debate for viewer reaction, calls, tweets and postings. on h the debate live or demand using desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage of the debate on your phone with free radio app. features interviews with the nation's leading first lady historians. each chapter offers brief of 45 presidential spouses and archival photos from their lives. , now ladies in paperback

available at your favorite bookseller and also as an e-book. here on c-span, we are live in madison, wisconsin where paul ryan is set to speak to a group of college republicans. the los angeles times reports that the speaker may no longer be willing to stump for donald trump but remains eager to make the case for an unnamed clintonan to be hillary -- beat hillary clinton. beneath allll say ae ugliness remains -- some of theat' statements you will hear from paul ryan today at this event with college republicans in madison, wisconsin. the speaker announced that kevin

cramer will do this week's gop media address, the congressman from north dakota. that wasro trump critical of ryan's approach to trump this week. kevin cramer releasing a statement saying my constituents tell me their greatest frustration is the overreach of the federal government. is as why the better way solution based agenda that can help get the government out of the way. whatbetter way platform is speaker ryan and a number of republicans have been promoting throughout the end of the summer and into the fall. we will likely hear a good bit about that as well. waiting for paul ryan in madison, wisconsin. about to get underway, life.

live.ut to get underway, [no audio] >> while everyone is still waiting, we will have paul ryan ine once he gets underway -- the meantime, you look at campaign 2016 from today's "washington journal ." to talk about the millennial vote. is.nd viewers what mic.com it is a new site for millennials. we have about 30 million readers and cover news, politics am a technology, health, science, arts and culture, music,

identities so issues of race, ethnicity, sexuality. the entire gamut of topics. host: who are the millennial voters? how many are there? millennials are generally -- there are different measures -- they are between the ages of 18-34. there are about 69 million millennials who are eligible to vote which is an important number. that brings them right up to about the same number as the baby boomers which is pretty germanic. showing thatalso 46% of eligible millennials voted in 2012 compared to 50% in 2008. will they turn out and buy what numbers? guest: that's the question. that's what all the campaigns are looking at hard right now. question -- there

was excitement around barack obama in 2008 and in 2012, things got quieter, and we have seen an upsurge again at least in the primary stage of the election particularly around bernie sanders in the democratic primary. it remains to be seen if millennials will turn out again for the general election or if they will figure they are not really sure if the candidates appeal to them or if they will write someone in or stay home. it's not clear yet but everybody is gunning for that vote which is important. host: who is winning it right now? who is winning the millennial vote? guest: it's interesting, hillary clinton was going to have a big push to win over it the young people who supported bernie sanders in the primary. there was a so-called bernie or bust movement where many people set if it was not going to be bernie, it was not going to be

anybody and they would not vote for hillary clinton. those numbers seem to be moving in her direction that there is a substantial number of young voters who say that they might be interested in a third-party choice such as gary johnson or jill stein. they say the major party system and does not suit their interests and they are looking for someone different. host: what about bernie sanders saying to his supporters saying that you need to support hillary clinton and you need to vote for a third-party candidate because she and i are more in line on the policy and we cannot have donald trump in the white house? is that argument working? becauset's interesting ironically, a lot of the young people who were energized by the bernie sanders revolution first got into politics by hearing bernie sanders tearing down hillary clinton during a very

bitter primary. >> all of this available on www.c-span.org. speaker ryan: good to see you guys. how are you doing? [applause] speaker ryan: it is great to be here with all of you in madison. i know i'm taking a political risk here. ohio is a battleground state. but the buckeyes are going down tomorrow night, aren't they? [applause] politics is a team sport, too. we cannot do what we do without all the time and effort given to our cause and all of our candidates. whether it is sending my gallagher to the house or sending ron johnson back to the senate, what each one of you do ines such a difference and

an election as critical as this one, it will make all of the difference. i want to get right to the heart of things today. election has taken some dark, sometimes very dark turns, which is exactly why i aink it's important we take step back and reflect on what this election is ultimately all about. lies a all the ugliness long-running debate between two governing philosophies. one in keeping with our nation's outing pitbulls like freedom and equality and the other seeks to replace them. at this time, i would like to invite you to reflect on this choice we are facing here, right now, as fractured and polarized as this country is, a vast majority of americans, seven out of 10 agree on something when a

mental. that's fundamental. that our country is on the wrong path. we have a chance to start solving our country's problems. we have a chance to save this country from decline and send it on the right path. insult -- aliberty path with liberty and self-determination. , we don't just decide who are leaders will be. we get to choose what kind of country we will have for years to come. and the kind of america we want is confident and determined. our allies trust and enemies fear the america we want. the america we want is a land of opportunity driven by the individual spirit. you don't just live your life, you lead your life. you don't just get by, you get ahead and make the most of your potential.

the america we want is a place where work is rewarded and successes of our earned -- successes are earned. government exists to serve the people. instead of lecturing us, our leaders listen to us. they offer positive solutions to tackle our problems and we put allsometimes those ideas on paper and we put them on a website named better. gop. i'm told that it looks great on any mobile device. this is the america we want. this is our party's vision for america. to hillary clinton and her party offer the people? they want an america that does not stand out. they want an america that is ordinary.

there is a gloom and grayness two things. -- to things. the driving forces the state. cold andled by a unfeeling democracy that replaces original thinking. the government twists the law and the constitution itself to suit his purposes. it's a place where liberty is always under assault. where passion, the very stuff of life is extinguished. that is the america hillary clinton wants. if given control of washington, if given control of congress, it is the america she will stop at nothing to have. america they want is remade in the mold of what we call liberal progressivism. liberal progressivism needs no introduction here in madison. [laughter] speaker ryan: right?

it's imported from socialist europe, it got its start here in madison, wisconsin. was part of a movement to address some very legitimate grievances of the people. busting trusts, ending patronage , good reforms with good intentions. the theory was that if we enlarge the state, if we stock the bureaucracy with experts and technocrats who will decide what is best for the collective, we will be better off. in his time, the idea had some appeal. theade little sense in nation founded on the distrust of power. long for thise theory to be pulled back into its collective roots. our betters became obsessed with bigger and bigger government. andring constraints

arbitrarily picking winners and losers. in the last eight years, there's been one long liberal progressive experiment. time and again, we've been told if we just spend more money, create more programs to live under, more rules to live by, put one more win on the palace of government, this will solve all our problems. after all that, we feel less safe and less secure. less free and less prosperous. as government grows more unaccountable, there is less faith and less trust and that is because liberal progressivism simply does not work. con.the longest it preaches to us about fairness but stuffing free society. perhaps it should come as no surprise that we are in the weakest economic recoveries and the great depression. people are working longer hours for less.

