliance between israel and the united states of america. let me say a special hello to

my friend vice president biden. he just spoke there. i have learned over the years so much from joe. i want to thank him for [no audio] i learned about his father. i learned our grounds are similar. i heard those values expressed. i want to recognize defense minister barack. thank you for the years of service for israel's security. i want to recognize ambassadors for the terrific service you are doing for israel every day. i want to thank all of you who have come to be here to

suppress -- to express your support for israel. i was hoping to speak to you in person. i had to stay in israel to do something a lot more enjoyable, putting together a coalition government. what fun. if i could offer advice, do not adopt israel's system of government. every system has its pluses and minuses. it is easier finding common ground between two parties then it is to find common ground among 10 parties. you think you have a difficulty working out your politics. this is harder. despite the difficulties, i intend to form a strong and civil government in the days ahead. the first thing that my new government will have the privilege of doing is to

welcome president obama to israel. i look forward to the president's visit. it will give me an opportunity along with the people of israel to express our appreciation for what he has done for israel. the president and i will focus our discussion on three issues. i run's pursuit of nuclear weapons. the deterioration saturation -- the deteriorating saturation in syria and the need to find a responsible way to advance peace with palestinians. ironic -- iran will defy the will of the international community. the world's leading powers have tabled proposals to resolve the issue peacefully. diplomacy has not worked. iran ignores these offers. it is running out the clock. it has used negotiations to buy

time to press ahead with its nuclear program. the sanctions have not stopped the nuclear program. sanctions have hit the iranian economy hard. their leaders have moved forward. it enriches more uranium. it installs faster centrifuges. it has not crossed the red line i drew. it is getting closer to that redline. it is putting itself in a position to cross that line very quickly once it decides to do so. to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, we cannot allow iran to cross that redline. we have to stop its nuclear

enrichment program before it is too late. from the bottom of my heart, with the clarity of my brain, words alone will not stop iran. sanctions alone will not stop iran. sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions failed. [applause] i deeply appreciate something that president obama has said. you heard vice president biden said it again. israel must always be able to defend itself by itself against any threat to its existence. the jewish people know the cost s of being defenseless against those who would exterminate us. we will never let that happen

again. [applause] joe biden described his meeting with golda meir. she said, our secret weapon is we have no other place to go. we have our place under the sun . he shall defendant. the rebirth of israel is one of the greatest events in history. personal -- churchill said it transcends generations and centuries. it is significant in the perspective of thousands of years. we never lose sight. we shall always defend the one and only jewish state. [applause]

the second issue i intend to discuss with president obama is the situation and bang syria. over the last two years, 70,000 syrians have been killed. thousands have been wounded. millions have been forced to flee their homes. besides this crisis, syria could become a strategic crisis of monumental proportions. syria is a poor country. it has chemical weapons, antiaircraft weapons and other deadly arms. as the choline -- as the regime collapses, the danger of the weapons falling into terror groups is real. terror groups are trying to seize these weapons. they are like a pack of hyenas

feeding off of a carcass. the carcass is not dead yet. they are committed to israel's destruction. they attacked the united states. their global terrorist organizations can perpetrate terror attacks anywhere around the world. you have seen that. this is why we have a common interest in preventing them from obtaining these weapons. president obama appreciates israel's need to defend itself. i look forward to discussing with him ways to address this challenge to our common security. the third issue i intend to discuss with president obama is our common quest for. israel seeks a piece with our palestinian neighbors, a piece that will and our conflict once and for all. that peace must be grounded in reality and security. israel withdrew from never long -- lebanon.

we gave up territory. we cannot allow that to happen a third time. israel is prepared for a compromise. i will never compromise on our security. [applause] we must work together to find a realistic path forward. that path has to be a measure process in which we work to advance a durable and defensible peace. in the middle east, a piece you cannot defend will not hold for five minutes. it has to be verifiable. as we move from one step to another, we have to make sure we cannot only defend ourselves but also that our neighbors are

telling their people, educating their children to live in peace. is something we want. oryearn for peace and paraty peace. with president obama, we shall work for peace. i look forward to discussing with president obama when he comes here later this month all of these issues. i will have a chance to show president obama a different side of israel that has become a technological marvel, teaming with innovation. each day pushes the boundaries of medicine and science. it has one of the world's most vibrant cultures and one of the world's most dynamic peoples. the modern jewish state, an oasis of liberty and progress in the heart of the mental ease where these have yet to take

proof. that is the israel all of you know. that is the israel all of you love and that some many americans love. that is the israel that will never stop standing shoulder to shoulder with a country that has been the greatest force for good the world has ever known. the united states of america. god bless america. god bless israel. god bless the american-israel alliance. god bless you all. thank you. [applause] >> former dh as directors join the current director to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the homeland security department. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern "washington journal" picture e-

mails on the sequestration. the house agriculture committee hears from condo site this morning on several issues including sequestration, the rural economy and the farm bill. weiss i live at 10:00 a.m. on the span -- on c-span 3. on monday, how rogers introduces legislation to keep the federal government running through the end of the year. the house rules committee holds a meeting five at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> one of the things that grabs me was a report in the

paragraph where they interviewed a guy named mark kay. mark kay encapsulated the mentality where he said, i do not do research because i know charities produce good. where i put my time and research and are things like pop-ups. i do not need to do the research for charities. that captures the ethic among donors. my book is a plea to the community to rethink it. all charities are not alike. we have to give money to the best so they survived and the others do not. >> with little accountability or measure of effectiveness, ken

stern looks at the world of nonprofits on afterword sunday night at 9:00 as part of the tv -- book tv on c-span 2. on monday, we mark the 10th anniversary of the agency. interviews by political's chief correspondent, mike allen. this is one hour. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> welcome. instead of our three tenors, we

have three secretaries. i appreciate you all coming together for this. secretary napolitano, we will start with you. everyone in washington is concerned about the sequester landing. you said that you are seeing some affects at the tsa. >> right. now that we are having to reduce or eliminate overtime, both for tsa and for customs, now that we have institutionalized a hiring freeze, we will begin today sending out further -- f urlough notices. we are seeing affects at some of the big airports. some of them have long lines.

>> where? >> at o'hare, lax, atlanta. the new york airports you're ok. that is temporary. we will see the fx cascade. >> what kind of lines are we talking about? le>> 152 200% -- 150% to 2-00%. there are really long lines. i do not mean to scare. i mean to inform. if you are traveling, due to the airport earlier than you otherwise would. please, do not yell at the officers. they are not responsible for sequester. >> t