getting them through senate confirmation. one of the things i had dealt with was with people. they have concerns as well. as the governor said, if you can have some soft conversations about what this is going to be toe, to come to washington, take on the role of government -- if we hadink been successful. some people some people will remove themselves. if they found out what a government service would be perhaps haveht counted on it. >> there are two fundamental principles. people tried to gain these principles. there was plenty of activity around it. anyone on the was campaign must -- was guaranteed

a job if they wanted it. the 500 or 600 roles in the , over 1000 people we needed. there was plenty of work to do. anyone on the campaign who wished to have a role, we would find one for them. number one. principle number two, no one was guaranteed a role in the administration. people confuse that with the concept. if you said often enough, they got it. [laughter] period with aday lot of work to be done. but there was a defined process turning those 75 days for

determining who were the people who would work in the administration or the platform. just because you worked on the campaign, the transition was no guarantee you have a role afterwards. you have the opportunity to do it. as long as we stuck with those two principles, it made life easier. the transition is managing people's ambitions and their anxieties. and the principles that chris articulated. this. have talked about what was exciting to me, the mixture of skill set we had. there is a deep knowledge of liddell fromhris

the private sector, and young, potential political appointees. as i looked at people to come in and help with the transition, we tried to get into that mixture of washington old hands that knew the agencies, but a lot of people that were new to washington and new to potential government service, a lot of young people were ready to roll as well. . think it made it unique we have a lot of people that had never been engaged in politics or government service that potentially would have served. that is i having those conversations and filling out and casework early they were nominated was important. >> i think it would be useful to on that andfeeling

how it would be solved. i think redoubtable -- valuable of interest that has developed among people who work together on the team to keep this policy or togetherans -- for the network resources. >> i think there were two .ssues in the legislative group most people don't see it. chris mentioned one. that is a lame duck session. there is focused on the campaign .rom day one on you had to react to what was going on at the time. there were real economic challenges. we had to get through the whole lame duck in order to get to it.

that was a big eel we had to set up. a decision to make. -- that was a big deal we had to set up. the decision to make. romney and chairman ryan at the time. the second issue was a daunting task. they were very helpful with setting up the confirmation process. we had a rather ambitious goal of getting 26 nominees through during the first week of inauguration. 26t meant that you had all bedded and scheduled with the different senators. vettedad a have all 26 and scheduled with the different senators. you had a whole wing at the

transition readiness. this is going to be an enormous task. as tom said, as you walk people through the nomination process, we found as many as he could that were unregistered lobbyists at the time. i think that was one of the areas where people do not appreciate the amount of work that goes into that process. you'll set a figure out how you are going to -- we were working closely with operations as he mapped out that entire process. that therementioned .as been some consequence the defeat is that we try to make some lemonade out of it.

the foreign-policy space they worked on, we had about 10 teams. they were organized and task forces. they were organized by subject. iran and syria. on election day, each team had paper,d a 15-20 page explaining how we would implement the 200 day plan. there was a feeling after the election it would be a shame to let all of this go to waste. these teamsection, largely stayed together. organizede 16 teams by topic that are working and trying to help the hill and the governors and be of broad service to the republican party. there is a readiness project

that people do not want to loose and try to keep it going. we kept it going. we have done a lot of work with the house leadership and working 's officener and cantors in the resource to them. help them strategize on issues. >> last question here. >> thank you. my question is about the campaign. another question is the american people have been pretty clear that there feeling needs to be change in washington. that government needs to be structured in a way that they view as more responsive to their needs. both candidates in the last election it up on this theme.

to what extent did the respected planning reflect this interest? i do what extent is it appropriate for future transition teams -- and to what extent is it appropriate for future tension teams to plan for the kind of chance that perhaps candidates are talking about and the american people want? >> a lot of our proposals were put on the back earner -- back burner. the broader issue about how you the government more open to public, that is something we thought about a lot. we do not spend enough time before election day, but

certainly after election day. , i cannot envision how you would run a transition withouthnology -- technology. when he think about president clinton and president bush, they held summits during their transition period. i can imagine the next orsident-elect doing skype a digital town hall. we basically created a thing on our website. the radio address that the president usually did could be on the internet. includes more people in the planning of transitions and makes it more transparent. acknowledge the fact that -- i think that jamie

mentioned it -- getting a mix of people, we work hard to bring new ideas to the american people. one of the things we did that i still believe was the right thing to do was policy in boston. that is where the new a dais -- new ideas came from. they had policy teams that develop from people outside of government that were injecting these ideas. our job was to figure out how to work with the federal government to make it happen. end with a big round of applause and thank you for your contribution. [applause] committed to this process. i hope you will work with the

partnership going forward to make next time even better. >> people can get this on amazon.com. it is available to them. i want to acknowledge the work that clark did along with daniel. and chris. they were very instrumental in the assembly of this. they deserve to be acknowledged. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next "washington journal" a look at the yahoo operation. knox looks at its partnership with abc news. and the latest congressional stories with chris moody. and talking about the obama

administration second term and the direction it could take in the final three and half years. we will take your phone calls and tweets. "washington journal" live on c- span at 7 a.m. eastern. >> the public's fascination extends to her close. she was a real fashion icon. her he'll stop -- her hairstyle and clothing. this is her dress from the second administration. this is the most prized piece of all because of the inaugural gown. this was the inaugural gown from 1893. it stated her family and became the family wedding dress. it was used by her granddaughters. even frances cleveland's everyday clothes were very stylish. .his is a jacket

purpleith beautiful blue velvet. bodice would have had a matching skirt. you can see the sequence and the netting. this would have a matching caller -- collar. you can use this with a shirtwaist and skirt. >> our conversation on frances cleveland is available on our website at c-span.org/ firstladies. tune in on monday far next first lady caroline harrison. >> a conversation with new york city police commissioner ray kelly. he spoke about terrorist lots against new york that have been awarded since 9/11. this is part of new york magazine's ideas festival.

>> good morning, everybody. [applause] commissioner kelly, welcome. it's wonderful to have you here. we are going to get right into it. i think we should start with boston. it was a wake-up call for a lot of us. a lot of us who maybe have taken for granted changes that you made here in new york post-9/11. tell us what your take away from boston is. >> first of all, we were not surprised something like this happens. frankly, we thought it would happen sooner. people talk about the new normal. actually, the new normal is our old normal. after 9/11 when mayor bloomberg came in, we knew we had to do more to protect this city than just rely on the federal government. so we have invested heavily in

personnel, money and we have been able to receive federal money that has helped us put in defensive systems that i believe is more than any city. we have 1000 police officers every day that work on our counterterrorism efforts. that's a major commitment for us because we are down 6000 police officers from where we were 11 years ago. but we have been -- >> just due to budget cuts? >> yes, budget cuts. we have been the big them of two successful terrorist attacks. we had 16 plots against the city since that time. they have been torted as a result of your luck, good work on the part of the ei and nypd the fbi and nypd.

no other city had that target on its back like we have. so we have made that investment and we are going to continue to do it. >>what do you worry about most being under threat in this city was to, landmarks? what keeps you up at night? >> i don't think we can single it out. this is a target rich environment. we have a lot of iconic and events where large numbers of people come together. we are concerned about certainly the event in austin. we have had these types of radicalized young man trying to attack us in the city. most recently, two individuals were arrested in miami for scouting out targets in new york

city. it received very little press but it happened. they were arrested us year. we had an arrest for attempting to blow up the federal reserve bank. he thought he was detonated 1000 pounds of [indiscernible] when it was an fbi sting. so, a constant stream of individuals trying to come here and kill us. when you say what do we worry about, we worry about the whole spectrum. we have to think the unthinkable. we have to worry about a nuclear event happening in new york or do we have worked with the federal government. we have a program called securing the cities. we have 150 other jurisdictions in the area that we signed on with provide a radiological detection ring around new york city.

so we are not able to say we are worried about that thing only. it is a whole array of threats that are out there. we don't see any diminishment of threats. we see it as being relatively constant. >> can you be specific about what you are doing, what measures you are taking in this city that other cities could implement? that boston could be doing? what measures do you think have been the most effective? >> we are not in a position to advise anybody. they have to make their own decisions. depend on -- it depends on the level of the perceived threat, the culture, a lot of things. but we have done more here than any other city because we felt we had to. we have a security initiative, 1.7 square miles south of canal street. we have thousands of camera, radiation detectors. we monitor with public and private sector people, stakeholders. we have taken that concept and migrated up to midtown manhattan. 30th to 60th street. we are increasing the numbers of

cameras we have in place. now tying in cameras in other parts of the city. we do have our own investigations. we have the most diverse police department probably anywhere now. in our last seven police academy classes, of 1000 or more recruits, each one of those classes have recruits born in 50 or more countries. for that diversity gives us a lot of flexibility and helps us interact with the many communities of this city but also enable us to do investigations.

so we have personnel and we have the technology committed to the issue. you will see uniformed personnel, critical response vehicles. you will see them deploy at iconic locations and other sensitive locations. we do that on a daily basis. mostly in manhattan. uniform, plain clothes, technology. we had 17 investigators working with the joint terrorism task force. now we have over 120. we have our own personnel stationed abroad in 11 cities. they act as listening posts for us. abu dhabi, gordon, tel aviv, paris, london, madrid. >> is that repetitive with what the cia is doing?

do you feel like you need to do it yourself because maybe the federal government is not providing information given what you are trying to do? >> we need the federal government to continue to do what they are doing but we see ourselves at a higher risk than other cities. these officers are funded by the police foundation. these are not taxpayer funds. our offices are embedded in these police departments. they are not in the u.s. embassies. it is a unique experience for our offices and very much welcome on the part of the host countries. they send their officers here. we do training with them. and a lot of interaction takes place. >> you mentioned radiation detectors, a dirty bomb being a potential threat, something you

are obviously thinking about. port security has always been an issue. i know that's something you spend a lot of time working on. do you think there has been progress on that? is it silly huge concern? >> there has been progress. the u.s. customs commissioner before, we were concerned about it then. this was pre-9/11. some progress have been made that the vast majority of goods that come into our country simply are not searched. it would be impossible to. so there is a risk analysis in place. some items, the shipping containers are being checked in other cities.

before goods come to united states. has there been progress in that area? yes. still a lot more needs to be done. in hong kong, for instance, there is an x-ray of all goods going in and out of the port. that is a major undertaking. it would be very expensive for us to do that. but it's something that should be examined. >> i was talking to the guys backstage about crowd sourcing and the impact that had particularly in boston and the investigation in those 48 hours] the bombings happen. talk a little bit about how you are using technology on that front to -- when you know there is a threat, a plot, to address it. >> you mean in the aftermath of the boston bombings, looking at films, that sort of thing? >> or the engagement of community through the social

networking that took place. there are pros and cons to that, obviously. >> obviously social networking is a major factor these days. it is something investigators look at all the time. i know it was examined right away after the boston bombings. the camera work of course was very important. our cameras, many i mentioned, are smart cameras. you can do video analytics. we can put in a formula that will set off an alarm if a package is put down for a certain amount of time. let's say three minutes, it packages unattended, and alarm will go off. not all of our cameras do that with an increasing number of cameras can do that. or you can look at see somebody three weeks ago the path in front of a particular camera wearing a white shirt at 2:00 in the afternoon. we can do that very quickly.

that is where technology is moving. it's getting smarter and smarter. and more and more private sector companies have cameras. more public cameras are out there as well. but we have done is tied them together. technology has been a major factor in allowing us to operate. client continues to go down here. -- crime continues to go down here. part of it is a result of technology. >> the city is also facing an enormous budget crisis and the stuff is not cheap. >> thankfully that federal government has helped with lower manhattan security initiatives. the federal government is facing its own problems with sequester. i believe other cities, i know they are coming here now to take a closer look at what we're doing. but it's not cheap. it's an expensive undertaking. more and more cities will look at aspects of what we do.

