they belong. it is hard work. also, by latterly with other countries to get them to sign and implement. and that is a program the government is very much working on. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] harpere minister stephen addressed the parliament. it is the first time since the prime minister in 1944. this is just over half an hour. >> if you can please rise for the prime minister. of canada. the right honorable mr. stephen harper. [applause]

>> prime minister cameron, your excellency's, parliamentary colleagues from both houses, ladies and gentlemen. it is for me an enormous pleasure and an undoubted privilege to be able today here in this room to introduce the prime minister of canada, stephen harper to you and to do so in a personal and official capacity. the prime minister is no stranger to the ways of westminster, being a politician of considerable range as well as outstanding international vision.

there is far more he could tell you and me about this place then i could tell him about the parliament in ottawa. that said, it was my privilege to get to load the nonbiased -- the longest-serving one. speaking in your history, and more recently to have a rapport with the youngest occupants of the fear. your speaker.r, you're very welcome visit to britain, this is less a diplomatic engagement than a and-standing close friends, it is all the more appealing for having that quality to it. i hope you feel at home. the ties between our two countries are so strong it is almost umbilical. it has long been fashionable in the united kingdom to describe our american counterparts.

i would not for one moment to repudiate that association. canadians are our cousins in so many respects. and first cousins at that. hear.r, rather than those of the same blood but at certain times removed. i have enjoyed the incredible warmth and half the talent he the incredible warmth and hospitality of your nation in my time so far as speaker. it is an experience that will always remain with me. your parliament is a wonderful institution. in truth, we also have much to learn from it. your good self and from canada at large. the lessons are political and social. politically you have the experience of government without a single party majority before we did. the question of how best to the within avolution democracy.

socially, you have tackled an age of economic uncertainty and how to assimilate many new citizens into one community. canada has always struck me as a country of optimism. it is an admirable quality which you personally embody. therefore, it is a huge to thise to welcome you place and to this audience. prime minister, thank you for coming here today, for representing the canadian people and to speaking with us. [applause] thank you lord speaker, mr. speaker, prime minister, deputy prime minister, leader of the opposition, lords and members of the house of commons, colleagues. for anyone who fully understands and truly cherishes our free and democratic

institutions and their nature and the long history upon which they rest there is no honour to compare with an invitation to stand here, at the very cradle of our political system and to address the members of the parliament of westminster. canada is in many ways such a different country from yours, with our vast geography, our many cultures, and our two national languages ,a heritage --, at their very core, our language] --eign francophone. ofnadian institutions government are most profoundly indebted to their british ancestors for both their shape and their remarkable durability. and so, as a canadian, i am deeply honoured, and profoundly humbled to be here.

mr. speaker, thank you also for your kind words of welcome. and prime minister, i am reminded of your generous compliments before the parliament of canada two years ago, and your warm hospitality over the past one, upon the occasion of the diamond jubilee celebrations for her majesty the queen, and the funeral of former prime minister margaret thatcher. might i say in response how much i have admired your determined efforts and your wise and principled leadership during these past few years, as we have dealt with the difficult and critical issues facing our countries and the world, issues which require the best of what has always made britain unique and strong, and which you have plainly and repeatedly demonstrated. and, of course, it goes without saying, that i have also valued your friendship, which is without price. i would also be remiss, while here in london, if i did not extend the very best wishes of the canadian people, to the duke of edinburgh, for his good

health and to the duke and duchess of cambridge, as they prepare to welcome their first child. now ladies and gentlemen, some will tell you that i am the second canadian prime minister to address the british parliament. the truth be told, i am the third. it is true that william lyon mackenzie king was the only other prime minister of canada to address a gathering such as this. but andrew bonar law often addressed this parliament, during the 1920s, in his capacity as prime minister of great britain. and he was also canadian, born in new brunswick, just a few leagues removed from the place where my own ancestors settled after arriving from england in 1774. however, with due respect to bonar law, it is the former prime minister of canada,

mackenzie king, to whom i now wish to refer. in may 1944, at the invitation of sir winston churchill, he addressed the members of this parliament. a few years before that, in the darkest days of the second world war, churchill himself had delivered his famous "some chicken, some neck" speech to the parliament of canada. as the master orator that he was, churchill had heaped fulsome, and i must say, well deserved praise, upon canada's remarkable contribution to the war effort. now, it was king's turn. he did not disappoint, and there is much in his remarks that bears repetition, nearly seventy years later. he spoke of friendship. he spoke of timeless principles. and he spoke of the power of the values that we share to call forth from us the very best parts of our character. canada's entry into the war, he said, was not from obligation, but "was the outcome of our deepest political instinct, a love of freedom and a sense of

justice." and he spoke of the fraternity of those countries that, when they look at themselves, see something of the values they inherited from great britain. my friends, the uncertainties and the challenges before us today are plainly different and i dare say lesser, than those of the 1940s. not values, however, do change, though they may be at times forgotten. allow me, therefore, to suggest that in times of difficulty, recourse to such values, and to the friends who share them is just as relevant today as it was when the fate of our civilization itself, rested in the hands of greater men such as churchill and king. now is not the time, therefore, to doubt our values or our friends, or, indeed, ourselves. re-er, now is the time to discover our values, to

reaffirm their importance and to fall back upon them. britain and canada may not be today the largest economies in the world, nor the biggest military powers, nor the greatest in terms of population. but i believe we share things that are more lasting, 800 years of constitutional order and evolution that has allowed us to achieve what others wish for, to choose our governments and to hold them accountable. to worship god, in our own way, and to live in harmony with neighbours who do so differently, and to enjoy standards of living once considered unimaginable, while aiding our fellow citizens in their times of illness, unemployment and need. these are the things to which ordinary men and women the world over aspire, many of which first arose here in the generations brought forth on this very soil. and so, what we need for the new challenges of a new world is

not a new set of values. it is the steadfast resolve to fully apply those time-honoured principles that we already know work. certainly, that has been the canadian approach to the economy which, i know, prime minister, is the top priority for both your government and mine. for example, in canada, we have proceeded on the conviction that we must live within our means, make sound, long-term decisions, and reward hard work and those who play by the rules. things know that, all being equal, a dollar in a citizen?s own pocket is more beneficial than a dollar in the hands of sir humphrey appleby. >> hear, hear. [applause] now, i often tell you that in

canada, some have come to believe that sir humphrey is a real person. [laughter] indeed, early on i have to tell you a former senior canadian public servant informed me that "yes, prime minister" is not a comedy; it is a documentary. [laughter] so, friends, knowing these things, in canada, when times were good, we ran surpluses, and we used them. not to expand the state, but to pay down debt and to lower taxes. --a result, since our [speaking foreign language] -- government came to office, the average canadian family now about $3,300 (about 2,200 every year.

lowestnow also has the rate of tax on new business investment in the g-7. consequently, we are widely regarded as the best place in the world to do business, and we have the best post-recession job creation record among the developed economies. our values also tell us, as you have put it, prime minister, that you cannot borrow your way out of a debt crisis.? crisis, so during the we were able, to borrow to sustain economic activity and confidence, but in a way that was timely, targeted and temporary. and we are now returning, gradually but surely, to a balanced budget, without raising taxes. i know that, in many countries, there is a considerable debate between austerity and growth. let me tell you, it is a false dichotomy. you need good measures of both. in canada, we are investing

future growth like research, innovation, skills and infrastructure. yet we are also fiscally responsible, finding substantial reductions and efficiencies in government, and ensuring that vital social programs target those genuinely in need and will be financially sustainable for the generations to come. another value whose certainty has been repeatedly proven, though sadly sometimes more in application, is that everyone gains in an open economy. our businesses grow when new markets are opened. hard-working families find that their money goes further when they have wider choices at lower prices. and everybody gains, when they specialize in doing what they do best. therefore we have resisted calls for protectionism. we said no to those who would tear up our trade agreements and build economic walls around our country. in fact, we are doing the

opposite. we have reduced liberalized trade is at the heart of our economic action plan. since coming to office, our government has concluded trade agreements with nine countries, and has begun trade talks with more than fifty more. [speaking french] and it remains our hope that we will soon achieve a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the european union, canada?s second-largest trading partner after the united states. step a monumental one, in fact: a joint canada-eu study has shown that a commercial agreement of this type would increase two-way trade by 20 percent.

now in this matter, as in global trade matters generally, prime minister, i should like to express my deep appreciation to you and to your government, for your robust advocacy on behalf of this agreement. it will be a great benefit to all of our citizens. [applause] of course, when it comes to creating jobs, growth, and long- term prosperity, friends there is no silver bullet, only clear objectives, consistent application and hard work. that is what we are doing in canada. that is why the canadian economy has created one million new jobs, one million net new jobs, since the end of the recession, why more people are working in canada today than ever before. sometimes there is pain, to be sure. but, a nettle once firmly grasped is on its way to being pulled out by the roots.