we are supposed to accept this as the permanent new normal. just look at yourselves. all the work you've put into getting this great high-quality education right here in madison, all of it leading to the moment where you can strike out on your own. and it's about as tough as it's ever been to find a good, decent paying job. startthat will help you tackling your debt and get you on the right. it hurts the very people it is claiming to protect. now more than 94 million americans who are not just out of work, they are not even looking for work. nearly one out of three men over the age of 20 are not currently in the workforce. america's idol army. workersgeneration of

threatens to be wiped out by liberal progressive policies unless we ask, what becomes of these people, our fellow citizens? there may be no greater monument to liberal progressivism than our modern welfare system. it was created with good intentions. as part of the war on poverty come a charge to face a gripping social problem that after trillions of dollars spent, the needle has barely moved. our poverty rates are still higher than they were in the 1970's. i welfare system is designed to replace work not encourage work the technocrats measure success by how many programs we've created, not how many people we get out of poverty. the system does not adapt to you. it just pushes you along the conveyor belt from program to program.

it keeps people down instead of helping them break free. it goes against everything the american idea represents. this is what liberal progressivism is. a bad landlord that raises your rent but does not fix the heat. sure, they promise you all caps of upgrades but nothing changes. at least, not for you. maybe the folks on the top floor, but not for you. then, you are given no choice but to sign the same lease and so you are stuck with no way up, no way out. here's what you need to know about our political opponents. left does not just seek a continuation of the last eight years. they do not seek to further the liberal progressive experiment. they intend to make it into a reality. an arrogant, condescending and paternalistic reality. what are they proposing?

another stimulus package of more government spending. you would think the left would realize there is no money left for their schemes but apparently not. washington democrats are in the midst of proposing a record slew an onslaught from everything from overtime pay to retirement planning. our tax code may be one of the least competitive in the world but washington democrats propose a continuous stream of massive tax increases. want isca, the one they a machine of redistribution. for families looking for some relief from any relief from obamacare, they propose no cure. washington democrats want to expand obamacare and take us further toward government-run health care. hillarythe america clinton and washington democrats want. but it is not the america that we want.

we want an america that values disruption and animation. and a time when you can , you see your life this in your daily lives as millennials -- take uber and lyft and airbnb. one of the centerpieces of clintonomics is to crack down on these companies. in an age of diversity come it demands conformity and sameness. in traps people. it traps people in health care exchanges you can't navigate you cannot make heads and tails of the tax code unless you hire an army of lawyers. it's about limiting you. there's no room to run, no chance to grow. nor to fail, for that matter.

people are counted and sorted. casuallyow you can classifiable baskets of people as deplorable's. -- classify whole groups of people in a basket of deplorables. it's how her associates can so casually say this week that able fate, a whole church is severely backwards. this is the america that the left wants. if congress does not stand for this and a republican congress will not stand for this, they will hire unelected bureaucrats to do their bidding. the left, they are not challenging the system. they are reading the system.

-- reading the system. liberal progressivism is government by them, the elites. when hillary clinton's as we are all stronger together, she means we are all stronger if we are all subject to these rules. we are stronger if we give up our responsibility to one another and handed over to government. towe take away our ability achieve progress in our own communities. there is no strength in this, only hubris. only the arrogance to assume we are better off if we fall in line or bow down to our betters. that may be the kind of america w they want, but not the america we want. the america we want is about allowing people to flourish and thrive. that's why we are taking to the country able to agenda. this is what we want this election to be about. it better way that means less government and more freedom. less apathy and more ambition.

with that offers the best that liberty produces. we want to end the status quo in our welfare system. we want to reward work, make sure work always pays, give people the skills they need to 68 long-term -- succeed long-term. bordersto secure our and build a 21st-century military and confront radical islamic extremism. economy to live up to its potential and it starts with getting government out of the way. will make it easier to build things and develop our energy resources and start small businesses. we need to restore self-government. we need to make sure that we are writing the laws that we live under.

not unelected bureaucrats and washington, d.c. every major regulation should come before congress for a vote before it goes into effect. that is accountability. don't you think we ought to be living under the laws that we write for ourselves? of letting obamacare continue to drain us, we want to repeal it and replace it with real patient centered solutions. you should be able to choose the plan that best fits your situation and your budget. instead of letting our tax code's mother us, we want to get the irs out of our lives and lower taxes for hard-working people and make the tax code so simple that you can do your taxes on the form the size of a postcard. versionthe cliff notes of our agenda. that is the short version. the long version, the details p.e available at better.go

we are taking our country's principles and applying them to the problems of the day and giving people real solutions. this is the america we want. we do not just offer these ideas to kick up some to do list. we offer these ideas to get our fellow citizens a clear choice. to be positive and inclusive and bring people together to reclaim our founding pencils? or are we going to be overrun by liberal progressivism with more ?espair and more decline ec that is the choice before us. i know some people are voting to not make any choice at all. it is certainly easy at a time like this to get bogged down and let our fears overpower our hopes.

raise your gaze. there is far more at stake here than we realize. every single generation of americans has left the next generation better off. this is our legacy. this is america's post to the world. we stay on this current path, we will be the first generation to violate this unwritten compact. not act, we will not just lose our quality of life were standard of living, we will lose the spirit that makes america great in the first place andit hillary clinton wins she is given control of washington, if she is given it willof congress, not be long before we come to that precipice, but that does not have to happen. we can be done with the old ways. we can build the america we want. this is where you will make a crucial difference. are, theyl as ideas

are nothing without people who will stand up and put them to the test and say this is our vision, this is what we stand for. if you want to save this country, stand with us and join our cause. this is a fight for the next 25 days. this is what house republicans are offering. let's raise our gaze and rise to this challenge and make this moment hours. thank you very much for coming out today and on wisconsin. [applause] >> house speaker paul ryan talking to college republicans in madison, wisconsin. write publicly split from donald

monday, drawing a swift\-- ryan publicly split from donald trump on monday. read more at latimes.com. we will have coverage of donald trump this evening, he is in charlotte, north carolina. here on c-span, this evening, couple of state senate debates with the wisconsin debate between ron johnson and russ feingold. betweenda senate debate joe heck and catherine cortez, vying to replace harry reid. 8:00 and 10:00 tonight. live coverage on c-span. weekend, book tv brings