>> putting costs aside for a second, let's talk about what you are up against. everyday you are under fire from members of the government, city council, civil rights organizations, almost every candidate running for mayor, maybe with the exception of joe loda. talk about targeting mosques for intelligence gathering, go through those. what do you say to your critics? >> let me give you a number that i think is important. in the 11 years of mayor bloomberg's administration, there were 7346 fewer murders than there were in the previous 11 years.

those lives saved are largely people of color, young people of color. we think we are saving lives. we know we are saving lives. that practice has been embedded in law enforcement throughout the world. not just throughout the country. it was validated by supreme court decision terry versus ohio in 1968. legislation or laws exist in all 50 states in the country. it's a practice not invented here. one of the things that has happened is we have started to record it more accurately. as a result, there is the perception that the numbers have gone up dramatically. it really hasn't.

we have done a lot of training. we are not unaware of the controversy it causes. it's an ongoing training program for a police officer but it is a tool. only a tool in the toolbox. it is not the be-all and end- all. we are doing a lot more to adjust the problems. -- address the problems. last year, was the lowest year for murders in the city and the lowest year for shootings in 20 years. this year, we are running 30% below that number. so something right is going on here. it translates into saved lives. we understand people running for office -- there is a perception that a narrow number of people will vote in the primary and their views are very much

against this type of activity that's how you get the nomination. but we are going to continue to do what we think is the right thing pursuant to the law. as far as the allegations of spying on muslims, we adhere very closely to the law. we have a cadre of first-rate attorneys that monitor everything that we do. there are a series of articles about by the associated press complaining in essence about what we do. i believe those riders missed the authorization to do what we do, under the modification of an agreement from 1985. in 2002, we petitioned the

federal court to change the agreement from 1984. they did change it. it allows new york police to go any place where there is a public meeting, any website available to the public and to do studies and reports to help us to protect the city. this is the most litigious environment in the world. i could see literally every day. [laughter] it's the fact that we are being sued -- it is nothing new. we believe we are doing our work to -- according to the law and we will continue to do it. >> tthey are creating an inspector general for nypd did you think is a terrible idea. why? >> we have more oversight than any police department in this

country as far as i am aware. we have five district attorneys in the city, unlike most cities that have one. we have two u.s. attorneys. we have a civilian complaint review board that exists totally to oversee some functions of the nypd. we have two commissions to combat police corruption, headed by a commission general counsel, michael armstrong. they look at every case of corruption allegation that comes in. we have an awful lot of oversight. another layer is not needed. i think it causes confusion. >> if we believe the polls right now, there's a good chance in november we will have a mayor who they are saying now wants to undo a lot of what you have done. how worried are you?

>> i am doing my job. the citizens are the ones that are going to have to take all this into account and vote accordingly. >> it's not too late to run. [laughter] to run for mayor yourself. [applause] >> i'm focused on my job right now. >> classic politician non- answer. i think a lot of people may be glad to hear it. let me just say -- boston has made a lot of us think about this. so much time passed and nothing happened post-9/11 than boston came along. how do you stay vigilant? how do you keep the nypd vigilant, your officers, when we

go through these times of calm. our memories are very short. >> we have had to confront against the city. >> to us, it is felt like calm. you stopped them. >> if prevented, it is a one-day story -- if prevented, it is a one-day story. the right away, looking at the law enforcement saying you should have done x, y, and z. we are vigilant, we have to be partly because of the number of cases that we have seen. we have had is ozzie -- azazi in 2009. and he tried to dump the formula down because he was afraid of being seen and recognized before the event took place. we have had close a -- had jose, he built 3 bombs right here and was arrested by our intelligence division.

these do not get much press. therefore the public thinks things are looking pretty good. then when boston happened, it is a huge shock to the public psyche. not to us. we can see where these things could easily happen. we did -- two of our intelligence analysts, did an outstanding study in 2007 on the radicalization process. these two young men fit into it.

they put together a schematic of the process. a pre-radicalization period then self identification than they indoctrinate themselves. that's when they often times meet a sanctioner. in the boston case, the sancti n er is believed to be and more anwar alwaki. then they decide to act. we have been looking at this issue for a long time. we are alert. i hope we continue to be alert.

new york is the number one target in this country. why? it is the communications capital. the financial capital. if you accept the proposition that terrorism is theater, this is the world's biggest phase. if they cannot do it here, they may do it someplace else. that is our job, to prevent them from doing it here. so far, so good but there are no guarantees. >> we appreciate your vigilant in your time this morning. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] a judiciary committee is determining whether attorney general eric holder lied under testimony.

, he isa may 15 hearing asked about -- withs the exchange democratic congressman johnson. >> i will note in this congress we have had a lot of bills. most famous of which in my mind was the helium legislation. we wanted to ensure that we had enough helium to keep everything moving forward. we certainly need to protect the privacy of individuals. we need to protect the ability of the press to engage in its first amendment responsibility to be free and give us

information about our government. keep the people informed. i think it is a shame that we get caught up in so-called ofndals and oversight unimportant matters when we should be here addressing these real problems. things like the ap scandal illustrates for us. i yield the balance of my time to you. >> with regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure material, that is not something i have ever been involved in or heard of or with think otherwise -- or with think otherwise. my view is the opposite. what the obama administration supported in 2009 -- i think senator schumer is introducing a

bill that we will support as well. shieldss should have a law with regard to the president's ability gather information and to disseminate it. for the people who break their oath and put american people at not reporters to gather information. that is not the focus of these investigations. all of hiswatch testimony before the house judiciary committee at c- span.org. >> but tends to be a denigration by some historians. when one regiment fought an american regiment, the germans tended to be superior.

mano, they were better. that is pointless. which system can produced the inrewithal to project power the atlantic and pacific, southeast asia? theh system can produce civilian leadership to create a transportation systems? the leadership that is able to create airplanes? >> two-time pulitzer winning rick atkinson live on sunday at noon on c-span 2. >> from "washington journal"

this is 40 minutes. host: we welcome back to the table the vice president of the lexington institute. dan goure. the washington post had this yesterday on its front page -- what happened? guest: this is a report of a study done by the defense science board late last year. the classified report says china in particular has hacked into databases and provided them with key information on a host of major u.s. weapons systems, missile defense systems, ships, planes, and others. host: how? guest: we are not clear. the report is available on the defense web site. it says the chinese are engaged in a cyber blitzkrieg in which they are using a whole variety of means, getting it through e-

mail, e-mail phishing, sending phony e-mails and using that to get into people's e-mail. using agents in place. using students or people they have been able to subvert. or just going through various sites of sub suppliers. everybody communicates on e-mail and supply chain stuff electronically. they go in through one of these little companies and walked away all the way it up. host: what is the goal of the chinese and how many resources, how much of their manpower, are they spending on trying to hack into the united states weapons systems? guest: if we take this as a whole, there's a number of different things they're going after.

one is economic information data which will help their economy, designed for commercial systems, plans companies have for how they will sell their wares in china or global in. on the military side, there's to gain insight and knowledge about the technologies involved so they can reverse engineer. so china can leapfrog the process that may have taken the u.s. 20 years to get to a new weapon system. second, to understand their operational characteristics, how is this going to be used. if there is a war between the u.s. and china, they can understand how to defeat those systems and the tactics that go with them. third, possibly looking at ways of corrupting or subverting the systems themselves. for example, inserting malware or some other kind of virus into the software. almost all of our systems are heavily software dependent for firing and some protest line. if you can put a little bug in

the system you can turn on when you need to, an airplane may fall out of the sky. host: and resources the chinese are dedicating to this? guest: it looks to be used during national intelligence estimate recently suggested they had a massive campaign appeared there was a report in february that described a semi-official entity, part of the military, which were hundreds of people that had been doing this job for decades and were very skilled. as a result they had gotten terabytes of data from 140 organizations and companies, at least. host: so these are not traditional soldiers. guest: we're not even sure if they are uniform in that sense, but they're part of the electronic warfare establishment of the chinese military. they're connected to the pla. host: in the washington post's story, here's an expanded partial list of dot system designs and technology is compromised --

f-35. v-22. hawklink. how does this rate as far as an act by another country against the united states? guest: nations have always by -- spied upon one another. this is not necessarily all that different. there was a famous case in the soviet union days they put bugs into the walls of the embassy that we were building, the u.s. embassy in moscow. to the point where we had to abandon the building, it was so compromised. we do it all the time. the point here is the scale and the level of success, that long list of weapons systems. we're told that the weapons and not been compromised. we don't know exactly whether -- , god on any individual system,

how deeply they penetrated. trouble is we may not always able to tell how well they did until something goes really wrong. host: you say that we are told these and not been compromised. press secretary from the pentagon had this statement, -- what are they going to do? how's the pentagon going to combat this? guest: in a number of ways. it requires the defense companies do better and cyber security and maintaining security over their systems. many of the companies, if you go to them, lockheed martin,

boeing, they're very good with internal cybersecurity systems. they are tracking trucks 247. are so good that they are now starting to bring these capabilities into the marketplace to help other companies that are not so that good. first half of the statement does not connect to the second half. we are doing all kinds of things to improve security and hire more people. that does not mean our systems have not been compromised up to this point and it does not mean they will not, going for it. we are in the midst of a real act of espionage war. host: that brings up the question of whether the act of the chinese was an act of war. in may of 2011, a story in the wall street journal --

guest: that is the next stages. we have already had about would call an act of war, the use of stuxnet against the iranian nuclear enrichment facility. a cyber virus was deployed against a physical system causing it damage. that fit the definition that the pentagon had or the military had. by the way, we now see that the iranians are reported to be trying to use cyber attack against u.s. and international oil and gas pipelines and energy systems. we are in the beginning stages it's much like being in the 1930's are think the lead up to world war ii. new technologies, wars in unusual places, ethiopia, spain, we are going there. host: the specific action we're learning about from this report, does it rise to the level of an act of war? guest: i don't think so. as is traditional espionage, using the means available. hopefully, using the exact same

thing. host: this on twitter -- guest: let's be careful of our terms. espionage is not an attack. we are very good at what we do, i'm told, on the cyber side. there is cyber defense, cyber offense, protecting your networks, attacking other people's systems, and then there's all the espionage tools and techniques. i assume you're developing defensive skills. military is supposed to be be developing offensive tools. and the intelligence community is up to their chin in working cyber espionage. we would be crazy not to. host: on twitter -- could you explain the