prime minister, in this regard, i acknowledge and applaud your own leadership in taking tough decisions to reign in spending. both at home, and within the councils of the g-8 and g-20, the responsible actions of your government have set a powerful and necessary example to other nations as they grapple with massive sovereign debts of their own. and i know you are making the tough decisions, because you believe, because you understand, they are the right decisions, the necessary decisions. countries that do not bring their finances under control or that close their economies to the world, will face consequences.

himand those consequences are not only economic. in the absence of solvency, relevancy will also disappear. nothing can lead more quickly and more completely to diminished influence in the world than the decline of economic performance and financial credibility. should we fail to faithfully adhere to our values in economic matters the wider values that we wish to protect for all humanity, values of freedom, democracy and justice, of dignity, compassion and security, those values will almost certainly be eroded.

and they will be eroded friends at a time, when they are most needed. because for good to happen in this world, someone must speak up for these values, and have the will and the capacity to act, so that these values are not mere sentiments. i speak of the courage to denounce oppressors and aggressors, to counter extremist ideologies, and to confront the abominations that must not be tolerated. lord speaker, mr. speaker, distinguished guests, i know there are many here among us who could tell a hundred stories about how such values have guided our generations to this very day. from the war of 1812, to the great conflict that brought churchill and king together, to the dusty landscapes of afghanistan in our own time, britons and canadians have pursued what is right in the world, often at great cost. the most recent example is libya, where, under your global leadership, prime minister, and under the military command of

lieutenant-general bouchard of the royal canadian air force, a nation that faced massive and imminent slaughter at the hands of the psychotic architect of the lockerbie horror, was given its freedom and the opportunity (not yet fully grasped) of a peaceful and democratic future. we have also clung jointly to our values in the south atlantic, supporting the right of free people living on small islands to determine their own future. frankly, though, friends, that pales today in comparison to the all too many, dangerous situations of a truly global nature, situations where, as societies based on values and principles, we are called upon to recognize evil, even if, the actions we should undertake are sometimes far from self-

evident. in the pacific, a cold-war totalitarian state, north korea, lingers on, determined as ever to present a real and growing danger to regional security. in the middle east, its only true western democracy endures, but israel does so amidst an unrelenting hostility to its very existence by many of its neighbours. a sorry testament to the persistent hatred of the jewish people, and the moral relativism in so much of world affairs that provides shelter to such anti- semitism. but no such nuance can attach to the government of iran and its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. iran's leaders openly brag that they will eliminate israel from the face of the earth. this is a profoundly malevolent regime that threatens us all, and whose first victims are the iranian people themselves.

canada will continue to urge the international community to show steadfast resolve on iran in the days ahead. meanwhile, the iranian ally in syria is locked in a bloody war with its own people. and herein lies a grotesque dilemma: decent people agree that assad must go, syria's government must represent all its people, including its minorities. yet the extremist, sectarian nature of much of the opposition cannot be ignored or wished away. syria cannot be allowed to become another safe haven for the hydra-heads of terrorism. such monsters already lurk far too close to home, as we have seen in the murder of drummer rigby, god rest his soul and bless his family, and the foiled plot in canada to

sabotage a via rail express. now of course, not every global challenge is one of security, nor should every response be military in nature. even as we deal with the economic challenges our citizens face at home, we should never compare our problems with the brutal deprivation that is the daily reality for still far too many of our fellow human beings in much of the world. in canada, we take pride in our leadership, begun at muskoka in 2010, to reduce the appalling mortality among children and young mothers in the developing world. and, prime minister, we salute you and your government for the fact that, even as you have grappled with enormous budgetary pressures, you have continued your world-leading efforts in so many areas of humanitarian and development assistance. we also fully support your initiative to help ensure that the citizens of emerging economies get a fair deal when

others develop their resources. that is why i announced yesterday, in advance of the g- 8, that canada will establish new mandatory reporting standards for the payments canadian extractive companies make to governments foreign and domestic. we also firmly believe in the principle that widespread prosperity can only be achieved where there are stable, transparent governments, absent corruption, and fortified by a respect for human rights and a commitment to the rule of law. we value all of these objectives for the world's poorest. but, make no mistake, if we wish to spread prosperity to others, we must be prosperous ourselves. without prosperity, there can be no aid. indeed, without prosperity, we

will have little ability to project any of our values anywhere. and, of course, we cannot hope to effectively spread these values unless we live by them ourselves and demonstrate our own success by virtue of doing so. lord speaker, mr. speaker, distinguished guests, i believe this is the challenge we face in the west today. there are massive shifts, shifts of epic dimensions, taking place in the world economy. to the extent this means that traditionally less fortunate people are beginning to enjoy prosperity, and the other fruits of our values, much of this is a good thing. but there are also, as there have always been, rising powers that do not share our values, and dangerous forces that seek to destroy them. we cannot, in the face of this, be at all complacent or, as i

have said elsewhere, we cannot entertain the notion, as i think some in the west do, that our wealth and influence can be assumed, that they are some kind of birthright. i know, prime minister, that neither of our governments think that, which is why we take the difficult decisions we do, to ensure our people will remain among the most fortunate and prosperous for the generations to come. but, just as we cannot be complacent about our wealth, neither can we allow our peoples, in these times of tough decisions and shifting fortunes, to become fatalistic. i mentioned some leaders of earlier generations. prime ministers churchill and king. certainly they would never, in the depths of war, countenance any notion of inevitable defeat, indeed, churchill's words against any such thinking are among the most powerful ever uttered in the english language. but perhaps the more relevant example today is that of mrs.

thatcher, who, in a time of peace, refused to accept any suggestion of inevitable decline. she did so, not as an expression of good cheer, but as a matter of resolve and action, and so in her time britain rose once more. in fact, i would say that dealing with difficult times and moving forward is what our two countries do, have often done together, and have done very well. and go on, we shall, to prosper and to lead, if we are true to our values, and unshakably resolved not to fail. lord speaker, mr. speaker, distinguished guests, you have been generous with your time. so, let me just close with this. some years after prime minister king delivered his speech here the people of canada sent you a gift, the handsome table gracing the floor of your house of commons, part of an allied effort to rebuild the chamber

after the damages of war. a gift, no doubt, to remind you of the defence of britain by canadians done, from the outset, voluntarily and passionately, not simply out of the value of friendship, but also because of the friendship of values. i ask that, if you happen to find yourselves looking at that table, think of us in canada. perhaps not your most powerful friends, but your truest and most reliable and know, that as we tackle the great challenges of this and future eras. we shall face them together, always, and we will succeed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> let me think prime minister harper for his adjust today on behalf of of us all, particularly on the half of the house of lords. i speak for everyone assembled when i say that very much appreciate your presence here today.

the historic ties enumerated between canada and the united kingdom and between the parliament of the parliaments and the united kingdom speak for themselves. the common ground that we share bears testimony to the bonds burnished by years of cooperation and mutual understanding. it is of particular significance that both have appointed upper chambers. today the canadian senate and the law face difficult questions of reform. the future is an issue that often preoccupies commentators and politicians on either side of the atlantic. i know this is a matter of particular interest. there are no easy solutions. i shall watch developments with great interest. as i am sure you will in order to watch developments here and we watch of them there. who knows.

where one chamber goes the other may follow. i am happy to say that the administration of both chambers enjoy a highly productive working relationship. currently enriched by discussions over our crumbling elementary buildings. i speak with your senate. prime minister harper, it has been a great honor for us to welcome you to our parliament. i hope that the rest of your visit to the uk and elsewhere in europe will prove both valuable and constructive. thank you. [applause]

>> the executive director speaks

about the interstate highway system. willve years from now, we beyonding at a worlsd the cable connections. will be aars, that large audience. the entertainment industry will have to serve. channeley decide to

share, we're trying to get pricef the auction for flexible use. cables from this cspan 2. we're keen to welcome streaming live this morning and watching in followup sessions, so please also join us at understandingwar.org to learn more about i.s.w. but now for stuart bowen.

stuart has served for nine years in iraq, which really gives him a lengthy perspective on u.s. and multinational engagement in iraq over such a varied period of history. from early days, surge days, to drawdown days, to the current environment where we are actually watching from the completion of projects that were begun long ago, but also watching the strategic effects of u.s. engagement and disengagement. a very special position to be able to look at these things because the watchdog that ensures that u.s. tax dollars that are spent inside iraq are spent well and wisely.

but it's also a wonderful for evaluating our changing mission and changing program in iraq precisely because as a public watchdog, as someone who looks at military projects from a civilian perspective, we -- he has the opportunity to talk about very many different problems, challenges and lessons learned that he's been able to work on over the past nine years. he's also the author, along with his team of learning from iraq, a book that i commend to you for reading, and for learning.