you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here's what's coming up this weekend. but tv is live from the 20 annual southern festival of books in nashville. 200festival features authors from around the country, our coverage -- begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. "strangers in their own land," " "truevineur hearts," phillips'"blood at the root." .n sunday, day two

featured authors included joseph eck, kelly oliver's "hunting girls," andrew marinus "strong inside," marjory wentworth, herb fraser and bernard powers'"we are charleston." rob talks about the cost of higher education in price." --ang the "paying the price." >> tuition and fees are less than half and sometimes even only 30% of the total cost of attending college. the real hangup that students

have are the needs to pay their rent and pay utilities and buy food. he cannot do those things the same way when they are in college because they need to spend time in a classroom. it's those things we saw trip them up. for the booktv.org complete weekend schedule. >> house speaker paul ryan is taking questions from college republicans in madison. we will take you back there live on c-span. principalen: take our conservative values -- we believe in those core principles that make this country great. those first, familiarize them and find out how to characterize it in today's language. how to apply it to today's experiences. that's why i talk about

customization with your mobile devices. that is liberty and freedom and self-determination and the free enterprise system. it's very important that when people are shouting at you, you will not win a shouting match because no one wants to listen when you are screaming at each other, but get back to the basics and apply these great innciples through your life your experiences and try to introduce your friends to these things and take the high ground. and freedom is cool. speaker ryan: it's pretty hard to defeat freedom. >> jake from milwaukee. where's jake? >> good morning. you talk about the better way agenda. how will you continue to pursue this if the senate is split or hillary is elected president? speaker ryan: it will not be as easy. , welfareix things reform, rebuilding our national

rewriting our regulatory system, restoring the separation of powers and replacing obamacare and entitlement programs and replacing the tax code. these will be extremely difficult and divided government. one reason we put this agenda out there, this is not what we can achieve with barack obama's divisive government. we have big philosophical differences. that's why just having more of the same stalemate is not a good option. reform or our budget, for example. all tax laws must start in the house of representatives. look at our tax reform. housete tax bills in the in certain ways so we maximize economic growth. we send that bill over to the the senate budget chair decides how we will consider that bill.

senateeep control of the and ron johnson wins reelection, a nice guy from wyoming is the senate budget chair, he helps us get these tax bills through. if we lose, you know who becomes the chairman? a guy named bernie sanders. --t's what were dealing with losing the senate makes it that much more difficult for us to even put a bill on the president's desk. that's what it so important that we keep the senate as well. >> there's not much of an option. speaker ryan: we will keep fighting for what we believe in, but we have to get things to the president's desk. the filibuster is frustrating enough as it is. not even bringing up a bill

would be even more frustrating. take from wisconsin rapids. -- kate from wisconsin rapids. k: thank you for joining us today. articulate our economic message in a clear and brief manner so that college , minorities and low-income individuals can see how our policies will benefit them? speaker ryan: you have to have good ideas. we do. look at how miserable the status quo is. look at the world poverty itself. that the war on poverty itself. take a look at the kinds of things we are offering. for instance, customizing welfare benefits. making sure we create upward mobility and economic growth.

you can talk about how bad the status quo is and how little opportunity we have because we are living under obama liberal policies. what we have right now is a flavor of what they want to continue doing. talk about what freedom and opportunity and upper mobility look like. our principles are, we want government to get out of the way so we can solve problems globally and solve problems in our community. we need people. every single person in this country is needed. we want to solve these problems together. is just left is saying have washington fix all that. people by trying, going in talking to people and chilling that we care.

we have principles that work. -- going and talking to people and showing that we care. povertythose great fighters and surround them and help them and amplify them. , right acrossy the street from st. luke's -- three years ago, they had 14 games. it was an ugly situation. 14 gangs, you can imagine the violence, the dropout rates, kids getting washed away in society. , local property fighters had let's try something else because they were trying more police, or cameras, more everything. they had a bunch of kids, young people who used to be in gangs who got redeemed, coming to the schools to be mentors to help

kids learn from their mistakes. they were 24/7 mentors. those 14 gangs are now gone. graduation rates are up, attendance is up, academics are up. the people in the committee have taken this violence free program and we are spreading it to other schools in milwaukee. there are some great folks in dallas doing this. that's what we believe in. that is an extension of our philosophy of rolling up our sleeves and solving a problem locally. that cannot happen if you are waiting for washington to solve on these problems. it's a beautiful picture of what we believe in achieving so that -- thedy can reach american idea is a simple idea.

the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. we need to make sure that idea is believable and true for everybody. only by each of us taking these ideas and advancing them can we achieve that. kelly from the state of georgia. kelly: what is your best advice for republican college students on liberal campuses like madison? speaker ryan: have i showed you this -- shown you this? a personality contest, don't talk about the latest winter storm. what you believe and

why you believe it and why you think it's important to keep our country's core principles, stick to the constitution. you have to have an agenda. the kind of election we want to have is saying we have ideas and solutions, let's go when this. that's what scott walker and this state legislature did. here are the problems, here's the solution. that's what i would say. don't walk yourself into some bizarre personality contest but get into an ideas contest. to furnish you with ideas that actually solve problems. >> we have john from milwaukee. there he is.

john: what are your main goals for the upcoming legislative session? speaker ryan: the way i used to run the budget committee, my goal is to get working on the economy. that means a budget which includes getting the budget under control -- i'm worried about the military about the hollowing out of our military. we have to reform the big structural drivers of our debt. we have to fix our military or we will have a role problem soon. i really want to get tax reform as quickly as possible. our tax code is arguably -- it is the worst tax system in the industrial world and it's causing us to lose a lot of jobs. , which here in --consin means lake superior we see countries like canada

taxing their business that 15%. ireland is at 12.5%. england is going to 18%. our corporations are taxed at 35%. nine out of 10 businesses are small businesses. they are taxed as high as 44.6%. that is killing american competitiveness. we have these goofy international tax laws that if a doesny makes overseas makes money overseas, they cannot bring it over here without a huge tax consequence. our tax plansays could create 1.7 million new jobs and add 10% growth to the economy. reform,et that gets tax gets the debt and deficit under control and gets our military what we need. i want to work on poverty and welfare. get this economy growing, get youinto an economy where

have good options, good jobs, good wages. it fixes a lot of problems. let's also work on the people stuck in party, who are stuck in this poverty trap and get them into the economy. we will get the revenues we need to get the kinds of things we need to do at the federal level. reasserting separation of powers is one of the critical goals of 2016. >> if hillary gets the

presidency, what are the republicans plans to deal with the implosion of obamacare? speaker ryan: this is going to be a real problem. declare this current state of health care and death spiral. or and sicker people are joining the exchange, healthier people are not. the premiums go up and up just to cover the costs. is thehealth care biggest health insurance company in the country, from your hometown, they pulled out. they cannot make obamacare work. aetna pulled out. with these actuaries at blue cross blue shield and they told me the law is failing two years ahead of schedule. they all saw this coming.