significant of the supply chain tears and the intersection with the chinese government? guest: that the great question. -- is a great question. if you go deep down into it, six levels, small companies, we're getting chips that go into the computers, military systems, they come from china. we have concerns that there are bugs or malware, things being hard wired onto the chips themselves, which is very difficult to detect. very hard to detect. you now have something coming from china. it's the person building the airplane has no visibility seven levels down as to read this part is coming from. they just need to make sure it is quality and it's properly tested. by the time you get all the way up in the system, unless you are examining every single stage of the process, it could have been compromised five times. host: this from the washington post -- basicy have got into the

algorithms for the missile, somebody better get a clean piece of paper and start to design all over again. guest: yes, that potentially right. at a minimum, we need to understand it -- they understand the limitations of the missile, so they would figure out tactics to make us vulnerable. in many cases the missiles after used for sensitive radar or infrared sensors. if you can figure out how it sees a target, you can build a countermeasure. and then we would be disarmed, literally. host: what is the cost of this type of cyber-espionage? guest: the big loss is on the commercial side. it probably is in the many tens of billions of dollars. possibly hundreds of billions of dollars in intellectual property that goes overseas. on the defense side, you have to rewrite the code, you have to resign the system, a standout

the radio or radar, or the-- take outthe system, the radio or radar, or the system will stay in combat, your talking about $1 trillion and cost. host: on twitter -- guest: there is that. a report by two members of congress that talks about the vulnerability of electric power grid. we have seen attempts to penetrate the electric power grid. even more basic than the banking system, take down power grid. this country and would go back to the dark ages. host: silver spring, maryland, democrat nikki. caller: hi. i wonder if the guest believes the corporations played any role in this. in the state's main the a lot of -- mainly a lot of the

products we buy are made in china, so it puts them in a position to have these resources to use against us. i wonder if he thinks they have a role. guest: we're stuck at the moment. with a globalized economy. we go where the costs are low. while lot of stuff comes from china. the question for corporations is who is responsible for cybersecurity? do we put the military in charge of all of it? that would mean securing cybersecurity for yahoo! and google. is each company, your bank, but should they be made responsible? and what happens if they fail in responsibility? what happens if a defense company loses critical data? we have not worked all this out in inappropriate ways. the division between homeland

security, responsible for defense a homeland, and infrastructure, and d.o.t., with the nsa and cyber attack command for the military side. the problem is you don't have the resources, the manpower, sophistication on the department of homeland security side. they're loath to spend money on cybersecurity if they cannot show it really provides value. how much insurance? you buy for the one insurance even as a result, you get a tax. -- attacks. host: arlington, virginia, independent. caller: i'm in the technology business since 1996. you are trying to scare american people a little with this cybersecurity. the issue is american corporations by outsourcing our jobs give all the documents how to produce goods to china. it's not like china needs to spy anymore. every country in the world does espionage. the european union is buying on

-- spying on the u.s., israel is spying on the u.s., we spy on china and other countries. when we have the u.s. outsourcing, manufacturing of u.s. computer systems to china, everything is done in china and singapore and other countries. we give them blueprints. they can produce. they don't need to check for more systems. that's the main issue. guest: it is used perhaps for commercial systems but not for military systems. we take special care not to hand over the production blueprint for fighter planes and missile systems to the chinese. we try to check the pieces that go into the systems. on the military side, and this is a very different threat, and the success they have had is dramatic and dangerous. host: and this -- is it true it were not government computers, but government contractors computers

were hacked? get rid of contractors. guest: having been a contractor at one time and having known a lot of them, if you get rid of contractors, you might as well close the door to the u.s. military, because they could not produce a thing. it's not clear to me that the government is more secure, their computers, then the contractors are. contractors do a lot of the work. if we know there are tens of thousands of attempted intrusions into government computers. we have had government, individuals like the wikileaks case, bradley manning was a military person working for the government, not a contractor. so both sides have a problem. host: ralph in north carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning. why can't the military put this information on paper like it once was years ago instead of putting it on computers where it can easily be down loaded? guest: interesting question.

we have gone to the use of computers because it is faster, cheaper in many cases. it is easier to store. you can store the entire library of congress probably in this room now if it is digitized. also because you can share information much better. because of computer aided design we now go from a design on a computer right to the manufacturers to the machine itself, and the machine starts spinning out a piece of hardware. in a sense, is the way we manufacture now. it is the way we design now. it is the way we do things like improve drugs, because we do it with computer modeling. that revolution is part of the information technology revolution. we are stuck. host: we heard that chinese officials say they oppose computer hacking and want to

work with washington to counter such a activities following the new claims we're talking about here. it goes on to say china would like to refer to an agreement with the u.s. to form a cyber crime working group. what do you know about this? guest: the chinese have been saying nobody here but us innocent saints for many years even though there's published information. i've also talked to people working inside intelligence community and in the military who say without question the smoking guns are there, but the trouble is we don't want to make them public partly because we have techniques by which we backtrack and we don't want the spies to know about our adversaries. china has a problem attacking by

outsiders not part of the government. or people from the west hacking into chinese systems. so do we. there's a place for this kind of cyber crime. crime groups it does not diminish the fact we are being inundated by government-directed military oriented chinese cyber spying. host: how does the u.s. response? guest: that is the tough question. you have to improve your defenses. the need to be operating 247. -- 24/7. we need to be more vigilant. we have to figure out ways of operating on the chinese to try to back into our system, ways of making the system hardened against that, ways of ensuring that we detect intrusions or viruses are very early and can fix them, and also we need to consider at what stage and in dot ways do be retaliates.--

we retaliate? and is a shot across the ball deterrence strategy? host: does president obama publicly raised this issue in front of the chinese president? guest: one of the problems with this issue is you can say looked at all these military systems and know how it's done and what it does produces the kind of thing that grabbing the chinese president by the throat to does not do as a lot of good. but it has to be raised. in past being clear in the public discussions that it was raised. i don't think one needs to browbeat the chinese leadership publicly in order to get a response. host: the new york times reports on that summit saying the two will meet at an estate east of los angeles --

one analyst said he wants the american president to recognize that china is dramatically rising in military and economic ways and he wants the president to know that he is active in world diplomacy. if the american president recognizes all these things, and the chinese president can be nicer in his deposition in a very tense situation. guest: one could assume that if we capitulate, the chinese will be nice. if we resist, the chinese may get testy. on the other hand, and has enough of its own military and economic problems. it is not there yet. this is as much of chinese attempt to get great power status on the cheap by a big bluff and the president would be sorely mistaken to get buffaloed by the chinese leadership. host: charles is on -- on the line.

caller: you listed a whole series of things in which they are essentially gathering information from our technologies. -- you listed. my question is why can we not load those technologies with some little false things so that when they copied these things and fly the first airplane it would not get off the ground before they launch a submarine and it goes to the bottom? we can loaded with false information and they would not know whether it is or not, so they don't know what to follow. i will take your answer off the air. guest: great question. people have suggested that. it may have been done. there have been recent stories about computer programs to do things for oil turbine's back in the 1970's or 1980's that the russians were purchasing that were essentially loaded with viruses. the problem is you can do some of that, but we are seeing that they are going after the actual designers, developers, testers,

and producers of the military systems. you cannot blow to everyone of-- ases everyone of our databse our data bases with phony information without essentially causing ourselves of some problems. so there has been some for our own benefit. those are the systems the chinese are going after any those are the ones that we have not always adequately protected, apparently. host: this on twitter -- guest: great question. there are supposed to be hundreds of thousands of attempted intrusions on d.o.t. computers every year. probably 95 or maybe 99% are trivial. some kids in omaha or wherever doing exactly that, one, two, 3, whatever. the problem is 1% is still a very large number. in that 1% are the real pros, such as the chinese military

ally thingsn. get through. that one percent is enough to do terrible harm. host: we are talking to dan goure, vice president of the lexington institute, about the story in "the washington post" yesterday. mark, democratic caller. caller: i have a comment -- there was a "60 minutes" episode about espionage and they cut someone in the homeland trying to exchange secrets for cash and he got caught. you are talking about the actual hacking aspect from overseas but what about the physical lack of oversight that could lead to somebody compromising, whether

it be a password or code or any type of material resource for that purpose of stealing it? guest: we have a tremendous problem with poor security practices, people living passwords out on their desk, things like that, just bad hygiene in cyberspace, you can call it that. and then you have people who can be compromise. they can be foreigners in the united states to work, citizens or residents who are subverted it happens all the time. we had many cases through the cold war. the russians did it the old- fashioned way -- they supported people and both people carried off reams of information. in some cases they carried out hardware. there was the famous story of the sidewinder missile in germany. somebody put it in the back of a bw and drove across the brandenburg gate and into checkpoint charlie and into the east. we think it is still the new old fashion way and in the case of countries that are as sophisticated as russia, china,

and the like, they may have to do it the old-fashioned way. you cannot avoid the one and not spend time on physical security. you've got to do both. host: independent in michigan. caller: mike rogers is my congressman, and for three years i've been trying to get him to remove most-favored-nation status for the chinese communist government. but i don't understand is that we know they are hacking us, we know they are doing currency manipulation. why is it that washington and obama are still giving them economic deals through most- favored-nation status? i can't understand. when is washington going to stand up for the american worker and the american people and stop giving the communist chinese government special economic deals through most-favored- nation status? isn't that traitorous at a point? that's all i've got to say.

thank you. guest: we trade with china because it is in our economic interest. even with the loss from the side of hacking, the scale still goes to -- in favor of trading with china. however, it cannot be, if you will, an open checkbook or open kimono. we have got to figure out a way of saying that this has to stop, and if it doesn't, there will be consequences. and think about what those consequences might be. it is hard to do it in a trade sense. you cannot impose a tariff on chinese imports, but it may require us to do some very particular and argumentative things. you cannot expect this to be a one-shot where we attack and impose sanctions and the chinese capitulate. that may be part of what the discussion will be about.

we don't have to -- we won't want to go this way, obama may say, but we may be forced to if host:on't dial it down. from twitter -- guest: not that i am aware of. they're still buying weapons, co-developing stuff with the russians, advanced stuff. their old russian aircraft carrier was supposed to be a casino that was supposed to -- that was bought by the chinese. they are getting better, though. partly because we are giving them the skills. commercial companies are giving them advanced skills in aerospace and other things and because of what they are able to steal. it will come a day, not far in the future, where they will be essentially pretty much our equal. we will be fighting it out tooth and nail.

host: how will we be fighting it out? will we really be fighting war against china? guest: the chinese are setting up -- the quotation you just had a great power relationship. they are based on balances of power and military standoff. that is been the way going back centuries. they will develop military give abilities, we will develop military capabilities, and we keep going this way and that is a stable balance. you don't go to war if there is no gain from it and we need to make sure that the chinese recognize that point or 30 or 50 years down the road, there is no gain from a war. host: independent caller. caller: good morning. you started the story in the middle, because it is actually corporations. back in the 1980s, once computers -- we got them on our desktops -- we invited people

from all over the world to come and learn our technology. we created the engineering software, the design, and then they left. you can blame them for using their education against us. this is totally the corporations, and microsoft, hewlett-packard, all the technical companies for years, just for the fact that we have members in the united states who did not get an opportunity at all for those positions. host: dan goure? guest: there is a mixed here. we invited foreign educated graduate students and scientists to come into work. the problem may be that we don't offer enough of these people citizenship. we should welcome them here and make it so attractive that they wouldn't go back. the reality is that corporations do what is in their best interests and the interest of

their shareholders and, frankly, produce value that we all love and benefit from. that really can't be the answer to the problem. this is -- at the level of espionage, this is a battle of nations -- that is, as old as the nation-state, and it has to be treated as such. we're simply doing it in a new domain. there's nothing new about the process itself. host: getting all the computer information they need at american university since the late 1970s. mr. goure, who is our greatest cyber adversary? guest: you know, that is an interesting question. most of the reports identify four major players in terms of espionage. the chinese are number one. the russians are a close number two. very sophisticated but not in the same map. israel is identified as the third player, largely for economic advantage.