and so with that introduction, please help me welcome stuart bowen. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, kim. thanks to the institute and to all of you for being here this morning. it's a privilege to be part of the institute -- an institute event because of the great work you continue to do. but particularly in iraq. i find your reporting on iraq to be the most comprehensive, the most effective, and so i urge all of you all to consult the i.s.w. website if you want to know what's going on day by day in iraq. that's something i've been focused on for 9 1/2 years, what's going on day by day in iraq. we produced 35 quarterly reports, 290 audits and inspections. learning from iraq is the last report. but also hard lessons. our previous book which came out in 2009, all accessible at our

website, www point sigir.mil. we're almost done with our mission, both in iraq as an aid and assistance program but also as an overnight mission. sigir will close its doors on september 30 this year, but not before we obtain about 20 more convictions. we hope to get another 100 million for the taxpayers because, as kim pointed out, we're the taxpayers' watchdog. we're not quite finished with ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars have been properly accounted for. but this morning i want to talk about the lessons from iraq, because as kim underscored, there is a lot to learn from our 10-year experience, our 10-year rebuilding program.

applicable to how the united states structures itself for stabilization and reconstruction operations. and so let me start with this challenging point. and that is, the united states is not significantly better off >> the comparative study was beyond our reach, but we did identify cost of 25%.

two questions. how do you think that the iraq money was spent, the rebuilding money? and second, what lessons do you draw from that? and from their answers, we get these seven lessons. first, just what i said. foremost, that the united states must reform, restructure, improve its approach to planning and executing stabilization and reconstruction operations. chapter six proposes a solution for that. create the u.s. office for continuing operations and i'm happy to report this past friday, stockman-welch bill hr-2606 was introduced to do exactly that.

so there is an opportunity for change, an opportunity to apply a lesson learned from iraq. i'm -- i'm known for saying that a lesson learned that's not a lesson applied is a lesson lost. this will avert that loss if it comes into being. more about that in a minute. second lesson, don't conduct significant rebuilding operations when the security situation is severe. and that was the case too often in iraq. it seems self-evident, however, for example, in fallujah, we proceeded with a very substantial waste water treatment plant that, because of the security situation, wasn't completed until two years ago. it took eight years to finish. it cost three times as much, is serving a third of the number of people targeted initially. why? because it was pursued in a very

insecure environment. three, consult. this was what the iraqis said to me over and over again that the united states did not do. the prime minister said 52 billion should have brought us more, if you had consulted with us about what we really needed at the outset, then we would have benefited from your -- from your investment, your substantial investment. consultation also was an issue that the u.s. interviewees raised. bill burns, secretary of state, said we tried to do it all and tried to do it our own way. and in recognition that from the outside that the c.p.a., the coalition provisional authority, the u.s.-led governance of iraq for the first 14 months, did not engage sufficiently with the iraqis about what they really needed.

fourth, uniformity. there was a lack of uniform systems in iraq. agencies operated in their stovepipes, carrying out their missions, using their own contracting approaches, using their own oversight methods, using their own i.t. systems. and as a result, you had stovepiped data. and when you have stovepipe data, you have inconsistencies. and that produces from our audits, we learned from our audits, the fact that about 30% of the projects completed in iraq were not properly accounted for, not properly recorded in any data base. and, therefore, we couldn't really analyze the details of them without trying to find the paperwork, wherever it may be hidden at particular agencies. that's something that -- that

the reform of our approach to stabilization and reconstruction operations must address, and it similarly must address the need for uniformity in contracting and the stockman- welch bill proposes exactly that kind of reform. the core of engineers commanders consistently have told me that they support that. the first commander of the gulf region in iraq, great guy, very sharp, succeeded early on, is succeeding now leading the core, is a strong proponent of this particular kind of contracting reform. fifth, oversight. i think the story says that oversight works when it's on the ground, it's forward-leaning, and it seeks to do more than just manage a list of findings or police blotter, so to speak, but takes what you're learning, turns it around quickly so that operators can use it to improve

the mission. that was missing in the first year. too much waste occurred as a result. too much waste occurred throughout the program because of all of these issues, upwards of $8 billion wasted of our tax dollars. good oversight, good planning would certainly reduce that number in future operations. six, preserve what worked. learning from iraq identifies a number of success stories. in iraq. it's not just bad news. you know, our reporting is focused on the challenges because that's our mission. audits, use of money, finding the crooks who have violated their trust. but we also included a number of reports and a number of anecdotes in learning from iraq about what worked. two i want to highlight are the commander's response program, when properly managed, made a difference for the good in iraq. senaas a tool in the commander's

and when it was -- when they were executed as planned, that is, small, targeted projects, usually under $100,000, they made a difference. when they exceeded $1 million or $10 million or even $20 million in a few audits we identified, then they lost focus, they lost control, and they lost money. properly managed can be useful in reconstruction operations. the reconstruction team program similarly when well led made an enormous difference in iraq. it embodies integration. but it was an ad hoc entity created that these are demands put upon us in these settings. but i hope we learned from the p.r.t. experience that the only way they can work is to plan in advance, to do some training in

advance, to fund them in advance, and that's what they would do, among many things. finally, plan. it's, obviously, a very generic and basic term, but i heard too often, especially from the civilian side with regard to what was going on in iraq, the phrase, we don't like the plan. that in a stabilization reconstruction operation setting is a non sequitur. planning is the prerequisit to success. in these operations. and it means planning before the operation begins. churchill said, those who plan do better than those who don't, though they really stick with that plan. his point being that planning is the key to opening the door to success. in challenging operations, like we faced in iraq.

we can have a plan at the outset. hard lessons gets into this in detail, and the plan was liberate and leave. but as i was told in one interview, you had a plan a, but you didn't have a plan b. when we switched to plan b, which was occupy and rebuild, we didn't have a system in place sufficient to sustain the expenditure of what became $60 billion. the first plan was $2 billion and be gone by september. by 10 years ago right now in iraq, we were up to $20 billion. so 10 times the amount in the blink of an eye, it shouldn't be any surprise that too much waste occurred. it is what it is, but it ought not to stand simply as a point of history. it needs to stand as a pointed lesson from which we should draw

and from which i'm pleased to note that the hill has begun to learn in hr-2606, which would establish the u.s. office for contingency operations, should it pass. and it would provide the kinds of solutions, the kind of solutions that i've suggested here that are key to ensure success in future stabilization and reconstruction operations, planning, uniformity, drawing together the significant body of personnel that are out there, and we will have more stabilization reconstruction operations. seems to be sitting on our doorstep strategically with regard to this matter, and indeed its spillover effects are bringing to crisis conditions in iraq at this moment. as kim pointed out last week an article, that you know, iraq is effectively still at war. the war in iraq is not really over in the sense that the shia

militia that caused so much carnage in 2005, 2006, 2007, and the sunni a.q.i. and islamic state of iraq, these various elements, these radical shia militia are stirring back up and causing, you know, murder and mayhem across the country as we speak. 761 killed in iraq in june, following upon the two bloodiest months in five years. this last quarter has been the bloodiest quarter since the middle of 2008. and why? partly because of the failure to recognize on the part of the leadership in iraq the reconciliation is the essential piece to moving forward. and second, because of what's going on in syria. the spillover effects are substantial. the reason why i lay that out is that while boots on the ground

is something that no one wants, it may be that we have to have a capacity on the ground in syria post assad, should that come about. how that's going to be organized is an open question. a bill out of the senate recently approved $250 million for rebuilding in syria, but we don't know who would spend it. and that's just an indicator of the need for the kind of reform that we can learn from iraq. that we propose in learning from iraq, and that thankfully is recognized in this most recent piece of legislation. so that's -- that's what we've learned at sigir for 9 1/2 years. and i'm honored again to be here with you, kim, and with the institute, and thanks to all of you for coming and happy to entertain any questions you might have. thank you. >> we have some wonderful -- wonderful people here with a great deal of expertise in a variety of areas, and i really look forward to having them ask their questions, introducing

themselves and the organization that they're with. i'd like to start with taking my moderator's prerogative. to ask what -- what are the impacts that these kinds of mistakes and errors have on achieving the mission in whatever country we're operating in, in this case iraq? >> well, first and foremost, not having a coherent structure, a well-planned system, effective oversight and a capacity to execute means your stabilization and reconstruction operation can last 10 years. that's what happened in iraq.