nextis going to have been year is much higher premiums, much higher deductibles and no choices. kaisers and 31% of counties in america, you only get one choice and obamacare. next year, it will get even worse. we have a plan for this. do is advance a solution to replace this failing obamacare system with real patient centered health care. we can have a system in this country where people can get affordable health care rates, more choices, more freedom, lower prices, better quality and we can do it so we have the kind of aid we need for people who and a system for people with pre-existing conditions. we can do all of these things without having a government takeover like we have right now. and you can see

exactly what were talking about. this is what we will present to the next president. this law is failing, it is not working, here is a solution and here is what it should be replaced with. we can fix this problem. we can get lower costs, more quality health care, better access everybody and we can deal you a legitimate problem -- get breast cancer in your middle 40's, you don't want to go to the poor house to get your health care. we can do this without a huge government takeover. we intend to put the solution on the desk of the president. that will be a massive fight. the left wants to double down on government run health care. they don't want our patient centered solutions. they don't want more insurance competition. they want the government to run it all. when you say that something like this is a right, like they claim

health care is now, that means the government decides for its help that they get to tell you where, how, why and under which circumstances you have to exercise that right. so much power away from you, from us and gives it to the government and look at these predictable results. on the is to put president's desk a plan to fix all this . >> that is not a choice. one thing is not a choice. one last person we've got here. that is mitch a. mitch: in what ways can we do students or the larger electorate as a whole better market to undecided individuals everything the republican congress has done in the last two years? speaker ryan: i did not ask him

to ask this question, by the way. --e's what i decided to do find where the common ground exists and get those things done. we had a real infrastructure problem in this country. just go down i-94. we have some real issues there. we have a bipartisan infrastructure built. we have a long-term highway bill so we can start building these projects. we have an education problem. you ever heard of no child left behind or common core? we got consensus to ban common core and replace no child left kind and get control back to our states. we have the biggest evolution of -- our trade laws were not working like they should. we had other countries taking advantage of our lack of enforcement of our trade laws and taking advantage of us and

cheating on their own agreements they agreed to. this is something i specifically worked on. we rewrote our customs loss and export laws and so we can enforce our trade laws. we think that, first time in 40 years. we have this problem where farmers and small businesses had no idea what their taxes were going to look like by the end of the year because we had its applicability in the tax code. decisionsportant permanent for workers and farmers of they can invest. we got a lot of things done. , there is huge issues in this country that are going unsolved. the reason it's going unsolved is because our two parties -- it's not that the other side are bad people, i just think they are wrong. they're going in the wrong direction very quickly. we are trying to win an election

by showing that we have better solutions, better ideas. if we can win that kind of election, we have earned the to put the of time solutions in place in 2017 and get our country back on the right track. a country where seven out of 10 americans think the countries on the wrong track that's what i would encourage you to make true that of the people, your friends, your colleagues, your classmates, make sure they know what it is we are actually talking about. what it is we believe in. turn the tv off and get on better.gop and look at what were proposing. >> thinks, everyone, for coming out. you actually have to go out and vote. you actually have to win elections to get the stuff done. 8, election is november early voting is already happening. speaker ryan: thank you very much. thanks, everybody.

[applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ ♪ [applause] [applause] [no audio]

>> speaker ryan gavels the house back into session on november 14. six days after the election on

november 8. president obama will be out stumping for hillary clinton next thursday. her campaign announcing today that the presidents previously scheduled appearance last wednesday in miami gardens was scrapped due to hurricane matthew. he will be out next thursday in south florida. the president was also forced to postpone a plan speech in tampa last week. the president was in cleveland campaigning for hillary clinton. we will show you that at 6:15 eastern. we take you live to a donald trump rally, he is in charlotte, north carolina. that campaign event on c-span2. we continue with state race debates this evening, two of them for you, the wisconsin senate race between ron johnson and former senator russ feingold. against catherine cortez, all of that live tonight

on c-span. watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. our live debate preview from the university of nevada las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. 8:30 p.m.ng is at eastern and the 90 minute debate is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for viewer reaction, including your calls, tweets and facebook postings. and watch the debate live using onr phone or tablet www.c-span.org. download the free c-span radio app. now to a discussion on biological threat preparedness come outlining strategies for protecting the public and the agriculture industry from bioterrorism and infectious diseases. this is cohosted by the bipartisan policy center at

kansas university. it's about two hours. >> i want to welcome all of you to today's event entitled "bio agro defense policy, america's food supply and health at risk." this brings back memories of my first task as a public servant at hhs in 2005. number one, work on medical countermeasure distribution in the event of a widespread anthrax event and number two, to help develop the hhs influenza plan. in response to the threat of highly pathogenic age five and influenza, bird flu.

of 2015 bipartisan report the blue-ribbon panel on bio defense reported that the nation still remains highly vulnerable to biological threats, either intentional be at a logical terrorism or unintentional, be it nature itself. a critical consideration in the national dialogue on bio defense includes the need to protect america's food supply. and it's $1 trillion agricultural sector. today's event will highlight the importance of agriculture and bio security and highlight potential strategies, tactics and policy solutions to ensure the conclusion of agriculture into bio defense for the next administration and congress. we are very fortunate today to

have two outstanding panels of national private sector leaders and public servants to lead our discussion. at this time, i would like to introduce the moderator of our first panel, are inspiring leader here, founder and president of the bipartisan policy center to get started. >> thank you for raising the bar. welcome, everybody. we had a really interesting conversation -- a conversation we think is not happening enough here in washington. i will introduce our panelists and get into heaven of conversation among our leaders and have some q&a. ,irst, to my immediate left senator tom daschle. well known just about everybody in this room. he has a somewhat insatiable desire for public policy. he has led i don't know how many initiatives here -- he's also a

member of the blue-ribbon panel on bio defense. he has some very important insights. really a critical voice in the conversation about how to make washington work better. bookently wrote a that she recently wrote a book ande recently wrote a book an article -- we will talk about the obligations and opportunities for governance around these issues. welcome general to a tremendous record of national service encourage. mightst courageous event have been taking over the interim presidency of kansas

state university. he is a four-star general. his many a accomplishments, he was also awarded the presidential medal of freedom. rogers be joined by mike best -- i will introduce him when he joins us. get the conversation started, i thought it would be useful to ask you to reflect on the broad question of why is agricultural security important, why is it a national security issue? why did we convince you today to come here and talk about it? >> thank you for those kind words. thank you for the plug for our book. that as well.