and france, interestingly enough, is identified as the fourth major player, or at least sources in france. i don't mean that the national government level. in a sense, everybody wants to play in the big race has essentially major power ambitions who is looking for ways to jumpstart their economy. all of them are coming to the united states as it, you will, the cornucopia of technology and trying to steal it. guest: you know, that is an interesting question. clearly al qaeda does not have a real reason to go after the design code for an 30. but if you are thinking about them trying to hack into missile operations to mandate a base or some of the companies that are providing security for u.s. embassies and facilities overseas, clearly that would be something that al kato might be --terested in, because if iran

ght be interest in, because if iran is going after and hacking into our infrastructure, energy infrastructure, the power grid, can the terrorist group be far behind? host: nikki, waverley, georgia, republican. caller: yes, good morning. i wanted to find out -- obama is supposed to meet with china because the contracts he just gave china for electric cars and buses and all that, the factories in california. that is what the discussion is about. why would you outsource a factory that could be gave to the american people instead of china billions of dollars? guest: we have had a long history of problems with countries or companies from countries coming in and buying up our capability. the business is staying in the

u.s. but it is chinese-owned. a computer maker bought the ibm pc business. we are well into that. how we manage that and whether the jobs go overseas or the money comes here to create jobs in the united states is the real question. it is a tough problem, because the chinese have the money, they have the workforce, and increasingly the technology, and they have a huge market. a lot of companies would like to send their capabilities overseas and do production in china because they see the hope of capturing the chinese markets as well as the markets back here. host: richard in california, democratic caller, you are on the air. caller: the united states is one of the leaders of espionage. and if you think of espionage and drones, how can another country flyer drone into the

united states and kill civilians? we do that all over the world. i think that way back when i was a little boy, a guy was shot down with a u2 rocket over russia. it was a long time ago, but we are one of the leaders of espionage, i find. guest: we're not saying that the chinese are bad and we are good. everybody does espionage, no question about it. some kind of espionage is actually very good. the fact that we have spy satellites, and so do the chinese and the russians, that look at the world and can detect military maneuvers or the buildup for war, can be a very good thing. espionage goes on. we all do it. that was in the basis for the washington post article. what they were saying is that

the chinese have had spectacular successes which may diminish u.s. security that was the key point. host: how did "the washington post" get this report? guest: the science board under dr. paul kaminski, former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, has been focused on cyber and network security since he took over. apparently the reporter got a hold of the confidential edition and i suspect there is a highly classified version, and that version, unlike the unclassified version, names names and identifies systems. host: names systems leaked by the administration? guest: i'm hearing stories that this was leaked by the administration. in ministration might have some basis for saying, look, i'm getting public pressure here, and we have got to have some arrangement about your espionage. it is out of control. host: the meeting dan goure is referring to is the president,

president obama meeting with his counterpart from china for a two-day summit in california. headline in "the new york times" is that the president is seeking a new power relationship. brent, go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. goure and greta. basically what the previous caller said, are the chinese doing anything with that we're not doing to them in terms of hacking computers? guest: i would hope that they're not doing more than us, i would hope that we have run riot through industrial computers. frankly, i would hope that we are conducting economic espionage and stealing their secrets and that would at least put everybody on an equal field. what i do know, at least by

multiple reports, multiple sources, is that we are being assaulted by the chinese and at the very least need to take defensive measures. i'm not talking about blame here. nobody is taking blame. this is just a fact. guest: that's a good question. we don't know in many cases where various groups fit in. one of the things about the internet is that not only do you take over someone's computer and service, and we know from the report that the chinese are -- and these military groups are buying up service and establishing domain names and are all over the place. they are just littering cyberspace with potential watch points for attacks. in some cases groups are on their own, and in other cases they need to be subverted by nations. in some cases criminal groups are being paid -- we know that is happening with the russian nations.

part of making this manageable is that it is very hard to know in all cases who you are dealing with and who is the real source. host: "the washington post," if you go to the website, has video of various weapons hacked into. dan goure of the lexington institute, thank you for your time. guest: i appreciate it. host: coming up, our spotlight collects -- he looks at the yahoo news philosophy of concrete. political reporter on the latest insertional stories. white house correspondent rachel rose hartman talks about the obama administration's second term in the direction it could take in the final three and a half years. plus your e-mails, phone calls and tweets. washington journalist live 7:00 a.m. eastern on the span.

>> the public fascination with frances cleveland extends to her close. she was a real fashion icon. women emulate her hairstyle, her clothing. she popularized everything she had ended. this is a dress from the second administration. this is the most right piece of all because this is the inaugural gown. this was her down from 1893. stated her family and became the family wedding dress. this was used by her granddaughters. 'sen frances cleveland everyday" very stylish. a lot of them look like something to wear now. this is a jacket. black with this beautiful purple blue velvet. this is a more evening appropriate piece. a matching skirt. you can see the beautiful lace in sequence. slightly more

ornate. this would have a matching color. again, you can wear this with a shirt waisted skirt. >> our conversation on frances cleveland is available on the website. tune in monday for our next program on first lady caroline harrison. >> a conversation on how immigration legislation working its way through the senate could affect the federal budget and the economy. we will hear from former congressional budget office and director. the but partisan policy center hosted the -- the bipartisan policy center hosted this 90 minute program. coming up on c-span, a conversation on public opinion of marijuana legalization. at a look at the transition process after elections.

later on washington journal, reporters at yahoo! news and your calls about the days news. live live coverage at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

>> he has taught since 1998. he is also a senior research

fellow at the center for american progress dedicated to progressive ideas. in a research associate with the economic policy institute. a nonpartisan think tank. dr. lynch's recent report concluded that legalizing undocumented immigrants could boost gdp up to one point four dollars -- up to $1.4 trillion. increasing american's incomes and creating new jobs. he graduated with a ba degree from georgetown university. artie masters in economics from the state university of new york at stonybrook. do they left, the president of the american action form. and on policy institute. he is a former director of the congressional budget office and was recently a commissioner on the congressional charted financial crisis commission. he served as chief economist of

the president council of economic advisers under former president george w. bush. he was director of the vatican economic policy for the john mccain presidential campaign. he has held positions at several washington-based think tanks researching economic policy and entrepreneurship. he is the author of the ibo 2013 paper immigration reform, economic growth, and the fiscal challenge. he argues immigration reform would raise gdp per capita by more than $1500 and reduced the key militant federal deficit by more than $2.5 trillion. to his left, dr. steven camarota. an institute that examines the constitution of immigration of united states. he has written and testified testified before congress and pensively -- extensively.

he has a masters degree in political science from the university of pennsylvania and a doctorate from the university of virginia and public policy analysis. robert rector, the heritage foundation. a conservative research think tank tasting washington, d.c..-- d.c.dc in watshington, he has three decades of experience. he was heavily involved in crafting the 1996 welfare reform bill and continued to examine the mounting cost of welfare. these focus on fixing the broken immigration system. looking at the long term of the fiscal cost to taxpayers of legalizing 11 million immigrants living unlawfully in the united states.

his recent papers concludes that the lifetime deficit created by such a program would be explained $3 trillion. he held a bachelor from the college of william and mary in a masters in political science from johns hopkins. now i would like to turn it over to our palace for brief opening statement.-- to our panelists for brief opening statements. then we will have a discussion about where they agree and disagree on the question of the economic cost and benefits of a immigration reform. >> the basis of my analysis starts from an understanding of the redistributive nature of government -- the type of analysis that i do does not apply only to immigration, but to government in general. i look at the total taxes paid in unary category of taxation and all of the the benefits received by individuals excluding interest and national

defense and i measure, essentially, how much income is redistributed from the upper class to the bottom half of the population and my calculations, which i have done for over half of a decade, show that there is roughly $1 trillion transferred from the top to the bottom, not particularly controversial. the second thing that i showed that is not controversial, that kind of startling is that government is larger than people imagine. the average household in the united states receives over $31,000 a year in government benefits, implying they would have to pay $31,000 a year in taxes in order to break even. not many tax hold -- households pay $31,000 a year in taxes. when you look at the least advantaged households, those with the lowest level of education, where the head of the household does not have a high school degree, they receive over

$48,000 a year in government benefits and only pay around $12,000 a year in taxes. there is a net deficit their of around $30,000 there -- a year. if you look at the other end, households headed by someone with a college degree, they are the opposite. they pay $30,000 a year more in taxes than they take out in benefits. overall we have a massive system of redistribution in which we provide lots of benefits to the least advantaged americans and do not request much of them in taxes. they pay taxes, and i calculate how much lottery tax and tobacco excise tax -- we have over seven different categories of spending and over 30 individual categories of taxation. it comes up to equal total government spending.

the same thing for taxes. it is a holistic analysis. the question vis-a-vis amnesty is you are looking at 11 million people that haven't average education level of 10th grade. once you get behind the deceptive ten-year budget window, all of the amnesty recipients will be eligible for over 80 different means tested welfare programs, eligible for obamacare, and also for social security and medicare when they retire, recognizing these individuals have an -- a 10th grade education, giving them access to those benefits is expensive and will not be financed by those individuals themselves. they are in deficit at each stage along their lifecycle. they will also receive more in

benefits than they pay in taxes. that is not a bad thing, but when you understand the fiscal consequences, you have to understand the current nature of redistribution. i then look and say what happens if you granted these 10 million to 11 million people access to the benefits, and i use a simple methodology. i look at the current unlawful immigrants, and i assume once they have access they will pay taxes and receive benefits in the same way and a current legal immigrant he sees them, who has the same -- receive them, who has the same education level. i look at any legal immigrant who does not have a high school degree, and half of them do not, and is maybe 35 years old, and then i look at a legal immigrant who is exactly like that, and i measure what the fiscal deficit

is, and the reality is, then, that these individuals -- each household, once they gain access to all of these programs, which they do under this program, each household will run a deficit of around $23,000 a year benefits minus taxes and once they hit retirement, the deficit will be around $22,000 per person. once you legalize, the illegal will receive benefits the same way a current legal immigrant does care that is a lot of benefit, a lot of transfer. the bottom line is simple. conservatives say we do not want to have a cradle-to-grave welfare state. we have had a cradle-to-grave welfare state for 50 years. we have had the largest and most expensive government retirement system for social security and medicare in the globe, or at least the top five.