it's what's happened in afghanistan. and as i've described it, rather than a 10-year rebuilding program, it's been 10 one-year rebuilding programs, in both countries, i think. and the question that -- the rhetorical question that that process evokes is who's in charge here? and the answer is a question mark. indeed, the commission on war time contracting asked that question of state defense at a hearing and they couldn't answer it. and the same issue has arisen in afghanistan, as i've heard from the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction. that the consequences though, to your question, kim, we identified in part in a report we issued last summer on the human toll from reconstruction. concretely we could identify at least 719 lives lost while -- while conducting rebuilding

activities. and so the cost in waste i've identified at least $8 billion. the cost in blood, 719 at least. it's too high. but most importantly, staying 10 years in carrying out a contingency operation. at some point it stops being a contingency. proper planning, effective capacity to execute, good oversight will reduce that time. >> wonderful. if you could please introduce yourself to our c-span audience and your organization or affiliation. fred, the first question. >> it's remarkable to have an auditor, someone whose job it is to study how funds have been misspent and prosecute people who have deliberately misspent them talk as passionately as do you

about accomplishing the mission. and that's always been one of the things that was a hallmark of the war event that i think has not been necessarily replicated in other similar efforts, and i think as we learn lessons from iraq, that should be one of them. that the role of the auditor is more than that of auditor. that we understand that this is a part of trying to accomplish our objectives, and the person who's accounting for the funds should be thinking about how to account for them in a way that supports the mission. and you've done that, which is remarkable. but i'd like to pose to you, i think, what for many is going to be a very fundamental question, which is why do we need to do this when we're never going to do this again? and isn't liberate and leave the maximum that we can ever expect to undertake since the model for the perfect intervention now is libya? and so wouldn't we say that if

it became necessary to do anything in syria, which we're clearly desperate to avoid, that at most, it would be liberate and leave? so in that circumstance, aren't you preparing for something that policy has already decided we'll never do? >> from the ether, the policy ether currently, yes. and let me -- let me offer a rejoinder to your underlying point, and that is if we don't reform our approach, then yes. we shouldn't engage in these kind of operations because i don't think we can afford with a $17 trillion debt to stay anywhere for an extended period to carry out these kinds of operations. from the blood cost, the cost in lives, also the same point. it's our responsibility as a country to take on the lessons of iraq, apply them to our system and improve a structure so that we don't occupy, rebuild year

after year after year. that's the unacceptable outcome in iraq that i think there's 100% agreement about in the united states. but the point of it is not to decide what the decision would be, it's to provide the president with options, with choice. we don't have an army, we don't create a powerful military because we want to go to war. we create it because there are national security interests that we must be prepared to protect under the president's leadership. and by training and equiping a substantial force, the president has those options, a wide variety. do we have them on the front? no, we don't. part of the challenge in syria is what choices are at hand for him to make if you don't have a capacity, other than bad ones? and that's why i agree, i'm all for no more iraqs and afghanistans, but that's not a policy, that's a hope. let's create policy choice by reforming our oversight of stabilization and reconstruction operations so that we're not limited to one choice.

yes? nice to see you. >> good to see you. good to see you again. thank you for your service and for a job very, very well done. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you. probably this one's a little bit of a tough question. who do you think who did better with their projects as far as spending, executing, transparency and oversight, the military or the civilian side? >> well, there's enough fault to go around. so let me start with that. and second, let me say there are a number of important facts that we were able to derive in learning from iraq that we hadn't really underscored earlier, and that is over 80% of the contracts were military contracts. which is part of the problem. the policy, according to nspr-

36, was given to the state department. but 80% of the contracts -- you have a dichotomy that's unworkable. and i saw it, you know, the various acronyms struggling across the departmental lines in iraq over eight years led to inefficiencies. chief says we'd like to you do x, the head of the project and contracting office says we're doing y. that's a bad moment. and that kind of bad moment occurred much too often because of the lack of syncronicity among the departments in carrying out the mission. to your question, as we also point out in learning from iraq, about $25 billion of the $60 billion, was spent in building iraq's security forces. an army of 300,000, police force of 700,000. a million men in uniform. they are today better equipped, better trained than iraq has ever had.

a security force that's better equipped, better trained than iraq has ever had. and so while there was certainly waste and challenges throughout, you know, the period called rebluing, back, you remember that, in 2006, 2007, where essentially had to clean out the ministry of the interior because of the shia militia infilltration. in the end, it's a pretty -- a mixed blessing. the iraq special operations forces may be the best in the middle east and also their commander in chief's the prime minister. that's a command and control line that's not the best for iraq at this juncture and is -- is presenting some challenging circumstances today. >> on that last, i actually want to take a moment to plug the report done by maurice sullivan. it talks about that chain of

command, and some of the alternative chains of command that have developed within the iraqi security forces. because they present a political problem right now to the iraqi people as well as a security problem. so thanks for bringing that up. >> exactly right. >> please. >> my question would be from the private sector perspective. when you talk to them, obviously, it's a very frustrating mission, but when you talked to them, what were the two or three things that they complained about that might be easiest to fix? >> not knowing who's in charge. that -- that's the -- that's the most salient weakness. and as a result, a constantly moving target with regard to the

reconstruction program. having nine one-year reconstruction programs meant that you had to be prepared to completely reorient annually. and having, as was the case, 15 to 20 contracting officers over the life of a project, meant you had to try and figure out what was going on continuously. and -- and having to deal with a security situation where it wasn't clear where the burden of providing security lay. private security contractors or the government, obviously a mix of both. it was developed on the fly in iraq, in a way unprecedented in our history. in 2008, there were 171,000 troops on the ground and 172,000 contractors. and a substantial percentage of those were security contractors.

and we learned, you know, what happens if you don't plan well in advance for how these systems should be integrated. iraq was about coordination. and coordination worked when personalities synchronized well. and, for example, general petraeus and ambassador ryan crocker synchronized well at a critical moment with excellent outside advice on the strategy, and we survived. that synchronization though, that approach, that strategy is a hope, not a system. not a structure. >> thank you very much. you brought this up a little bit earlier when you mentioned instead of having one 10-year reconstruction, we had 10 one-year reconstructions.

i've spoken to a number of my friends who worked with development contractors and a thing that they consistently brought up was the fact that due to high turnover among contractors, you'd have people going in for one year, generating institutional knowledge, and then moving on to a new project. that's one of the advantages probably for you having been there over the longer term of the -- of the conflict. but i'm wondering if there's anything in your -- that you learned that deals with preserving institutional knowledge generated during the course of an operation to prevent this sort of 10 one-year reconstruction problem. >> that's what what would be done. the department of defense has a significant lesson learned capacity at fort leavenworth, there's an entire school devoted to it. pksoi in carlisle similarly engages in such.

but it's stovepiped. it's within one agency. these are unique. and they've been going on pretty steadily since 1980. somalia. haiti. panama. the balkans. iraq. afghanistan. they are the venue in which our national security interests will be protected in the future, in this century. and if you do accept that -- some don't, by the way, and do accept that they will happen again and you do accept that they didn't go so well in iraq and afghanistan, then i hope you accept that we ought to learn our lessons and improve our structure. that's the only way to preserve them. these are useful tones on what happened. but they're just that. they don't change our approach. >> on that, i'd actually like to ask a followup question, which

is obviously, there has to be some give and take between having a flexible strategy and having a long-term strategy. for stabilization and reconstruction. so how would you recommend creating some flexibility and resiliency in how we approach stability and reconstruction without getting to that 10 one- year plan situation? >> great question, kim. and i think we are stuck in a place of significant lack of resilience right now. it's what fred was saying about the choices we have in front of us with regard to our current structure and the choices are very limited. and the only -- and resilience means options, right? and resilience means capacity to respond as -- as churchill said, to do your planning and then to be able to respond to what comes next.

because your first plan a will be the first victim. and that's understandable in the operation. but we need to be able to do plan b, what we switch to. that can only happen if there's a structure in place that's prepared to execute b, c, d, e, whatever that plan might evolve into. and that requires a uniform contracting, personnel procedures, funding, oversight, training. and that all occurs before the operation begins. if you try to do all that after the operation begins, then you're the provisional authority. they wrote their own personnel regs and they didn't succeed as much as we would all have liked because of the improvisational nature of it. improvisation in the area of national security is -- is a bad planning system. and it is hard to resolve.