general, thank you for your commitment and extreme area effort you've made in this regard. effort you'very made in this regard. i'm flattered to be involved with such a distinguished panel this morning. i think these are issues that deserve the highest attention and most critical prioritization as we look at public policy in the context of national security. i don't think anyone disputes the importance of the issue. what i don't think has happened is we've given it the kind of attention that is so justly deserves. from a personal perspective, this is even more critical to me because of my own experience. 15 years ago this month that our country experienced a series of anthrax attacks, several people died. my office was the target of one

of those attacks. , very terribly difficult time for our country and people felt very vulnerable. that experience sensitized everyone to how enormously important this could be. thes majority leader at time. i was right in the middle of the aftermath of that. congressman rogers has just joined us. i was in the middle of the aftermath. i can say from personal experience, regrettably, frankly , that there was virtually no coronation -- coordination. a real conflicting set of recommendations on how to address the matter. it was just a very alarming experience to me to see how poorly prepared we were. that was 15 years ago. , we can say we've

made some progress. if you really think about it and you look at our preparatory position today, where the infrastructure is today, frankly, i think we are far off the mark with regard to where we need to be to avoid what happened 15 years ago. we are having many of the same discussions we did a decade ago, right now. we've hadyear period, the avian pandemic in 2007, 2015. we had h1n1 in 2009. we had ebola and 2014. we had zika this year. there's no doubt in my mind that it's just a matter of when, not if, the next natural or deliberate crisis will occur.

one of the most respected authorities on this issue in the country, and a friend of mine, said something that -- a congressional hearing earlier this year that i thought was right on the mark. tara said that she thought these natural events have to be used as preparation and practice for the deliberate ones. matter is, wee are not rooting for either. natural or deliberate. for the last couple of years, i've been involved with the bipartisan blue-ribbon panel on bio defense. issued our year we first report offering 33 action in three contexts,

short-term, medium-term, and long-term approaches to how we might address the circumstances. we address all the bioterror threats across the board. we drill down on a couple, including the biological threat to agriculture. as we analyze just what we ought to do with agriculture in particular, we focus on one idea that has so much merit. concept,he one health that we look at threats to animals and the environment and humans will tenuously and come off with a comprehensive plan. we said that it was so critical that we elevate the level of leadership around this whole issue much more effectively than we have in the past, and it would actually be the responsibility of the vice president try to somebody in the west wing has to be involved here. way to ensured a it is elevated and given the stature it truly deserves. we also felt that the importance creating some -- the

wherewithal to deal with this issue and the response and with realeriod medical applications that haven't been developed so far. as i look at what kansas eight has done and so admirably provided the kind of leadership they have in the blue-ribbon i'ml and the bpc, encouraged that we have elevated it. i'm encouraged that there is a call for higher priority. i'm encouraged that with this new administration, wherever that may be, that we will have an opportunity to build a broader context for this whole issue that we have right now. we have got to do one thing that we failed to do for the last 15 years. we have to move from rhetoric to action. anhave to find ways to put action plan into place. i'm hopeful we can talk about that today. it is a real pleasure to welcome our good friend to this

.iscussion mike with the representative of the eighth district of michigan the chairman2005, of the house committee on intelligence. he's been a leading voice on this issue for a number of years. he is the closest thing to a tv celebrity that we have here at the bipartisan policy center. we look forward to hearing you. >> thank you. it's good to be with you again. i think the last time was the middle of the night in a plane somewhere. you were kind enough to help me out. it's good to be with you on such an important topic. congressman rogers, always good to be with you. your insights are always much

appreciated. , on capitol to 9/11 hill, getting ready for a .onfirmation i got there just before the first tower was struck in new york city. time we were struck -- he's growing up some tea. he's a tea drinker and wanted me to share some of his great tea. we knew something was up. think about how we thought about threats to the united states prior to 9/11. there might have been somebody said, the way these non-nationstates actors, terrorists could impact us, they could hijack commercial airplanes or run them into buildings. nobody had thought of that. there might be somebody

somewhere who had thought about that. it had not risen to the level of caring aboutc. that particular threat. as he looked back, there were threats. at the time people were concerned about that kind of threat. for it.'t ready maybe we should have been, and we had to deal with the aftermath and we're still dealing with the aftermath. out a9, kansas state put report on homeland defense, food safety, security, and emergency preparedness program. that talks about the threat to animals, plants, and even terror. i was made aware of this report when i was chairman, i thought it was good work. since then not much has happened to change the landscape. the recommendations and the commission's report, the

not many,tions here, if any of them, have been acted on in a national way that makes us any safer from these threats. 9/11, we couldn't anticipate. maybe we should have. we know what the possibilities are. people around the globe are interested, particularly people who wish us ill. when we got into afghanistan, we discovered pretty quickly and some of the sites that al qaeda --e occupying, they were developed by weapons targeting food and american people and the list included six human pathogens, six livestock and poultry pathogens, and four crop pathogens. crops are often left out of this equation. this kind of a last thing people think about. line is that the

planning for some sort of terror event in the united states has been around for a long time. is, when you put in a system to deal with naturally occurring pathogens, you also help with the terror piece of it. it is something we ought to be doing in any case. we should have a heightened state of emergency about deterring the terror piece of it. remember what osama bin laden had said many times, and that is, their economic goal was bleeding america to the point of bankruptcy. goal.as there just recently one of the operational leaders of isis, recently killed by u.s. airstrike, declared

he said, this is what this isis leader said, the smallest action you do in the heart of their latest year to us and the largest action, and more effective and damaging to them. the beat goes on. if you know anything about the current threat from al qaeda, isis -- when they say things, it's because they are thinking about them, probably because .hey are planning them it's not if, it's when this will happen, and then, will we be prepared. working onries are this. russia continues to work on these weapons, certainly north korea and other countries as well. with recent technology to manipulate genomes and so forth, it's become a lot easier to develop these weapons. there are some off-the-shelf technologies that makes it a lot easier in today's world than it

has in the last decade. we aren't ready in this country. we aren't near ready enough. livestock examples will be handled in the second panel primarily, we think. we have the dean of dartmouth medicine -- that medicine college on campus today and she has personal experience with animal pathogens, diseases that transfer, and she will probably cover that when she talks to i would like to talk about two examples, crops. heat crops.a alongs because wheat, with rice, makeup 50% -- 40% of the caloric intake of the population. attacks on either one of them would have a deleterious effect for sure.