we also have the most expensive public education system, which is largely free or nearly free to low income households. they get the service, but we do not get very much in taxes. now we take a population of roughly 10 million people with an average education level of 10th grade and plugging them into all of those benefits. they are already partially plugged in, but we fully love them in, the -- plug them in, and i am asking what it costs. the average immigrant is 35 years old, and on average they will live an additional 50 years, so that is the timeframe in which these costs will be

imposed on the taxpayer. once you look at that analysis and you assume that the unlawful immigrants, once legalized, have the same deficit status as this current legal immigrant with the same education level, these costs unfold year after year, and over the course of 50 years and will receive about $9 trillion in government benefits, pay about $3 trillion in taxes for a net deficit of about $6 trillion that somebody else has to pay or needs to be funded by increasing the deficit. it does not mean that these people are bad or evil or that they are lazy. one of the myths behind this is a lot of people think if somebody comes here and works they inevitably would be not taxpayers. -- not tax -- net taxpayers. that has not been true since the 1920's. the largest tax credit is the earned income tax credit and it is only available for people

that work. i think it is unfortunate, but given the fiscal status of our country we cannot afford to throw away $6 trillion on individuals whose claim to those resources is simply that they came here and violated our rules. we cannot afford to do that as a nation. it is an unnecessary burden on u.s. taxpayers we should not create. >> thank you for inviting me here. let me start by saying that when you think about the issue of immigration, there are three

basic issues that often get confused, but they are not really the same thing. let me run through them briefly. there is the impact of immigration on the aggregate -- the overall size of the u.s. economy, and there simply is no question immigration makes the economy bigger, by well over one dollar trillion a year. -- $1 trillion. if anyone says it does not make the gdp larger, that is false or at gdp is larger by over $1 trillion, however an overall larger gdp is not necessarily a a benefit to the nativeborn population. pakistan has a larger gdp that island, and nobody says pakistan is a richer country. what matters is per capita gdp and per capita income. there is a way to estimate immigration process impact on the per capita income of the nativeborn.

there is the immigrant surplus that shows about 98% of that extra gdp, that extra added to the economy from immigration goes to the immigrants themselves in the forms of wages and benefits. there is a tiny benefit to the nativeborn, equal to about 2/10 of one percent of gdp. it is caused -- called the immigrant surplus. you could argue it does create a benefit to the nativeborn, but it is very small. so, that is the second issue. now, if you accept the idea that there is an immigrant surplus, you have to accept the redistribution of income that immigration creates. this has to do with future flows or allowing illegal immigrants to stay.

the best preachers -- research shows it is redistributing about $4 billion in the u.s. economy and mainly from the less educated to more educated workers and owners of capital. immigrants are not evenly distributed throughout the economy. about 6% of lawyers in the united states are foreign-born. about 49% of the hotel maids in the united states are foreign- born. so, for that 800 or 850,000 us- born hotel maids, immigration creates a lot of job competition, as it does for the millions of meat and poultry processors that are u.s. born because about 60% are us-born, but 40% are immigrants. for immigrants, it is another

low immigrant occupation. for english language journalists, it is even lower, so they do not face a lot of job competition, but for nannies, maids, bus drivers, it is very large. they are the losers, and the winners are the more skilled and the owners of capital. the fact of the business community fights so hard to keep immigration hard and you have a regular -- relatively lacks an unenforced immigration law suggests that a large portion of that redistribution goes to them. they pay lower rages and retained in the -- wages and retain it in the form of higher

profits. there is the impact on the overall size of the economy, which is almost irrelevant as to whether it benefits natives. there is the immigrant surplus, which should be positive, but it must come with the redistribution and you have to decide how you feel about taking money away from the less educated and the poor. that is an open question. one of the groups that will benefit is the immigrants themselves. and there is the 30 issue of the fiscal impact. there are three things matter -- the education level of the immigrants, the education level of the immigrants and the education level of the immigrants. the fiscal implications depend very heavily on the education of the immigrant. immigrants who come to the united states with very little education tend to be a large fiscal game. -- fiscal drain. this is what robert found in his research but it confirmed something the national academy of science found in its research. they estimated that an immigrant without a high school education is a net fiscal drain of 000.9,00.-- of

those numbers would be larger if you adjusted for inflation. you see 59% of households headed by immigrants use one of the major welfare programs. by the way, i have not included the earned income tax credit and the additional tax credits. we also see that households headed by immigrants have very little tax liabilities. about 70% have zero federal income tax liability. it is not a fully developed model, what it tells you is that when thinking about immigration it is the education level that matters and through all my research and others, it indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly unskilled. around 75% of the illegal

immigrants are thought to have no education behind high school beyond high school. about 50% have less than a high school education. all of the research shows that people with bad skill level cannot come close to paying enough in taxes to cover the consumption of services. it is important to note that the fiscal deficit is not the result of the immigrant unwillingness to work, or because they came to get welfare. rather in the modern american economy people with little education do not make very much. education has become increasingly important. it turns out your mother was right when she told you to stay in school because what you make in life is very much determined by education of what you pay in taxes reflects your income. your eligibility for you and your children also reflects your income. anyone who argues that less educated immigrants or natives can pay enough in taxes to cover the consumption of public services survey does not show

what the data shows where they are being disingenuous. one final statistic to highlight that this is not being caused by a lack of work -- if you look at immigrant households receiving one or more welfare programs, 86% of those households had at least one worker during the year. this is not being caused by that. what it will suggest is if we have a large welfare state, you have to have an immigration system that reflects the reality and select skilled immigrants

that will not create the distal costs. -- the fiscal costs. immigration reform bill, briefly, increases skilled immigration in the future because it will double legal immigration. instead of one million green cards, under this bill it goes to about 2 million. about half of the increase is unskilled. we accelerate family integration and create new avenues for unskilled immigration. in the past, it looks like half of all legal immigrants have only had a high school education. in the future, and thinking about this, we have to have a policy that reflect these realities. remember, in 1910, federal state federal, state and local expenditures were something like

five percent of gdp. today, the size and scope of government is fundamentally different and we need an immigration policy that reflect that. with regards to illegals, that means however many we let state, if we decide to do that, each incremental increase increases the cost. if we let half of them stay, it is more costly than letting one quarter stay. if we let three-quarter stake, it is much more costly than letting have stay. -- letting half stay. those are the things we have to think about. in conclusion, it is important not to think of the fiscal costs as some kind of moral defect or deficit on the part of the immigrants. rather it reflects the reality of the u.s. economy, the educational attainment of illegal immigrants, were mostly all adults, and the existence of a well-developed welfare state. thank you. >> i want to say thank you to the bipartisan policy center for having this event, inviting me to participate. i have worked with the bpce in the past and it is a place that fosters this kind of dialogue and makes sure that all points of view get represented. that should be applauded, especially in this town. this is a difficult set of issues, and you can look at it from a couple of different dimensions. i will not bore you to tears as a former academic, but once have but one set of the dimensions is the -- my favorite senator. for me? thank you. [laughter]

one set of dimensions goes across the policy. that is enter and exit visas. a second set of issues has to do with the legality of actions -- can we keep employers on the right side of the law? a. said -- another site has to do with economics, dollars and cents. it is important in the theme of the event, when you talk about cost and benefits, to recognize this raises difficult issues in valuation. what is border security worth? this is a fundamental question we face. what is the value we place on having a secure nation question mark the same will be true when these issues in the evaluation of legal issues, internal security, the management -- the

name -- the diminishment of illegal activity. they are tough issues. we do not want to hijack the debate over thinks we can measure when there are things that are difficult to measure that might be comparable or more important in the end. we can measure something about budget and economics, and to me, the most central feature of the debate we are having today is for the first time we are recognizing the importance of immigration as an economic policy. it is a demographic fact that the nativeborn ovulation is -- population is having so few children that we will shrink as the population and economy, so by our choices we are choosing the future of the american population, the labor force and how fast we will go -- grow.

that is not the tradition of u.s. immigration law. that is not how we have thought about it. we have also based the laws on tables of family reunification, political asylum and refugee status and we are now out of step with the rest of the world as a result. we have less than 10% of these is granted for economic reasons. -- of our visas granted for economic reasons. competitors recognize immigration is a powerful tool in economic policy. we see a shift in the court visa-granting priorities away from exclusive reliance on principles to include economic considerations and i agree. we need to grow more rapidly as a nation. we know that compared to the nativeborn population immigrants work more. they work longer. they have more small businesses. they demonstrate the traits of entrepreneurial zeal and upward mobility that we always valued as a nation. we can put numbers on that.

i have done back of the envelope calculations and others have as well. that is a key part of this debate -- have that opportunity. it brings with it other parts of the fiscal calculation and we have heard some of that already. i want to emphasize that to me all we have seen in the discussion so far and in the debate is we have proven that an unsustainable american social safety net will be more unsustainable if we put more bodies in it. social security is broken. the current plan is to cut benefits 25% across the board in 2033. a pretty disgraceful plan. it is a system that needs to be fixed. right now the gap between medicare payroll taxes and premiums paid in, 10,000 new beneficiaries of a, fostering bad medicine in the process. medicaid, bad for the beneficiaries that go to er for normal care at three times the rate of the uninsured.

four normal care at three times the rate of the uninsured. it has nothing to do with immigration or decisions we make about immigration. if we had a baby boom and put more americans in, it would fall apart the same way. it is something that should be recognized, needs to be fixed. we are behind the curve in getting it solves, but it is not an immigration problem. we need to go back to asking questions we want to about immigration -- what can we accomplish on security, on economic growth, and what would we want the future of the american economy to look like?

those are the central questions that need to be addressed in evaluating the quality of bills that come through congress. >> dr. lynch? >> thank you. i am delighted to be here. my work has focused on what are the economic impacts of providing legal status and a pathway to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented or illegal immigrants that are here in the united states. i want to talk about what we know about this. what is indisputable is that undocumented immigrants right now are earning far less, pay much less in taxes and contributing much less to the u.s. economy than they potentially could. what we know is if we granted them legal status and a pathway to citizenship we would see a tremendous increase in gdp, productivity, earnings and taxes paid. it is important to note that the earnings of both nativeborn americans and the undocumented increase, while it is primarily

the taxes of the undocumented that would go up dramatically. why does this happen? there are three questions we should be asking. first of all, how do we know positive economic effects would happen to legalization and citizenship. we know this because there has been a lot of research that has followed millions of undocumented immigrants from before they were illegal to after they were illegal. the best study -- all of these these have shown significant improvements in productivity. the best study is the department of labor study that analyzed will what happened -- what happened to the immigrant granted legal status under president reagan and the department of labor found within five years, after they had gotten legal status but before any of them acquired citizenship, their productivity and wages increased by 15%.