>> from watching iraq so closely >> 34 trips. >> how do you view the future of iraq? how do you see it going? >> well, my metaphor is a financial one. i'm short iraq in the short-term but long iraq in the long-term. and the reason being is unlike afghanistan, their bank's in the ground. they have the resources to succeed. with -- with -- if someone shows up with a vision, a recognition of the need for reconciliation, that it's an essential element for democracy to receive and in the maelstrom of ethnic and sectarian mixes that govern the country

right now, that there's a way out and that path is iraqi nationalism. then -- then iraq should be the leading country in the middle east. and i'm hopeful that that person will arrive on the scene sometime in the next 10 years and when he does, then i expect that long bet to pay off. >> as a followup, do you have any idea -- [question inaudible] >> as i said, it's a hope. and so we'll have to wait, as you have to with hope. >> so, in fact, actually, i want to take a moment to recognize steven for his most recent report, iraq cities in crisis. he is also the author, or one of the authors of our iraq weekly

update which can be found on our website. so, thank you, for asking -- >> outstanding work. >> some hopeful questions. i actually -- i'm sorry. fred, go ahead. >> i'm guessing from your answer that maliki is not -- [question inaudible] i'll throw one out there that you can duck and i'll throw one out there that i'd actually like you to answer. would we be in a better position if we had managed somehow to maintain u.s. forces in iraq and been able to continue to oversee these efforts? but the one that i expect you to answer is we talk about contractors a lot, and, of course, u.s. aid went long ago to a model of relying almost entirely on contractors for executing thing and the downsizing of our uniformed military has driven the military of relying on contractors for a variety of things.

so what extent do you think the contractorization of our foreign security policy is a problem or is that something that can be managed with adequate oversight as you're recommending? >> great questions. i'll answer the first one by quoting my interview with secretary panetta in learning from iraq. according to the secretary, the inability to negotiate a basis for continuing u.s. military presence in the post 2011 strategic framework agreement left the united states without important leverage in iraq. this weakened american capacity to push for greater change within the government of iraq. on the outsourcing issue, that's a huge question. it started in 1989. it was the watershed, frankly, for outsourcing, moving fuel, food to the private sector. and under k.b.r. and three

different contractors hold it. over $30 billion, $30 billion to $40 billion spent on it in iraq. but i think the challenge that was new and that's not resolved is a security issue. how do you outsource aspects of the security management in a stabilization reconstruction operation? when historically that's always been a government's duty? and the commission on war time contracting tried to get into this and identified it as a problem but was unable to articulate a concrete solution for it. the congress is addressing it as well. but less and less so since these operations are winding down and going away. the problem hasn't gone away. and i think there needs to be a center of gravity for grappling

with it when it's not in your face. and that's what it would do, begin to plan with the department and work with the hill about structuring a solution to what is now a contractor-government operation. given iraq and afghanistan. and -- but to a system that doesn't have concrete lines, and those lines need to be defined. >> if i can follow up on that question of security contracting, have you in your auditing and calculations actually been able to establish the cost of security contracting, outsourcing security in iraq, like the cost of maintaining u.s. forces to conduct that security or similar security operations in iraq? >> a comparative study was really beyond our reach, but we did identify that security costs

averaged about 25% per project. so substantial amount of overhead for executing projects in iraq went to paying for security. and that's, of course, private contractor security. it's impossible, i think, to -- to discreetly develop the data, develop the discreet data on the government side, on the military side, because it's sort of baked into the overall cost. but it's huge, for sure. >> valerie? >> i'm with i.s.w. but until very recently was with a contractor that worked in all of these areas. and so i know i was wondering if

there was anything we haven't yet talked about if you could expand about a little further. wñ

>> i can't be there day in and day out, but i'm the chief creative officer. the whole look and feel of the network, i'm involved in it creatively. marketing and how it looks and how the network looks itself.

the programming and the development of the programming. being and distribution meetings and that kind of stuff. it is a big job, but it is really important. it represents something bigger than just television. it represents doing something for this community that has been underserved for so long. >> talk about the distribution beginnings. what were they like? >> were they a little weird? >>they are very educational. distribution was a different thing. what i've learned from them was that everyone is trying to target this community. they're trying to figure it out and crack that nut. it is not an easy thing. >> how do you think your celebrity will help launch the network? >> being a celebrity, it brings

awareness.which is an obvious thing. and that is true. also i have had 20 years in front of and behind the camera. one of the things i bring is relationships. we have attracted different talents and agencies are willing to work with us in a different way. directors and writers and all of that kind of stuff, it makes a huge difference. we are able to boost the programming and the quality of the programming in a way that hasn't been done before. >> when you were in distribution meetings, were their ideas about what would work for tv that had a lineup of tele-novellas? >> you are dealing with a bunch of smart people. when you grow up as a mother, i -- when you grow

up as a modern latino. i understand. i know how it affected me and did not affect me. i'm able to bring that knowledge and my whole family and all of my friends. i'm able to bring that knowledge to it. i want to see this and i don't want to see that. great art, great television, because it is so cutting-edge, it is about making quality and doing quality stories and making great television. that is what i feel we have to concentrate on. this should be a network for latinos and anybody. i often think of the movie "the joy luck club." i remember when i was young and knowing nothing about asian culture in any shape or form this movie touched me. i was young at the time. i knew the movie very well. it was a great story. it didn't matter that it was about asians.

it did not matter it was about that culture. you saw yourself in it. some story in every movie touched people. that is what great art does. that is what we want to accomplish. you want to accomplish great art, great programming that is targeted toward the modern youino, but it is for anyone. will turn it -- tune into mtv even though it is a younger demographic. that is the goal. >> do know what the perfect nuvo tv show is? >> the perfect one? there will be many facets. that is trying to put us into a box again. i think we are very diverse. there are many different things that interest us. one of my wishes is to infuse more music. when you think about bet, they

drew them in with music first and ihen the network grew. think we can do that. things i amof the always -- music, music. >> when will we see you? >> there are some things i'm just infusing the network with energy. it is a long-term project and goal. ike any of net works,, it takes years to get it right. we are on such a fast track. we have a new head of marketing. we are on the right track already.meta-programming, coming from comedy central.

we are on the right track already. taste of where we are going. you get the new look and feel but we want to go into scripted. that is a big thing for us. one show can launch a network. one amazing show. we are constantly on the lookout your reduction company will sell to nuvo tv. you're not exclusive. [laughter] there are some things that were announced last month, a special involving you is one of them. >> yes. one of the things that was important to me is to have some education.not hitting you over the head, but education in an interesting way. it can be politics or comedians or actors or writers or directors or political figures, historical figures, people who

change things and had turning point in their lives that led them down a path that wound up being inspiring or aspirational. one of the shows we are doing is i will be in the first episode. because i was available. [laughter] >> is there a chance you might tryde on some relationships? to woo when some producers to do shows? >> absolutely. we are going to everyone. i have worked with a lot of great agencies. there is a wealth of writers and directors and actors. all of my relationships i'm calling on for this. i feel like it is an important i don't want to say initiative --i do not know what the word is. it is bigger than just a channel.

>> of all your accomplishments, where will this rank in terms of your legacy? >> talk about your legacy already. >> i don't want to. i want to have fun creating the show. i do not know. i wanted to be remembered as a place where we gave a home to artists that did not have a home before. latino artists have a place to tell their stories, our stories. and literally change the face of >> i am not sure you have time to watch television. are there any shows on tv now that you think speak to the modern latino? >> i will have to get back to you on that. >> laugh the most

important question -- how will you balance this with going back to "american idol"? >> what? that is just a rumor. i do not have any announcements to make on that right now. i'm concentrating on building and a couple of other businesses i have. i'm working on my 10th album. >> wow. ladies and gentlemen, jennifer lopez. [applause] >> thank you. >> good morning. and now it is my great pleasure to introduce a very special guest, a man who shares our belief that all americans should

enjoy the benefit of broadband, that all children through the power of our technology can be ennobled to be good digital citizens. cable and broadband technology can transform our schools, their classrooms, and our children. over the past four years, arne duncan has forged a reputation as one of our nation's most distinguished secretaries of education. building on his success in his hometown of chicago, he has instilled new energy into our nation's educational system through innovative programs such as race to the top and through his personal commitment to america's educators and their students. he has lifted the u.s. educational system into global --mpetitiveness, in ensuring

we have been proud to partner with him, the department of education in nogy is accessible tol broadnd american schools.and making that technology a change ancient in our classrooms. -- a change agent in our classroom. by the way, did i mention that he has got a hell of a good jump shot? ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the u.s. secretary of education, mr. arne duncan. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. i always love following jennifer lopez. i will talk about some sexy topics like academic learning standards, but i promise you it will be more exciting than it sounds. i will talk to you about the intersection of technology and that means i get to

take you into the future. last month i visited a school in the heart of detroit.brenda scott academy. one of the lowest performing schools in the state, in a tough neighborhood. they are working hard to turn the school around and create opportunities for the children there. you wouldn't know any of the challenges without visiting the if you visited christie ford's classroom. if you did, you see young children working independently in small groups. you'd see them discussing the solar system and building 3-d models. you would see others and learning games and apps on their laptops. you would see the teacher not at the front of the classroom lecturing, but simply working quietly with a few students who need help. all of her students are on individual learning plans. they are working at their own pace. if that sounds like great teaching, it is. that sounds like a wonderful way to learn.