probably did not go unnoticed by many. blast exploded into bangladesh earlier this year. it can kill 100% of the crops. the bangladeshis are busy burning their crops, trying to eradicate it. the thought is it didn't get there intentionally, i came across the sea and across borders, probably in a container of foodstuffs, and finally made it to the wheatfields. wheat blast is something we work on at k state. there are some solutions being tested, but there probably won't forolution that fits all wheat blast. in afghanistan, usaid found these alkaloids mixed in with wheat flour samples. alkaloids, and what they do is affect us as humans.

they can cause hallucinations. they can cause neurological disease and amputations. back to thee go way middle ages. we have seen paintings in the middle ages that show that. examples of pathogens that can affect our , this $1 trillion and economy we have in this country, 15% of our gdp -- when people think about threats to food animals, food crops, they think -- that's just the ranchers and farmers' problem. are an important part of the food chain but in terms of numbers, they are a very small part of the numbers involved in the food chain. if you get to 15% of the gdp, this becomes significant for our country. kansas state, one of the fun things to see in manhattan, kansas, is four very large

construction cranes. you don't often see them in manhattan. there's huge construction cranes build theelping security facility there in manhattan. they're going to be pouring concrete for almost two years. it was part of the deepest hole i've ever seen and manhattan -- in manhattan and now it's being filled with concrete. we are going to hopefully see that come to fruition and we will continue studying these diseases and coming up with ways to protect ourselves. thematic diseases -- zoomatic diseases can transfer. really bad stuff. i will take you back prior to 9/11. some people thought a lot about this threat. 9/11 we were surprised.

this is been on the table for a long time, it's been talked about. the underops are talked about, under thought about peace of this. what violent extremists or terrorists want to do, they want to create in the populous pulace distrust of the governance. can you imagine a major outbreak of any of these diseases? crop -- food food animal, food crop diseases in the united states? there's going to be real impact in our diet but it can create an element of fear no matter how small, and it is something we need to be thinking about and preparing for. these are almost the perfect weapons. all the targets are relatively soft targets. there's no danger to the

perpetrator. cases they will not be injured by what they do. it will take some time to with our especially current surveillance methods, which are inadequate, and it will be very difficult to have attribution. in many ways, there's a perfect weapon. i will save the rest of my time for questions. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i expect you will not cheer us up. i talked a little bit about congress having recently been part of these discussions. how do you see this issue and where do you see opportunities to improve our situation? >> thank you. senator, good to see you again. this is a good time to bring in the drink carts. i don't know if it will get much better. if you look at what happened recently in syria, there was a recovery of a laptop computer by a senior operative who is command andsis

control. according to public reports, the information on that computer was concerning. it talked about a strategy for using warfare to further their aims and games. the reoccurring theme was that it's much easier to obtain a biological weapon that it is a nuclear weapon. and maybe they need to refocus the way they think about use of these kinds of weapons. of all the conversations we've had and the frustration i sensed from the senator who was at the front end of this, receiving end of this, and where we are today, and the lack of congress really, we have made some good efforts. we now have 160 different therapeutics, or vaccines that were developed, trying to make sure we can get rid of some of the valley of death and the development of vaccines and therapeutics and other things.

the pandemic preparedness bill, which -- both of these are bipartisan efforts. the only problem is people have lacked interest in funding its whole application of what it means. but we haven't done at the essence of this is married up what the threat is becoming and how we are dealing with the threat. we haven't done it. we have huge institutions across the government the deal with this in the -- notion of nuclear proliferation. it's well coordinated. we have the intelligence community, every aspect of the scientific community, doe, everyone is integrated, understanding the real threat of that weapon system in any form, either a small radiological dirty bomb, of to a full-blown nuclear explosion. we spent a lot of time, effort, and energy getting that command and control, putting the intellectual capability together, and then pursuing it worldwide where we find it with allies are on our own. we've done that.

we are all probably going to argue today, if we need to do that now with bio defense. the enemy is much more sophisticated than they used to be. if you think about the recent outbreaks at both of you have was studied, ebola by soviet scientists way back in as a weapon of opportunity. we saw it happen naturally in africa, and our reaction to it wasn't very good. we found out we didn't have a lot of options in reaction to it. send inng left was to the military for local hospital units and that created a bunch of problems in and of itself. thankfully, there were other things that happened that naturally took care of this problem. if it were to happen again today, i would venture to guess we are no better prepared than we were at the outbreak of ebola. we know for a fact that intelligence services and adversary scientists have worked on that as a weapon system.

we know for a fact that rice blast was the other one we knew -- kansas works on we last -- that was a weaponize system designed to deny their enemies of food. what do you do in military planning operations? you want to go after logistics first. if i can stop you from getting beans and bullets, i win. that all of that is real. the recent finding of that laptop computer is real. the sophistication of our of thery, the days monkey bar terrorists in small caps scattered across the middle east are gone. they have much better

capabilities. somebody is one day going to walk through the door that answers their million-dollar question. they have the right capability and the right understanding of how to process, developed, and deliver a biological weapon. it will happen, it's a matter of how we prepare to respond to it, and have we set ourselves up for being successful in either beating it, disrupting it, or reacting to it. and today, probably not. >> tricks for everyone. >> -- drinks for everyone. i was with the senator a few weeks ago and telling him what we were up to. he noted there were four things he cared deeply about. national security, agriculture, kansas, and the bpc.