numerous other studies have found similar or even larger result in other studies have looked at -- results. other studies have looked at what happens when you go from legal status to citizenship, there is another 12% increase. another question we should be asking is why does that happen? why does changing the legal status boost productivity? there are many different reasons. i will quickly mention three of them. one is that we see that when formally illegal immigrants acquire legal status we see dramatic changes in their behavior, and primarily one of the things we see is a significant increase in their investment in education and training and improving their english language ability, which dramatically increases productivity. number two, we know that before someone is legal they are at risk of apprehension and

deportation, therefore regardless of their skill level, whether they are narrow cultural worker or have a college degree, a 10 to pursue professions -- they tend to pursue professions that are low-profile where they are less likely to be discovered. they go into agriculture, cleaning services and childcare services and we know exactly what happens once they require legal status. many of them move into jobs that are motor closely matched -- more closely matched to their skill set. you might have the nurse from bolivia who was working as a nanny, and once she acquires legal status she applies for a job at a hospital and she is earning three or four times more and producing three or four times more. legalization makes the labor market more efficient and productive. thirdly, as dr. douglas holtz- eakin mentioned, one of the things that happens when you

acquire legal status, you also get access to things that are key to creating jobs and starting business. you get access to permits, licenses, insurance and credit that you cannot get when you are illegal. we know from numerous studies that newly legalized immigrants are much more entrepreneurial than the nativeborn. a cream or businesses and hire more workers -- they create more businesses and hire more workers. any reform that unleashes this potential will boost the u.s. economy, productivity and create your job -- create more jobs. thirdly, what is the economic impact? in my research, and for the importance of this discussion today what are the budget implications? in my own research, i was looking at the economic impact of simply one aspect of comprehensive immigration reform what happens when you legalize the 11 million undocumented and provide them a path to citizenship.

i found that as a bottom line, their productivity would increase by at least 25%. i am at the very bottom. other studies have shown it larger than that. what implications would it have for the government budget? my study, we actually did not calculate the budgetary impact, but for the sake of today's discussions i went back and did some calculations and came up with numbers that could be compared to the number robert rector mentioned. if we provide legal status and citizenship, what will provide what will happen to earnings, taxes that they pay, what legal americans pay, and services. when you look at the whole

impact, and minimum it will have a positive affect of about $200 billion in the first 10 years. you should compare that number to the astonishing $6.3 trillion that mr. robert rector just mentioned. let me say one final point had mr. robert rector's study is riddled with methodological errors. when you correct them, you reverse his results. one error that i will be happy to discuss with him reverses his results and what his study proves is that immigration reform would be a huge in -- financial boom. exactly the opposite of what he proposes. >> thank you. taylor for allowing me to moderate. i want to open it up for questions and answers. i want to start with a step back.

this debate is very much in the here and now. there is a bill that came out of the senate judiciary committee. it is going to the senate floor next month. i would like for all of you to step back and talk about who has done this well in the past -- whether here or around the world in terms of minimizing economic costs and maximizing economic benefits, and is there anything to be learned by policymakers who are engaged in this debate from that experience that we can look at and apply? >> i would say when you look around the globe that policymakers are increasingly understanding that each modern economy is highly redistributive and that in those economies essentially the government is going to redistribute from the better educated to the less educated. there is no moral fault to the recipients, that is really what government has done to the 20th century and is doing it

increasingly. then, when they recognize that, most of these governments are saying we have to taylor our immigration system to reflect the redistribution. we do not want to bring in people it will be a net fiscal cross and it is not rocket science to understand a college educated person pays about $30,000 a year more in taxes than they receive in benefits. someone who does not have a high school degree does pretty much the opposite.

. . .

[captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> marijuana as you are when you are impaired by alcohol. people say that no one dies from being too high but you can certainly die from being too drunk. there is that, relative to alcohol. i am not a scientist and have not done the research on the addiction. my understanding is that no one is suggesting that you cannot abuse marijuana. they are suggesting that it is not the same as nicotine and narcotics. maybe someone in the audience can be more clear about it. no one is suggesting that you cannot abuse it, i think, ncluding legal substances.

>> a point that you make it is very important, the big take away of the paper, very few people are viewing marijuana as a positive, good, or benign good thing. they see prohibition as a lesser of evils. >> greater of evils. >> right, legalization as the lesser of evils. >> first of all, just to be clear, at least in my own remarks i was careful to report on public sentiment. i don't recall reporting my own on the other question. the question that i was reporting on was not the addiction question, it was marijuana as gateway to harder drugs. there the sentiments are pretty clear. but we make no representations about the relationship between public opinion on this question and underlying medical data. that would be well beyond my

competence. >> this is why results will matter. >> but that was only a piece of the question. >> go ahead. >> i cannot remember the other. >> we have a lot on the table. >> i do not think that we in this fable -- in this paper can make claims as to addiction or whatever. the paper does not take stand on the issue whatsoever. we are trying to look at why the debate seems to have gone the way it has gone. we do not have any data on the gentleman's question about the fine distinctions between hemp, cannabis and the like. i am not sure that the public makes the distinction. anna would know better than i. >> not talking from actual data, but in focus groups about whether it is addictive or if

people think it is, it is that comparison to other kinds of drugs that people react to. i think that is what drives the comparison to other things in public opinion. can i talk about kids? >> please. >> this is an important question, one of the bigger vulnerabilities around legalization, the impact on kids. there is an actual impact itself, though parents tend to be realistic, and do nothing that legalization will change access, in fact it might make it harder for kids to get access. the other piece that is harder to answer is that for parents, for people who think it is a gateway drug, they think it is a signal you're sending to kids that it is ok to do drugs. drugs that people perceive as much more harmful than marijuana. it is important for us to answer that question. the heavy emphasis on the kinds of penalties associated with selling to kids under the age of

21 or 18. just like alcohol. the kinds of regulations in place around the background checks, try to create a system that is reassuring around what it can do to prevent younger people from smoking, because obviously the current system does not prevent younger people rom smoking. obviously it is about putting pieces in place with reassurance about it not being a sort of -- not a free-for-all to just do drugs but rather a way to regulate access. >> what i will volunteer as an answer to the question from the austrian gentleman about what you do about what if washington

and colorado become the suppliers for the country because you cannot control the flow outside of their borders? that is the number one thing i think the federal government will be looking at in evaluating the medical marijuana experiments in those states. number two will be access by children. it will be a disaster for proponents of legalization if they cannot control that. that is why i and many cases it is legalization proponents advocating reforms like medical marijuana in california. they want to see a regulatory system in place so that they do not throw the baby out with the bath water. another round of questions, we have plenty more. let's start with the front this time. there is a microphone coming. >> rick blake, strategic health resources, representing pharmaceutical firms interested in using cannabis for therapeutic uses.

first of all, there are over 900 strains of cannabis. what are we talking about when we talk about medical marijuana? we actually do not know because of the d.e.a.'s regulation in terms of these clinical trials. we actually do not know we are doing. >> reassuring. [laughter] >> no, but this is in terms of medical uses. there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for the application of t in hiv patients. i am just saying that given that this is a public policy forum, do you see the shift in the landscape of political opinion in terms of changing some of the impacts on how we conduct our clinical trials and the growth that we could use in terms of clinical trials in this nation because we are missing the boat, or at least we think so, in

terms of the therapeutic uses of cannabis? >> thank you. the lady behind you have a question. >> alicia, associated press. can you address the california models, the first to address medical marijuana, some describe it as more dispensaries and starbucks, which is astounding for most of us, and now we are stepping back to limit it to 135 dispensaries in los angeles. the supreme court ruled last month but that states or cities can limit or zoned out dispensaries. they voted down proposition 19 and seemed to be taking that step back as washington and colorado took steps forward. >> thank you, let's get one from this gentleman in the front with he yellow and brown tie. with thendrew stevenson

consortium of science associations. you mentioned nancy reagan. do you think that in society we have reached a point where it is too late for another nancy reagan? can there be another moral movement? >> great question. impact on clinical trials, has anyone tested opinion on a research for medical marijuana? >> the vast majority in this country seem to support people having access to it. it would not surprise me that we would question whether or not you would be doing research. i would assume that the majority support that as well. the obama administration said basically at the beginning that they would not go after medical marijuana. i am not suggesting the obama administration was going to let nih do clinical trials, but certainly they were taking a step back relative to previous administrations. from the public opinion perspective i have to believe

they would support during that research. >> i was going to say the same. the difference returned views on legalization for recreational purposes is so large that i expect there would be support. on the -- could there be a step back. you know, alcohol is the subject on which opinion in america has really gone up and down and up and down over a long time and it would not surprise me if we had that pattern to some degree on marijuana, which is to say that the movement for prohibition sort of went way back in our history, at times as suggested to a movement against immigrants because the irish were said to drink a lot, german immigrants were said to drink a lot. it actually divided the upper class in interesting way. ridgway's. we passed it, it failed, so it was repealed, but we have had a return to semi-prohibition when

we raised the drinking age all ver the country. you know, there is now a movement among some folks in college town is to try to push it back on the grounds that 18-21 year olds are drinking anyway and you are turning them into criminals. it would not shock me if there was some evidence on this. even though we say in our paper that we do not think it will add as much as it has in a recent class -- ebb as much as it has in the recent past. >> i think that that analysis helps to frame the history of the california model. because -- recall will be found, number one, continuing ambivalence about marijuana. very few people think that it is a positive good. people can see pluses and minuses. but second, this is driven by very practical considerations about enforcement, the cost of

nforcement, and the unintended consequences of enforcement regimes. it does not surprise me at all to learn that there can also be unforeseen consequences of legalization regime that for the same set of practical reasons might incline people live drawback without doubling all the way back. >> i would guess that what you will see in california is continued public movement toward favoring a general regime of legalization coupled with a regulatory movement to further restrict that. both of those things can happen at once and i suspect it ill.

>> i think you should be careful, if you promise to indicate an attitudinal -- attitudinal shift. there were three issues with that. proposition one, folks on the left and right, people involved in the current production do not like the line will greet have we saw this reform before the the for legalization, and was not very well hundred ha. -- funded. as you know it is incredibly expensive to run initiative campaigns in california and running a funded campaign is basically a precondition for running these campaigns. third, 2010 could not have been a worse year for democrats. i want to be sure that we do not look at that reaction as a move away from legalization reaction. >> looking at the chance to go backwards, the nancy reagan example, the one example i can think of is tobacco.

i actually think of that is tied p for class. you watch "madmen." a course that would want to make them legal, everyone is smoking. in my generation very few of our friends grew up smoking because we had public health campaigns that seemed validated by life xperiences, grandparents dying of lung cancer and of emphysema. you have to go practically stand in the street to smoke a cigarette. you can't smoke in restaurants. hat is tied up with class. if there were to be a major surge against marijuana, it would probably have to be that we legalize and we find out it causes a lot of cancer. we find out that it is addictive. i used the words not addictive.

i think it is habit forming, which is an important distinction. and you know, something along those lines. we have seen a huge surge of people driving stoned. causing car wrecks. these externalities', you might see a push back on legalization. >> let's see if we can get in three or four more questions. we'll go to the middle this time. there is a gentleman with a yellow tie who has been patient, a gentleman under the television who has been patient. >> thank you for your comment. i was just going to talk about tobacco and relating to the discussion to the public health issue. the question is with your research are any of you familiar with asking the public -- is legalization of marijuana and public health concern? i am curious if you have brought that up in -- brought that up in any of your research.