it is an example of what technology makes possible through the flexibility it gives teachers and the opportunity it gives to students. teachers are expected to know how each a student is motivated and match that to the right content and instructional approach. that is powerful and also hard to do. technology helps turn those goals and aspirations into reality. it also allows fantastic teachers to give her students experiences that you and i can never dream about having in school. she can send them on virtual trips to other countries. she can let them apply physics by designing a bridge using tools that real engineers used. she can connect them with real tutors and experts in real time

or take a class on linear class in urdung a or linear calculus. to help her continue to learn and grow as a professional, she can share her ideas and lesson plans with others anywhere in the country. that reality, that sense of empowerment that is strong is sadly not the norm today. the simple problem is that most teachers cannot do any of that is most schools have about as much internet bandwidth as your house. probably less than many of your homes.because you guys know this business. let's talk megabits for a second. it takes about 1.5 or one student to do what he or she needs to do with broadband. a classroom would require maybe 45. for a whole school, about 120. we recommend that the school should have about 100 with a clear path to get to a thousand that fiber optics provides.

honest truth cut of the brutal truth is the typical school is nowhere near that. our competitors are far ahead of us. in south korea, 100% of schools have access to high-speed internet. here it is only about 20%. we are denying our teachers and students the tools they need to be successful. that is educationally unsound and morally unacceptable. it is a problem because as a country we are not keeping up. america used to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world, now we are 14th. in a knowledge-based economy it is a job killer. the status quo is bad for children and bad for families and communities and bad for our nation's economy. what are we going to do about it?

simply put, we must innovate and invest. at the federal level, we are pushing for fundamental change in the education system from itadle all the way to career. starts with making high-quality preschool available to every family and president obama has outlined a plan to do just that. it is expensive and paid for. with the cigarette tax. it needs to happen. investing in high-quality early childhood education is the best investment we can make. --12 level, we are supporting the state led fight to raise academic standards. this is a game changer. we need to set a high meaningful doorsr students.it opens to innovation that can work in almost every state.

we are investing billions of dollars that is creating online assessments tied to higher and more rigorous standards. those assessments will replace traditional fill in the bubbles standardized tests. to give assessments, most schools require bandwidth that they do not have right now. at the college level, pushing --w ideas to make all its more to make college more affordablebecause students and families cannot keep up with the costs. at every stage along the educational continuum, we need created competitive funds aimed at spurring innovation, including a fund for school districts who want to become leaders in personalized learning tailored to each student's needs. we have to get better faster even during a tough economy. technology is critical to raise

the bar for all students in what i call the opportunity gap. much of this depends on access to the internet. --oadband internet has become interstate highway system for communication and ideas. today is simply does not reach most schools. it is time we built some on ramps. that is why president obama and i traveled to north carolina last week to announce --connect ed. it challenges to wire every school in the country with fiber optic connections over the next five years. training teachers for the tech revolution. it challenges the private sector to make it affordable for our-- to make digital devices as affordable as textbooks for our nations children. we have to move from print to digital absolutely as fast as we can. in that same spirit, i ask for

your help and all of you to come together with us. there may have never been such a powerful culmination of content and ways of getting to it as exist in this room this morning. it offers us a huge responsibility. first, we need you to get behind president obama's goal of connecting our nation's schools. we think we can do that with a fee that literally amounts for the price of a postage stamp on your monthly bill. you can help us connect schools and also cost effective manner. to build on what you have done, bringing the internet to lower income homes and families, we need you to help make sure our children when they leave school will not be living in a different century than more affluent children. i believe history will look back on this moment that the cable industry did the right thing for

our nation's children and help or theyhe digital divide. did not do enough to make a difference. david, i want to thank you and your colleagues at comcast for your vision and leadership and commitment and the hard work you have done. second, we need your content. one of the most significant opportunities is to bring the engagement you generate through your programming to classrooms across the nation. it needs to be easier for teachers to find it and match it to the children's individual needs. we have created a platform called the learning registry to help teachers find great digital learning content. please be part of that effort. finally, a personal plea to the leadership on behalf of our children's safety. both online and in their streets and neighborhoods. online, children need to be safe from predators and inappropriate

contentand from the risk of making mistakes that could cost them the rest of their lives. some of it is about taking them and their parents but some is also the control you can provide. finally, we need your leadership on the culture of gun violence. when i let the chicago public schools, we buried at least one child due to gun violence on average every two weeks. staggering loss of life. that is not unique to chicago. parents should not bury their children.what kids see on tv and the media -- and in video games matter and the decisions you make have confidence was -- have consequences. please help be part of the solution. thank you. thank you for the opportunity. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, lease welcome the moderator for today's education and technology panel, cnn chief political analyst. >> and now for the panel, u.s. secretary of education, arne duncan. next is executive vice president of comcast corporation's david cohen. the co-founder and ceo of zeal. john danner. and fifth grade teacher, -- valencia hawkins.

>> thank you all for having us here today. thank you, secretary duncan, for are between jo.we lo and desperate housewives here. we needed to have an exciting panel. let me ask you, you have heard the challenges that the youretary laid out for cable. have done a lot at comcast making broadband assessable, but are we succeeding? >> first, thank you are moderating. we appreciate it. mr. secretary, thank you for an articulate vision for what this country needs. there is no more passionate advocate in the u.s. than the

secretary of education. thank you. [applause] what i took out of this are two critical things. what we heard in that presentation was something i believe is essential, which is solving the problems of education are not one offs. it requires innovative solutions.-- requires an integrated solution from the beginning of the top's education and after the school days, providing support for them and their parents, graduate from college and into college, beyond college internships -- the policies that the secretary articulated our policies that all of us in the education space share. second of all -- i hate to sound

like this, but i think even the right room. the cable industry has a new unique role to play. not only are we currently doing things, but we can be doing more. i, for one, look forward to parsing apart those challenges and see what we at comcast and what all of us in the cable industry can do to advance that agenda. >> you have spoken a lot about parents, parents involvement in this. how do you integrate the parents with all of the new tools you all are talking about? they can't help their kids if they do not have access or don't understand. >> probably the most important thing about getting families connected is that you unlock the potential of

parents to help their children. especially in the world of rocket ships, most parents are-- rocketship, the organization i started -- most parents are very low income. they have never been on the internet. there is no way for them to engage in anyways with their teacher. connectivity is the first step and then information about what they're doing with the teacher and school. it's a huge change. >> where do you get the money to do that? >> that we were having this conversation five years ago, i would say i don't know. so many things have happened over the last several years that have blown those barriers down. the work that comcast and the cable industry has done to have very affordable programs for, activity, huge. the smartphone revolution we have not talked about as much year, but it's happening. a huge impact on very, very low income families. the devices and connectivity are getting in the homes, so now it's about the software and the tools.

>> valencia, you are on the been lines.you have involved in blended learning programs. how do you do what all of these people are saying you need to do? what do you worry about? students bring their smart phones in to class and they are involved in connecting to the internet that still need to connect to the teachers. >> our roles are changing. we are no longer teachers but havingtators for learning. the broadband within the classroom, it is whetting the appetite of students and learning has become quite atypical. -- learning has become quite reciprocal. as i'm teaching or instructing, they are teaching me and we're finding out information where they're going home and teaching their parents and it's a community working together and moving forward. that's what's happening within the community. >> mr. secretary, you have talked about digital textbooks and how that's going to be the next thing.

can you explain to all of us what it means for our students, our schools, and how cable would be involved. >> it's fascinating that we are still spending $9 million per 7, 8, 9 billion dollars a year on textbooks. tough economic times, not a new influx of money, so we're looking at how we can do things differently and stop doing things. we have states that are on seven-year adoption cycles. every seven years, they buy a new science, then english, etc. we know information is changing by the minute. the fact we're spending so much money on something that is so outdated makes no sense to me whatsoever. >> why are are we doing it? >> it's the way we have always do things. we change way too slowly. we are challenging state and education leaders to take the textbook money and put it into this conversion. the school district revisited in north carolina they are 100 out