me tok he was flattering be included in that list. he really feel so passionate about this. so, let's move into the what can we do about this. we understand there's not going solution.mple clearly the nation's motivating a lot of resources to protect ourselves generally from these kinds of threats. my first question is, why has bio security solution. clearly the not been on that priority list? have au indicated, we tremendous amount of architecture focused on the nuclear threat. is this just longevity? have we been thinking about nuclear weapons since the 40's? is this new, or is there some reluctance to engage this? >> a little bit of both, i think. we have subsets in the united states government that track

even the black market movement of nuclear materials. they are exceptionally good and over a period of decades they developed this expertise and that is integrated act in the intelligence and military community. there were real things they could see to work on. we knew at one time that north korea was trying to export at least components of nuclear programs to iran. we watch that happen. there were some intercepts of those materials along the way over a period of 10 to 15 years, same with countries like bangladesh and other places. threat, andy real it plugged into a very real architecture. that's an easy thing to do. it is important work. you don't want that material going anywhere. we just haven't had that. there are some really bright folks in the u.s. government to understand this threat very well that they can't go back and plug-in to this kind of operation, this kind of an integrated operation.

it's pretty hard to go to congress these days if we can't even get the pandemic readiness funded, and we know we have these problems. the bird flu took 25% of the birds in iowa. 25%.vent, imagine if this was a targeted event. we would be in some trouble in our food system. we don't have anything to plug into. what i think all of us are trying to say is, can we create of money -- same kind -- monitoring system and integrated. it will take a little bit of investment and rethinking of how we structure biodefense in that broader intelligence and military community. -- et's turn to >> mike pretty much covered it. when you research the literature currently -- i did a google

search for threats to our agricultural infrastructure the last couple of days and said, what are people writing about how their? not many people are writing about anything and if they did, it's a long time ago. it captured people like other threats that are maybe more tangible, strike the imagination different in different ways. two, when you look through the intelligence, it's not one of the priorities. when you have some people who are looking at that very closely, there is a center out into peak of the does pretty good work here, but there are not many other folks helping in that regard. we are just about gathering the intelligence suite. we know this is a possibility. one of the ways you protect yourself, you start gathering intelligence and you can prevent it from happening and take those steps that can prevent it. we are not anywhere near that.

if we stumble across it, that's fine. so, i want to start thinking a little bit about the prioritization of these initial steps. you serve on the blue ribbon commission, which either panelists are aware of. a most prominent effort to call these issues together. can you talk about the framework and what the feeling was about the top priorities? >> you asked the question why is there a difference between nuclear and biological. there's two parts to the answer. first is awareness. can see a mushroom cloud and know exactly the ramifications of a mushroom cloud. how do you see what we are talking about, no food, or the aspectso food and the around the biological threats to agriculture?

it's harder to visualize. when you think about the fact that in the next 40 years, we have to produce more food than we did in the last 4000 because we will have almost 10 billion people, and it took us until 1850 to get the first one billion. 40 years, producing more food than the last 4000. istrillion of our economy agriculture related. the awareness is there, we just -- that leads me to the second part of the answer. we need leadership very we need somebody who can take this and make it the kind of priority it deserves to be. one of the problems we have in any governmental infrastructure silo -- is silo's eyes asian -- siloization. a defense components.

and all of these siloed a entits are not coordinated like they need to be. it's easy to talk about it and it's easy to put more papers out there. it's harder to take that very eclectic array of bureaucracies and say, we are going to melt them together and integrate this . not in the oval office or close to the oval office, it ain't going to happen. .t's got to be west wing driven to elevated above all these agencies and bring it together just as joe biden is doing so admirably with the cancer moo nshot today. it's going to take a moonshot-like approach led by the vice president or somebody of that stature to make this happen. is that relates also to

congress, because we had mixed experiences in this country. some very successful. that was a very focused effort led by the congress. when the white house tries to whodinate around one person is not subject to congressional -- we have seen tension there just on the basis of separation of powers and institutional ego. chairman rogers, how do you think that can play out? how can that coordination happen between the consecutive and legislative branch? >> my mom used to say an invitation to the party solves all your grass parking issues preview you invite your neighbor and you can park on their lawn. work with me, people. my mom was a brilliant woman. i think you have to include

congress in the conversation. the executive branch tries to do this on their own. i don't think it will work. you need some representation from members who are keenly interested, the right committees, and get them participating in this conversation. if you have the vice president on the coordinating council for bio defense, i recommend you bring some folks from the house and senate you're interested in the issue and are committed to being a part of it. if you do that, you will get much more buy-in. congressional reform on oversight, we could have 4 panels lasting 6 days. is, if there's an event, he has to appear before something like 159 committees. it's outrageous. he's going to spend all of his time running around to the different subcommittees to have a little slice of jurisdiction on this. waste of timefic

and i don't think it's good oversight. i'd like to see a realignment of oversight issues with big issues like this so you get a better product. i sent out the invitation and park away on the lawn. >> we had the pleasure of working with tom keene. thatingle recommendation they are most frustrated in terms of non-engagement was that argument, there are about 103 committees that dhs has to report to. when you have 103 bosses, you .ave no leadership another corollary to what they both said, multipliers of government to work better together. one of the advantages of the price of appointing somebody to have a responsibility is at least it would get the executive branch organized. they have to get their act together as well. there would be a lot of

benefits to doing this. we can't assume the executive branch is well organized for this particular effort. different departments have different views of what their responsibilities are and somebody has to lead that. i agree totally, having been through a couple of lures now and having seen how you try to harness all instruments of national power. it only really works if somebody is in charge. somebody has got to be in charge on the executive side for sure. >> we are focused on the federal questions a lot. if this will be a whole of government response, there's andrtant rules at the state local level. i wonder if any of you are aware of those efforts. to what extent is this more of a focus closer to the problem? >> i think kansas and kansas state deserve real commendation for the kind of leadership. they have a unique program to

dedicate sort of a national attention to the issue, and really begin to put the action plan together, with research and coordination unlike anything we've witnessed before and certainly general myers can talk to that. i think some states have begun to put plans together so there's a requirement that each state have a plan. it isn't really understood from one state to the next. there's very little interactive experience from one state to the next. it begs, for a federal framework, even though you say there's a critical role to play, effortt toward a native has to emanate from someplace, and right now it doesn't exist. some ofreat credit to the governors who elevated it within their state, but a lot

more needs to be done to make it the national framework that is going to be required for a national response. i already referred to our intelligence center into peak of, which is in the word unique, applies here. according to the folks in homeland security, it is unique. they are one group looking through all the intelligence, trying to connect the dots about what might be coming our way in a nefarious sense. there's a lot of research and kansas state. we are one university. dr. beckham knows more about this than i do. we were talking beforehand about an effort between texas a&m and kansas state to work the surveillance problem. when an outbreak occurs, it gets started quickly. it is the only program i think

of its kind out there. i think it's been pretty successful. it's only going to live so long. the premise is right. a lot of this has to happen at the state level. there are a lot of people ready for action, and better coordination, appropriate funding to make these things come to life is what is needed. >> any final thoughts before we open it up to questions? >> we saw this before 9/11 and we were trying to put together money to get down range to help states and emergency responders and other things, even with the pandemic issue. what do we stockpile, where do we stop aylett, how do we get it there. the states have to be a part of on two phases. one, i used to get people coming into my office who wanted the date command centers and had population four.