>> i'm curious in asking you. what is colorado going to? >> i can't speak on that right now. >> what if we ask super nice? [laughter] >> if you more? gentleman in the back, i will get to you whether you want it or not. >> i am from the crow justice policy foundation. is there any data, is this strictly limited to marijuana or do americans view prohibition in general -- are there americans that think we should move more to the european model, like portugal in 2001? >> great question. gentleman back there, i am coming to you because i always sit in the low visibility seats and hate never getting called. i am looking at a gentleman. raise your hand again? there you are. thank you. necktie, blue shirt. >> i am from the council on atmospheric affairs. you talk a bit, briefly, about

support amongst hispanic respondents in this new poll. what possible explanation would you have for that? >> excellent question. has anyone polled on marijuana as a public healthcare problem, per se? when framed that way, what do you get? >> i do not think so. at least, i have not. but when we asked people in an open-ended context about the significant concerns, i do not hear the public health concern. i hear the safety concern. people operating heavy equipment, performing operations or flying airplanes while they re high. kids getting the wrong message. those of the kinds of things

eople mentioned. i am going to speculate that because people think the prohibition does not work and anyone who wants to smoke is smoking they do not see the legalization as creating a new special held -- special public health concern, but if there is ne there anyway, that could be idespread. >> i looked at this for a paper i did for brookings. people are carving out a marijuana exception. not much change on heavy, hard drugs. part of what's happening is a perceived differentness moving

toward the alcohol and maybe tobacco category. hispanics, any idea? >> i'm very glad you asked that question. it was something that jumped out at me. i couldn't find a good answer to that question. you may want to go back to find more data to figure that out. >> let them answer first. >> i guess i would query the premise of the question just a ittle bit. i would direct you to the appendix chart 1 on page 12. here if you ask the question flatley, do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not, non-hispanic whites,

52-45. hispanics, 51-47. no statistical difference. african-americans are a bit more pro-legalization, but there is not a hispanic exception there. and then if you ask factual questions -- let's look at chart #2 on page 13, does marijuana lead to the use of hard drugs? here, again, you have 38% of whites and 39% of hispanics saying yes. 58% of whites and 59% of hispanics saying though. no difference whatsoever. once again, african-americans are a little bit different, but not startlingly so. as a matter of fact you will probably still be inside the margin of error.

>> in fairness to the gentleman, he was responding to something i said, which is that among religious groups hispanic catholics were one of two groups to show a majority that perhaps the difference is not as big, it just happens to be a majority, but they did jump out compared to the other religious groups. i think that is where his question came from. you are correct to underscore that maybe the fact that it is a majority is not that important because the other numbers are not that different, but they did seem to stand out from the other groups. that is why i wanted to turn to anna. >> i have not done specific research on hispanics but we know that lots of social issues will find generation playing a huge role. whether it is gay marriage or abortion. i would not be surprised if those differences exist amongst hispanics, but it is a different generational issue than the overall age issue.

the personal experience someone has to was not born here was the country they grew up in. i do not know enough about mexico, el salvador, all of these countries of origin for hispanic immigrants here, but whenever that experience was probably influences their view on this as much as anything else. they look like everyone else on just about every single issue, there is no huge difference. some of those numbers may be driven why it -- driven by someone is first-generation or was born into the country. >> one of my takeaways, i urge you to read and dive into this, the filters we are used to using in washington to evaluate issue polarities our partisanship, ideology, and ethnicity, which turned out to be significantly less important on this issue, which is much more crosscutting on pragmatism. i urge you all to read the paper.

a marvelous piece of work. we have only scratched the surface. hank you all for coming. our panelists. i neglected to mention that sean came all the way from columbus, ohio. >> >> peter lewis, i apologize. thank you all very much. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, a look at the presidential transition process after elections and on this morning's "washington journal" reporters at yahoo! news plus your calls about today's news. that's live at 7:00 eastern. this morning from book expo

america, a panel of authors will iscuss upcoming books. live coverage starts at 8:00 .m. eastern on c-span 2. >> the public's fascination with francis cleveland expended to her clothes. she was a fashion icon. women emulated her hairstyle and clothing. this is a dress from the second administration and in a way this is the most prized piece of all because this is the inaugural gown. this was her inaugural gown from 1893 and it stayed in her family and became the family wedding dreas and this was used by her granddaughters. even her everyday clothes for very stylish. a lot of them look like something you could wear now. this is a jacket.

wonderful bolero jacket. black with this beautiful purple-blue velvet. this is a more evening appropriate piece. this is a bodice with a matching skirt. you can see the beautiful lace and sequins, netting, beading. more ornate set. this will have a matching collar. again, you can wear this with a shirt waist and skirt. >> our conversation on frances cleveland is now available on our website c-span.org/firstladies. tune in monday for our next program on first lady caroline harrison. >> now a conversation on the presidential transition process. we'll hear from former utah governor who headed mitt romney's presidential transition team and also hear from an advisor on president obama's 008 presidential campaign.

the partnership for public service hosted this event. >> good morning. it is a pleasure to be here. i am the president of the partnership for public service. we are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization trying to make our government that are. there is no more important topic than the one we have to discuss this morning, residential transition. i am deeply honored to have the opportunity to host the book release, the retrospective and lessons learned from the romney readiness project, which was a truly amazing project. we are going to be hearing a lot more about it very soon. the topic is of critical importance. it is kind of in my mind amazing. we live in the most powerful, important country in the world. the government of our country is the most complicated, powerful

and important organizations in the world. one of the things that distinguishes us as a country is that democratic people -- peaceful transfer of parr. you have 4000 new political leaders that every four years have to come in and be prepared. the right people have to be selected and have to be prepared. they are running a very large and complicated organization. the historic record has not been good about the preparation for that. it is always from the election day no inauguration. that sets the stage for everything that comes later. 2.5 months is not enough to hand over that complicated organization. we are going to learn more about what all of you have participated in putting together. it is fundamental to our ability as a country to meet the new challenges that we have faced to have a new government that is ready to go on day one. a world in which we have more

and more complicated, faster paced things occurring. a government that is ready and is able to deal with a lot of unexpected things immediately. we know from history the transition is the maximum point of vulnerability. there are individual groups that try to take advantage of that very getting this right is absolutely essential. the romney readiness project was a remarkable effort. it is remarkable in two ways. with the effort that went into being prepared. equally important with the effort that was made to actually document the work that was one. we live in an environment with transitions that by and large have been one of oral history without any real systematized effort to capture how to do this right. that is a really important contribution for the future. something that i hope we can

talk a little bit more about. it is an exceptional audience that we have here. i want to acknowledge a few of the folks that we have here beginning with governor leavitt and chris o'dowd. we also have clark campbell and daniel cruz, who are not only engaged in the readiness project, what were instrumental in putting together the book that hopefully all of you have a copy of. from the partnership aboard, i want to acknowledge doug conan who is a master of leadership among other things. sean o'keefe is not here, he will be here shortly. another board member that is one of my public service heroes. from government we have the officer from the office of government ethics. we will hear from chris, who is over here. he was head of cabinet affairs for the obama administration. he was the executive director of

the obama 2008 organization. he is working closely with us on partnership efforts on new political appointees. we also have josh bolten sitting here, who ran the very best ever transition for an administration amongst many other remarkable achievements. terrific to have him here. clay johnson not only ran the bush transition coming in, but is a true expert in the history f transitions. that is a good adjective. he is someone that we got to work with closely in the bush administration and was one of the true stars among the management in the bush dministration.

john atkinsin the years he ran the -- department of security first transition ever. martha kumar, who is a scholar on the issue of transitions and on the subject of the white house generally. terrific to have you here. anne is the head of the national academy of public administration. this is a fantastic organization and a great ally. the work is done by boston consulting group. peter regan is here. there are folks from bcg here. they have helped us in a number of ways that i will yet back to shortly. tom is a legend and a constant voice of reason and all things related to presidential work. it is great to have you here. i also want to recognize christine simmons who is my partner at the partnership for

public service. i get to say these words. she does all of the work. not a very fair balance. all of the work we have done has een driven by her. we are amongst friends here. she has done a good job. before we get to the main attraction we will hear from governor leavitt and have a conversation with governor leavitt, chris, and bring in other voices that are knowledgeable on this issue. i want to give you some context on the partnership's work itself. we started in 2007 focusing on presidential transitions. may 2008 we brought together at that point, the democratic primary had not been resolved. the clinton and obama campaign had represented. this was an off the record small forum to talk about how to

prepare well for transitions. at that stage in the game, the expectation from the public was that you do not do this. it was a very interesting conversation that was had. a lot of folks really understood how the process was done well. they shared information and have done both. we shared a set of recommendations that became the basis for legislation. probably the most important element of that legislation was moving at the time period from election day to the culmination of the conventions, at which point the government would provide official transition support for the party nominee. part of the purpose was we believed it was important to flip the switch. this is something you did in the debt of the night to something that you did publicly because it was part of your responsibility. the romney campaign, the transition project, was the first to operate under that new legislative environment. in 2012 we had the great pleasure of meeting governor leavitt and a few other folks from the romney campaign and to try to help them connect to

people who understood how to run transitions and help them in any ay that we could. full disclosure, we have already signed them up for may, 016. it really is important. we believe that the work we have done is foundational. it will provide an opportunity for all future campaigns to do this better. it will be the foundation for our country so we have governments that can govern when we need them to be ready. part of that process here is not only the host a forum, but we are also trying to come up with a set of ideas that we want to discuss a little bit about additional legislative recommendations. we are putting together a transition guide that would build off of the work that is done here and hopefully lay this out in a more complete way what we are thinking about to be prepared. that is as fast as i can

speak. it is really important to get to the main attraction. i am really looking forward to this conversation. governor leavitt, all euros. -- yours. thank you. >> thank you very much. thanks to the center and your colleagues for organizing this. there is a bit of a reunion atmosphere are those of us who have not seen each other for some time. this was a very positive interpersonal experience for us. i'm pleased that so many are here. i would like to reemphasize a couple of things that max made reference to. i would like to begin with an acknowledgment of the obvious. we did not transition. this was a plan to transition. the true test of any plan is actual execution. we ought to acknowledge the fact that many of the challenge we faced in this administration,

this does not recount. this does recount some extraordinarily good preparation. it doesn't knowledge the fact -- acknowledge the fact that this is the first time that the 2010 presidential transition act had been operated under. therefore, we thought it was important that we document to the degree ossible, our experience. i would also like to acknowledge that this is not about what might have been. it is about what we learned. our conversation ought to be focused on that. when we determined to put ogether this book or report, our self-imposed charge was to make it practical. this is not a historic home. this is our own practical accounting of our own experiences in order to be useful to others. we are three years away from two

transitions being formed when our government will begin to transition to a new administration. i just acknowledged with that in mind that we chose the name the romney readiness project. we would have changed to the romney transition had the result n different. from the very beginning, we acknowledged that we were in the process of a planning effort. i would like to just review briefly the major contents of the report. and make comments on my own personal reflections. the first month, which would have been may, it was a group of 8-10 of us who took out an office on new jersey avenue. we were operating under the presidential transition act of 2010. the work had been legitimized by law.

there was a concern that we not be seen as a distraction to the campaign. there was a real worry, and there would be with any for the curiosity that is naturally there could again to surface as a distraction. we begin very quietly. that was an extraordinarily important period. we did as any transition would do in the past, we began reviewing all of the literature we could find about this. the previous records had been boxes passed from one person's basement to another person's desk. sorting through, trying to bring order to it. there have been a number of extraordinarily good pieces of literature written. he mentioned kumar. she gave me a shelf of about 20 books.