-- the school district in north carolina, mooresville, 100 out of 115 in terms of per person funding. they are second or third highest performing, much better than the resources that they have. seven or eight years ago, they have the vision to put all of their money into technology, teacher training, engaging families. much higher graduation rates, test scores going up very quickly. we need to take those kinds of examples and make them the norm rather than the exception. we have 15,000 school district in this country and we are not at scale. >> if i can? i think the secretary would agree that digital textbooks does not necessarily mean it's take the old textbook and put it in electronic form as a pdf. with electronic textbooks, you can make the lessons more vibrant and understandable. take a lifetime network and what

they do in the education feeds, which stays with the vibrant --cational content.nbc learn i've seen some amazing learning modules into which actual video clips of the news has been in it's not just saving the money but dramatically improving the quality and making them more engaging for the students, more interesting, and improving educational quality. it is a place where we can all be partners and where we has a cable industry can participate in this revolution in a fairly seamless way to really advance the needle on quality of education and learning in >> john, you are nodding. >> the secretary move the entire system. the other thing that's going on that i think is really helpful

is that teachers are taking it on themselves to figure out how to adapt to this new world. as they do that, what i saw in rocket ship is teachers coming up with ideas on how to use the tools but no administrator, no secretary of administration would ever think of it because they are with the kids every day and can come up with better ideas. there is also a grassroots part of this thing where this may ultimately be a bigger change than anything we can do from the top down. let's see how that goes. >> you have said the model for selling the technology to schools is totally broken. >> completely. >> can you talk about that? >> the secretary may disagree with me, but schools are possibly the worst single buyer of any industry group there is. extremely low funded, extremely long sales cycles.

any company in the space that survives shifts all of this money from r&d to sales and marketing. 70% goes toward sales and marketing and the products are terrible. our industry has gotten what it has gotten, but the line on the rise and is that we are beginning to have a consumer business and learning. 2 billion kids come online over the net over the next 10 years, before it only made sense to sell products to schools, maybe there is a consumer market. that will be a much more rational -- >> i agree. the furtheragree. difficulty historically has been the dysfunctional marketplace, where we had every state had different standards, different goalposts. it was hard to take to scale what was working. now a lot of courage at the state level. 46 states and d.c. have raised standards.

having a high bar for everyone and a common high bar creates a level playing field where people can compete and innovators can get out there. ideas rise tobest the top. it's a huge opportunity going forward that literally has never existed in the history of education. >> our children are going to use the technology that's in there. let's be proactive and make it educational. i'm doing standards in the classroom as well as my colleagues across the country. i very what i do based on the needs of the student, but the standards are still there. >> can you talk about the evidence that this is actually working in the classroom? it sounds fabulous, kids using their smart phones to learn, but how do we know that it's working? >> we are not at scale and we need to continue to improve and not rest on our laurels, but just to give you a few examples, this is a district that is

significantly outperforming the state. never exclusively in part due to access to technology. you have many schools where they are doing some really creative things. a school i talked about in detroit, one of the worst, which tells you something historically, we are seeing students being engaged in their own learning in very different ways. we have a lot of hard work ahead of us, but there are enough early indicators saying this is transforming how they learn, how they teach. it's connecting parents and very powerful ways and i'm very convinced we need to get there faster than we have been. >> the one thing we really learned at rocketship is knowing more about a student really helps you teach them

better. one of the things that technology gets, you are collecting data on what are they doing well, what are they not doing well, so it helps you to figure out later on in the classroom, ok, this child is really struggling in this area, let me help them with that instead of something they are doing well. of course you run your business based on data, but education has been run in the classroom without data for the last 100 years. that's a huge change that we are now able to collect and use data for instruction proactively. >> i think you almost go back to your first question. we have not made enough progress at scale in the technology space, and the classroom, at home to be able to have reliable data. like john said and he, anecdotally, as i have traveled the country with the internet essentials program and have met with hundreds of teachers, i will tell you that teachers are constrained by the inability of

their students to access technology at home. teachers have said to me, we even have technology in the schools and i'm always torn whether to assign homework that requires the work to be done at home because out the kids in class can do it and half cannot. --because he have half the kids in the class that can do it and half that cannot do it. they are so grateful about the existence of a program that at least provides more ubiquitous coverage and increases their flexibility about what they can teach in the classroom to use that is not even adequate technology tools being provided to the fullest of their intent. anecdotally, there is just no doubt in my mind that it makes a difference. >> i will give our front-line person the last word here about what you are seeing in the classroom and your crystal ball priorities for the next few >> the students come to

school. knowing there is technology in the classroom, they are able to take ownership of what they are learning and how they are learning. also, we are giving them the parameters. they own it. a few years from now, i see students coming ready for teachers in the door. are you here yet? what time are you going to school? just to get in and work on something. not a game, but something academic. we are broadening the world of our children. we are taking it out of the neighborhood and we're actually beginning to own the world and that is what technology is going to do. >> thank you all very much. thank you. >> please welcome the moderator for today's content creation

panel, once again, west coast news editor for "entertainment weekly," lynette rice. executive producer for "desperate housewives," mark the executive producer of "breaking bad" and "rectify," mark johnson. and the creator, executive producer, and show runner of weisberg.cans."joe >> i am privileged to moderate the first-ever show runner panel at this convention. let's hope there will be more.

i need to go right to the juicy stuff. you just left a show with for complicated women. why are you jumping into a new show with four new women? >> that is a good question. i love writing women. it is not more complicated than that. i find women on television really work. i got my start being dixie carter's personal assistant when she was on "designing women." my first show was "the golden girls." i did desperate and now i'm doing this one. i love getting gals together and talk. it's something i understand. i find them to be endlessly entertaining. i don't mind the complications, as you said. >> i should probably give you time to explain what your new show is about. >> it is called "devious maids."

it is about the women working in beverly hills for some really crazy rich people. it is about their lives. a very intimate relationship between people who work in the home and the employers, and how that workplace is different from any other workplace because of what the people who work there are exposed to. certainly when i was working for how holbrook and dixie in their home in bel air, you get exposed to different things. you become part of the family in a weird way. their trials and tribulations become yours. the format was brought to me from mexico, and i thought i had a unique perspective on this because i was "the help" at one time and now many years later i have folks working for me. i had a lot to say about that world. i thought it would be fun. the show has turned out really well, and it premieres a week from this sunday, and i am looking forward to folks getting to take a look at it.

>> this is a question for both marks. you started your career with television, creating content for broadcast. what were your early perceptions about content on cable and creating for cable? >> i have come from a future world. .-i come from a feature world i have been producing movies since the 1980's. barry levinson did 11 movies with me. that was my perspective. the first tv i did was actually on cbs, a show called "l.a. doctors" and then "the guardian." mostd not know about cable. peoplefeature i was working with had no idea what the possibilities wherein there is not a person in that world is not desperately want to get involved in tv, primarily cable.

>> how about you? >> i got started 24 years ago when there were only four networks. fox had come into being. you know, that was what i did for the last 23 years and this past july, i started doing devious for lifetime and that is my first experience with cable. what cable means now is something completely different than what it meant a few decades ago. even the most casual viewer in television, you can see the most exciting work is being done on cable. that is where the buzzworthy shows come from. every once in a while the network puts on something that gets attention. they are so hungry for viewers and they are taking risk. the safest thing you can do is take risks and that's what's going on there. i am a really fun world.

certainly glad i joined the fray. >> the safest thing you can do is take risks. a good quote.what is your perception? you started with "damages," >> i have only been working in television for five or six years. i cannot honestly say i got involved because it was more interesting. it was more lifestyle. i talked to my agent about what would be a better place to work in and he talked about what it was like to try to do 23 episodes on a broadcast network. we spoke about this backstage, the grind. i don't think i could survive not really having any kind of a break, working long hours year- round. doing it for eight years, i don't think i had it in me. then he started describing cable. you could do 13 episodes, have a couple of months all off. like being back in school.

right now i'm on hiatus from my show and that's why i'm finally in a good mood. if you had to see me two months ago, i was a different person, scowling all the time, exhausted. that was it for me. >> i asked how many episodes yet done of "breaking bad," and you said about close to 60. we did 180 on desperate housewives and i was much thinner and had much more hair when we started. it's incredible, the amount of time and effort because you get two weeks off in may and that's it. plotting thestart next season. it may be different if you are doing a procedural, but the intense plotting that goes into doing a soap opera, the workload is just overwhelming. for people who really watch my show, you can feel it around episode 14 where stuff starts to not make sense?