everyone of them were read. we review them. some consistent themes. a very good foundation. most of what is written hence not to focus on the structure, but the color that surrounds them. we have focused more on the structure and less on the color. some important decisions that were made are covered in chapter two of the book. we laid out a series of basic eliverables. put into four buckets, if you will. the first was a deliverable to develop a 200-day plan. we chose 200 days as a horizon because 100 days is traditionally spoken of is just too short. 200 days tends to coincide with the august recess of congress.

it has been the observation we made at looking at other transitions that administrations really have this between an odd duration day and -- inauguration day and the august recess to create the big push to get their initiatives on the ground. included in our 200-they plan is the framework of a budget, which is the means by which most administrations are able to get their initiatives through. the second big deliverable was putting a team on the ground. this represents a cabinet, white house staff, national security team, national economic team. the top 150 most important senate confirmed positions or ey places. i would like to at several points to a knowledge clay johnson. early on, he pointed at this as a very important priority. i came to believe that he is absolutely right.

it is a deficiency in the way our government responds to transitions. it is so hard to get a team on the ground. we knew we had to put a substantial amount of emphasis there. the third will be congressional relationships. putting a president into a new administration and have an agenda. congress has to be prepared. the third was preparing our relationships with congress. the fourth was the office of the president elect until there is a white house. those are the four basic buckets that we organized. in chapter three, you will see that we created a master planning schedule. we put our efforts into essentially four phases. the first was the planning phase. the second was -- we refer to it as the readiness phase. the presidential transition act

of 2010 essentially engages the federal government in a formal way three days after the nominating convention of the party. while we are not able to take government space until that point in time, we were actively engaged in the early phase with gsa and other planning so that when the three dates following the convention arrived, we would be ready. the third was the transition phase. that would be the election day until the inauguration. the last was the handoff. those four different time divisions framed our work. in chapter three, you will also begin to see some basic decisions that were reflected in all of our work. i would like to talk about some key principles that we followed that will be reflected as you review the book. the first and distinguishing part of our effort was the

principle of going narrow and deep opposed to expansive and shallow. let me describe what i mean by that. there is a tendency when you have an opportunity to plan a new administration to allow it to become a tournament of priorities. anyone who is involved would have the ability to define what they thought ought to be done to make the world a better place. we concluded to focus exclusively on the commitments that mitt romney was making in the campaign. we actually formed a document that you will see reflected in the book that we referred to as the general instructions. these are chaverages that were made by the candidate -- changes that were made by the candidate, mitt romney to prepare. our effort was focused and disciplined on delivering those items.

we will focus on a series of interlocking charters that were drafted following the general nstructions. this is what we have to come push in a deep way. they laid out a work plan for each of the departments of overnment. we aspire to create a federal government in miniature. the treasury department tc.. each of those areas, we populated them with highly experienced policy people that have actually served in those departments. as you look at the general instructions, the keystone

pipeline was a commitment that governor romney had made, that it would happen on the first day. it is one thing to say we're going to do it. it is the other to be ready. that is the energy department, the commerce department, the eta, and other agencies of the ederal government. it would require words being drafted. it will require that we fought through a whole series of contingencies. we created the federal government in miniature. we gave them each a charter that tied back to the general instructions and then organized process of inter-agency processes using the keystone pipeline as an example.

we brought them all together under a task force to resolve the issue so that on day one we had it deliverable so that it could, in fact, be executed. another component was the discipline around the one-page project manager which was a system that was brought to us. clark campbell was the originator of it. it was something that i use that hhs to get everything down on one page. on page 25 and 26 you will see the federal government in its ntirety on one page. i am happy to acknowledge that on that day, which was election day, you will see that all of the boxes were green. that was not without substantial effort and there were times that it was not all green, but on election day, it was all green. i want to also recognize that

there were 104 one-page project managers below that one page that you can see the entire government on. that was an important discipline. a decision to do that and to maintain a systematic approach. that will prove to be an important and valuable lesson. another principle was that policy was made in boston. and that washington and our readiness project was about execution. it was clear that our general instructions were our charge. it was not our decision as to whether or not a commitment should be made or what should be made a priority. those were the decisions of the candidate who would make commitments to the american people. as a result of that, we had a very close working relationship with the policy shop in boston.

chin, who ran that shop, was a close ally and was consulted every step of the way. when it came to making a decision about whether the keystone pipeline would be authorized on the first day, that was a discussion going on between governor romney and his team. he reality was we were focused on policy that was done in boston. the next principle was a unified voice with congress. there was an instinct on the part of congress who want to become involved in the preparation for a transition. that was understandable. but we had a principle that when we dealt with members of congress, that it was one voice between the campaign and the transition. it was a discipline that i believe we worked hard to maintain. lastly, i'll just say the --

well, our preparation was no ecret. confidentiality was a key principle. our phrase was the readiness project has no voice. we did not speak for governor romney. it was not our role to talk about policy. our job was to prepare to execute the commitments that he had made. moving on to chapter five, you will see as we moved into the planning phase, a lot happened. we took over 12 it 9,000 square feet. -- 129,000 square feet. they did an excellent job in preparing for us. we moved into a business-ready virmente. the organization began to scale -- environment. the organization began to scale dramatically. i'll acknowledge at that point, we began to stand up the agency

review process. again, work to our general instructions, jim quigley did a great job with that. we began to develop names. we developed what i'm sure will be referred to later as the betting bunker. it was a highly confidential place. no information left that room. you had to be cleared into it. we were obviously wanting to protect the privacy of those being considered. we were not able to vet by making contact and having interviews but we did as much as we could to be prepared. i'll mention in just a moment the level of our preparation. we began to develop white house various organization organizational structures. we talked about organized landing teams. we began to create presidential readiness for the office of the president little bit.

-- elect. i'll just pause there. i think we underestimated the ize of that job. i want to just mention, steve prescott. steve and i were friends in the bush-led cabinet. it was a great stroke of luck that he had a business sale and had some time. he did a great job to do hat. we began to develop a presidential schedule. we had 10 days framed in and a process. you will get a chance to see it. let me just say that in 150 pages, we will not catch all the color of this. we hope we have created a basic structure. on page 131, there is a series on one page, a series of major lessons learned. i will call your attention to

those. let me conclude by making a couple of observations of my own. the study that we did in depth during the first 30 to 45 days of our work, revealed to me that those administrations who do this well have historic opportunities. those that do it poorly often never recover. this is a very important discipline. i would like to emphasize what was suggested earlier. the failure to prepare a proper transition of power truly puts the nation at risk. it is not possible in 77 days to prepare a nation for a transition of that magnitude. starting early is important. i think the presidential transition act of 2010 made a meaningful contribution to this effort. i am sure there are continued refinements.

we must not step back from that. it needs to become more disciplined. senator kaufman's leadership, i want to note, he was very useful it not just what he did, but in his insights. i also want to mention the center for best practices and the franchise they developed informally looking after the process. also the aspen institute, i've mentioned clay johnson and his work as a zealot. the world needs that. josh has been acknowledged as well and many others, we were able to interview, who shared their wisdom freely. i also want to a knowledge the obama administration was responsive and very useful. they were good to work with. people would have been proud of the sense of bipartisanship that existed in these interactions. i also believe abundant credit is due to george w. bush for

setting a very high standard, repeatedly. officials of the obama administration acknowledge the tone that was set in the 2008 transition. they were committed to hold themselves to the same standard in dealing with has. obviously, our product, our preparation was never tested. their grace was never tested. [laughter] it is clear to -- me everyone was intending to make this a professional and statesmanlike proposition. in fact, i am confident it would have been. i have acknowledged the gsa and their good work. they resolved to make this a professional effort. finally, i want to recognize the book mentions the names of everyone who was involved.

it is impossible, really, to adequately talk about or acknowledge the extraordinary group of people that were nvolved. i do want to acknowledge at the very beginning, a couple of people who were there at the foundation of this work, crystal quigley.ladell, john jamie burke. there were others. jamie, i think, when you accept a responsibility like this, the first thing you want to do is to find the person who has a better rolodex in washington and government and anyone else. i am convinced that was jamie. we worked together at h.h.s. and she had been in a number of different roles. most of the team you can see in the book reflects directly or indirectly people's willingness to respond to her. have acknowledged on many

occasions how many times you have a chance to surround yourself with people like the former cfo of microsoft and general motors and the armor worldwide chairman like jim and chris, doug, steve, and drew, brian hook. i want to mention with special appreciation, clark campbell and daniel cruise. not just for the work in putting the report together, which i think you will agree is exceptional. but also, the key role they played in the one-page management process. daniel and many others, who he symbolizes, daniel would be my nominee for the unknown soldier award. [laughter] he and many of his colleagues were there. day and night, through thick and thin, good weather and bad. there was bad weather. i think that is important. finally, important to

acknowledge, mitt romney, who deployed all of us in the nation's service. i have come to appreciate the fact, as a person who has done public service myself and run for office a few times myself, i have come to appreciate the fact that those who run for office and those who work with them, when they do not win, they have done some of the hardest public service there is. but it is in fact public service. in summary, i would say, we built a great ship, but it did not sail. others are going to benefit from our design. we are grateful to have done it. max? >> thank you, very much. [applause] >> there are 1000 questions i have.

we will hear from chris, too. if i can start with you, you have had a remarkable career as a governor. you saw transitions. as cabinet secretary, you saw transitions. again, it starts with a leader. what are the qualities you believe are important for future transition chairman or chair people? >> that is an important uestion. i will acknowledge that that is dealt with here. while i am thinking about it, we have arranged that this look and -- book and report could be available on amazon.com and through the center for those who want to find, to be able to use it. i talked a bit about it in a forward i wrote about what i thought were important characteristics over the relationship between the

candidate and the person they call on and what those might be. the first one, i think is a elationship that has been pre-established. having a relationship with a candidate, where you can speak candidly with them, at a level that is still being worked out is important. i have that kind of relationship with mitt romney. it is obvious to me that would be important. a trusted relationship with a campaign organization can not and should not be underestimated. there is a natural tension always between the campaign and the transition. the campaign is worried about what the people are doing. there is not a lot being said about it. they are worried they might get in the way of the campaign or do something that could distract

from the message. toward the end, they are worried about, are they dividing up things they might want to have a hand in? are there doing things not easy to undo? having a relationship with the senior members of the campaign was a very important part of that process. a person who shares, basically, the ideology and understands the policy instincts of the candidate, was important. i think having an extensive personal knowledge of washington is really important. if i had the benefit of working here as part of a cabinet, being governor, i just think that does not mean everyone needs to, but in some way, they need to have, have had some washington experience. having an extensive network of

people, or having access to one, i mentioned jamie, who had worked in that area in previous administrations and had relationships valuable, having some executive leadership responsibilities in the past, and being able to devote full time. this is a very amending role. i became convinced it needed to happen in washington. that is where the government will ultimately stand up and that is where the resources of the gsa will be under the presidential transition act. i have acknowledged on many occasions, the times you have a chance to surround yourself with people like the former cfo of