i have run out of story at that point. [laughter] then i usually try to get it all together, like episode 21, before it all ends. that's one reason why i'm so impressed about what people can do on cable. literally, you look at some of these shows -- and by soap i mean a continuing drama -- you get to do deeper, more sophisticated, complicated work on cable because you have more time. some people can really pull it off on the network. a show like "desperate," you think it might be compelling and then you go, ok, i was wrong. then maybe next season it will be better. with cable, when we started "devious," i had every episode planned out and i'd never had plottedh "desperate."--

out before we started production. they really allow the creators to have a vision from beginning to end and i think the potential is there for the work being better. the potential is there. >> let's talk about the difference between the two because the perception of cable is that the there is so much more freedom you can say and do what you want. how real is that perception? >> every episode is submitted to people at the network to tell us what is ok and what's not. i do notliterally say -- know what sense it makes. >> you cannot really say that here either. [laughter] just so you know. >> have you found this? >> different standards, certainly with "breaking bad" and "rectify." there are some rules we have to

adhere by. we are constantly in a battle. the rules are more lax, but at the same time, there are certain things we cannot do. there are different versions of all of our episodes, i think, that are slightly better than the ones who air. >> i know there is a certain amount of bartering. if i take out this butt shot, can i add the shower scene? is that what is happening now on cable? do you find yourself bartering? >> i'm still in a network mode of broadcast standards that my experience is that they have not given me a correction yet. i'm pretty well aware of what i'm allowed to do. you get pretty good after a lifetime on the networks. you can do provocative ideas, like we have a scene where a woman is undressing and so you kind of see a touch more

cleavage than you would on the network, but we did not go so far that it would be a problem for cable. you're always finding that line. i tend to be a little conservative in how i approach some of it. literally "desperate was quote was turned down -- we handed the pilot to hbo and i heard back from one of the executives was that it was not enough. there was no nudity. the language was tame. it was racy for abc, but not for cable. the kind of depends upon who you are as the creator and what you are doing. i would imagine breaking bad, dealing with drugs, is an issue. the very idea there is potentially more dangerous than some of the stuff i do, which is more personality and character based things.

do they stop you from a lot of drug ideas? >> thematically, we have total liberty. it comes down to language, nudity, and to a certain degree violence, although we have certainly done things on "breaking bad" you could never do on a network. >> the only violence on "desperate housewives" was really behind the scenes. [laughter] with all of this liberty, there is a certain risk. you get an dramatic trouble. because you can do almost whatever you want, you start to think, the audience will love if we have this much sex or violence. you start to cross that line. into gratuity, which you don't want to do. no one else is watching you really. >> let's talk about budget. there is the perception that an cable maybe you don't have as much money. if you wanted to stage a tornado or crash a plane, could you do it? >> i watch television completely differently than before i was iting.i do not really enjoy

anymore. i am thinking, how much did that cost? "game of thrones" i am like "who is paying for that?" ey" -- i thought the guy was going to crash -- and then you see the car with the arm sticking out, and i was like, it was to expensive to stay to the crash. you could do anything, you decide to find ways to do it that are less expensive. i do not think that we don't ever have to not do them, but we have to find ways ways that do not cost as much. >> they give you a set amount of money. so if you're going to do that which costs of this, you have to find the cost for it. i'm times you decide you're going to put money into this episode, a tornado or whatever natural disaster and then then these stories are going to take

place in the same room for a few episodes. [laughter] you wonder why they are always in the bedroom? that's why. there was an earthquake in two episodes. and that is part of the job of the show runner-creator-writer. it is just finding what creative ways to spend the money, the best way to do it. and it's easier to do, again, going back to if you have time. if you have time, you can do some really great spotting and planning, so it's all possible, but like i said, it's a little bit easier on cable. >> and you do have the time if you're only doing 13 episodes a season. it is so much harder when you are doing network television. once the train starts, it does not stop. you cannot take the time and look at how you overcome a problem. mark is absolutely right. you have the time. do we have money battles? of course we do. but then we have the right amount of money to make our show and that is what we write to.

when we come up with an obstacle, something we have not been able to do, we either do as mark says and do a bottle episode or we find some imaginative way to cover it. >> as a viewer, it is such a giddy time because there is so much creative, gritty, edgy content on cable. do you have a fear now that there will be so much in the market is so saturated that they will just look like there's another diving competition show somewhere.-- that they will look fare.e mindless is it too much of a good thing? >> i don't think we have to worry about people leaving us for a diving show. [laughter] at the end of the day -- i was very lucky with "desperate," but the interesting thing is it was always about something, the frustrations of the modern woman who has chosen to be a wife or a mother. the idea was always the strong part of it.

whether you saw marcia cross wearing a teddy, that could be slightly provocative but it was the idea that people came for, why the characters resonate. there will always be shows that maybe try to spice it up with language, violence, nudity. at the end of the day, what did the show creator, the writers have to say that is the major selling point? as long as someone is doing a show -withully with a rocket of ,rovocative ideas there will always be room for people to say provocative things they have observed about society. i do not think we run the risk of running out of those. nudity, swearing, violence are great but they are so ubiquitous. the ideas have changed and that is what will really determine who comes to your show, enough people relating to what you want to talk about. >> i have to ask you about "the walking dead." a cable show can get pretty huge

ratings. is that putting some undue pressure on you with your shows? >> no, no. not at all.[laughter] yeah, i think it is. even in relation to her last question about how to get an audience when there are so many good shows out there, popular shows, i worry about it a lot. i watch the twitter feed when "the americans" are on. and they say tonight i'm watching this, this, and this. how many people can watch television all night long every night? there seem to be a fair number, but there are just too many good shows and i do not know how you get enough of an audience, high enough ratings for enough good shows. i worry about it a lot. >> numbers are always in the back of your mind. the truth of the matter is that the beauty of cable is that you

don't need those huge numbers to be a success. i come from the feature world where reopening weekend means everything in the beauty of what we do now, as long as you have interesting characters and good, compromising situations and you label it with a lot of irony, you will have an audience. you will have an audience that >> areustify your being. you sure? >> positive. trust me. >> marc cherry, mark johnson, joe weisberg, thank you for joining us. >> i know we are heading near the end of the show, i just wanted to come out and say i hope you agree that this has

been an extraordinary few days. [applause] on monday, we made a promise. we told we would give you a glimpse of the future, and i think we have. the future of ultra high-speed broad and, new cable platforms connecting to the cloud that will provide delightful new experiences for consumers coming to a home near you. you heard a challenge for the secretary of education, with whom we hope to work to meet his needs, and we are beginning to pay a debt by helping our veterans find new career opportunities as they hang up their uniforms and join us in the civilian world. we have impacted the lives of many young people who have come as millennials to be a part of the show. on behalf of the staff of the national cable and telecom association, the best in washington, the board of directors of our wonderful association, i want to thank you. it's been an honor and a

pleasure to put the show on for you and i look or were to seeing you next year.>> and i look forward to seeing you next year. >> next, "q&a" with the senate historian richard a. baker and live at 7:00 a.m. your calls" -- comments on "washington journal." than the u.s. house of representatives returns from recess and begins with general speeches. >> congress returned today from a weeklong fourth of july recess. both the house and senate meet at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the house will work this week on spending for energy and water projects next budget year. the senate will also work on federal spending, but have not announced what fortune they will be debating next. also pending in the senate, federal subsidized student loans which expire july 1. you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate on c- span2.

>> no man needs a strong partner, an honest partner, more than the american president on the sheltered and cocos and as he is and what harry truman called the great white prison. what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews, that those presidents with brave the spouses willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy, those presidents have a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. had pat nixon been able to cut through her husband's paranoia come a watergate may have been avoided. but pat had long since given up on her husbands -- on her husband by the time they reached the white house. they were leading virtually separate lives, as you will see in my portrayal of this saddest of all presidential couples. i don't give my husband advice, pat was quoted as saying,

because he doesn't need it. is there a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or her best? m as we continue our conversation on first ladies, we talk about presidential marriages and how the first ladies have helped shape american history. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this week on "q&a," richard baker discusses "the american senate: an insider's history." the book was co-authored with the late journalist, neil mcneil. >> richard baker, senate historian emeritus, author, co-author of the american senate, a brand new book. an insider's history with neil mcneil and richard a. baker. how did you get together with neil mcneil and do the book? >> neil mcneil is one of the gigantic figures who not only do

they work as "time" magazine's chief congressional correspondent for 30 years, came to the hill in 1949. he retired in the mid 1980s, he went to work on what he hoped would be a quick one-volume history of the senate. and he spent 17 years trying to write that and finish it up. needless to say he came by our office, the historical office on numerous occasions. we got a habit of going and having a lunch from time to time. we had wonderful conversations. and near the end, he passed away in 2008. and it was clear he was probably not going to finish it. and so he was -- you know, he -- basically he said, okay, this is it. he had the oxford university press agreed to publish the book. sent it out the the viewers. i was one of the anonymous reviewers, got it, read it. this is going to be a 700-page book. didn't know when to start writing as happens with a lot of

dedicated authors. and so my review said, this was a great book lurking in the 700 pages. but some needs to carve it out. and he died short shortly there after and oxford turned to me and said, how would you like to be the guy to carve it out. that's how i got involve in this project. >> how much did you have to write yourself? >> about 20% of the book. he had 250,000 words. my job, all they wanted was 150,000. i boiled it down to 120,000 of his words and added 30,000 of my own words as well as, what, 1400 footnotes and extensive bibliography and, you know, i knew what i was getting into for three years down the road. and, indeed, it's been every bit as challenging as i thought it would be. great fun and very satisfying. >> give us a specific on something that you thought had to be changed?