they had to have everything the major urban areas had. it made no sense, and the political pressure put on the state emergency responders was significant. that pressure came to congress and everybody wanted what everybody had. send the mosto sophisticated technology to the lowest population county, but it doesn't make sense to do that. i can say that now that i'm no longer in congress. we have to get the theurces part right, and b, committee did some work and found that people did not even know where to go to access the materials of which they might need to be prepared. they didn't know who to call. they didn't know how to go through the process. i don't care if it's oriological or therapeutics, even the stockpile of anthrax, who can get it and who can't and how do i get it to my first

responders. there was no clear path of understanding on how that happened. we found lots of materials we had purchased along the way have now expired. the shelf life is over and we still have it, it hasn't been deployed, and now what do you do? do you have to go back and repurchase all this new stuff to sit on the shelf or 5-- for 5 years? we have to get this piece figured out soon. not every state is going to need exactly the same thing. we have to be ok with that and we have to be ok to work with the states to direct those dollars from the central location to get the right thing at the right place, at the right price. we don't have the money to spend in every city, in every corner of the country. it's just not going to happen. >> let me go back to the national defense facility at kansas state. it deals with these -- diseases

that occur around the world. we have the funding to build it, the funding to operate it. and how much they are going to enable the scientists that will work there to help work on these diseases. it's a little bit of a question mark. that's another issue. it's got to be part of the solution. we are not sure what the direction will be after it's built. we have a couple years to figure that out. they will pass quickly and things have to be laid in place. we are already doing work at another level three lab on .ampus to prepare for people it's one effort, it's one example of inconsistency.

>> one of the gratifying aspects of our work is the expertise and the audience the come to these events. footed remarkably fleet microphone holders. identify who you are, that would be appreciated. >> good morning. my name is andy mccabe. i'm the ceo of the association of american veterinary medical colleges. in recent years we have seen the emergence of antimicrobial resistance is capturing great attention at the national and international level. i wonder if you could comment on the ways you see that as an

opportunity to synergize efforts here, or might it be deluding efforts. in other words, how many crises and emerging threats can we focus on at a time and what does it mean to include antimicrobial resistance in these efforts or to say, that kind of distinguishes these things here in bio and agro defense, if you can comment on that, that would be great. we understand there's a big tension between as he might -- the difference between pathogenic resistance. >>'s recent efforts over the last couple of years, especially at the national and international level, to focus on antimicrobial resistance, anything from the president's commission, and then recently the united nations' efforts on this, there is growing effort

and mobilization to attack this issue. we've talked about how bio and issueefense has been an that is below the radar. it's not capturing the attention that it needs despite a lot of people talking about it for many years. i know you've worked on this a lot in your career. is their value in attaching this to antimicrobial resistance or if you do, does it dilute this effort and dilute attention and focus? i don't think there's a clear answer to that question. i think it has to be explored. there's little doubt that technology is continuing to advance. moore's law is still in effect. i think as moore's law unfolds and as we understand the amazing technological advances, the real question we will have is, can policy stay abreast.

and in this context, can we come up with a mechanism that accounts for this amazing technological advance? , the americanay people speak to their government in the 21st century, the government lists -- listens in the 20th century and responds in the 19th century. we have to figure out a way for leastvernment to stay at within reach of the technological advances we are making. i don't have an answer to your requirestoday, but it us to analyze whether or not it would make sense for us to do it . if we did do it, how would we do it effectively, and take advantage of what technological advancements we are making. >> i expect we can get additional thoughts, second panel. other questions? right behind you.

jim monk from the congressional research service. i appreciate the panel's work to highlight the issue, doing a great job of saying what's important and steps we need to go forward. in the context of the plan the the research that has been highlighted, i'm wondering if you can give some more context to what is needed in the direction in light of things like the national infrastructure protection plan, strategic partnership agreements, that have flown out 9 that have been congressional actions to get the executive to take action. sort of saying, what is the coordination that is lacking that has tried to be set up in the national infrastructure protection plan. or the the intelligence coordination that is lacking in the strategic partnership

agreements with private entities and the states. where are those next steps. there are these plans that have been developed in the past 10 years. i became skeptical to this idea that the vice president should have this biodefense committee or counsel. i was skeptical of it at first and the more i get into it, the more i think the senator's right. you have to have somebody that can peer over all the tubes. there is great activity in one place and no one is aware of in place and really no opportunity to have that discussion in a meaningful way. personality-based. the problem is, there's no one that can draw all those people to the same place, to

force that kind of a conversation. if you look at the dni model, does the same problem we were having up to 9/11. allt work was happening over the intelligence community but not one person could pull together in a place. if you're spending $10 on that, i have three dollars over here. i think that has to happen if we're going to get any of that. some of that congressional action is based on the silo effect as well. i'm going to make sure my lane is doing exactly right. i think that command and control -- control structure that forces collaboration, not because people don't want to do it, but the system is not built to allow them to do it anyway i think is productive. when i was commander of the

u.s. space command, i went to a meeting involving matters of the pentagon and the deputy secretary of defense, then dr. jon hamm re-ask people in the room, who thinks they are responsible for computer -- recall the computer network defense in the 90's. who thinks they are responsible for cyber defense? everybody raise their hand. we have a problem. if everybody thinks they're in charge, nobody is in charge. everybody raise theirthere has s that will enable the right things to happen. somebody has to think it's important. somebody thinks this has to be a national security issue. then it might flow from there. the priority is not there. my research says some people are just kind of pushing it -- they don't want to think about it. really hard.

it's hard to get your arms around. it will involve lots of entities that will be doing a lot of research and have to come together in some ways, sharing research. i think it's more of that, it's a priority issue. not necessarily -- and inside the executive branch, probably inside the legislative branch, and there's a lot of able to think this is theirs. we need more cohesiveness. if were going to get focus on the problem, somebody has got to be in charge. somebody in the executive branch , primary committees on the hill -- somebody has to be in charge of this. >> we have time for a couple more questions. >> good morning, thank you for speaking today. my name is caroline kennedy, operations coordinator with the international bio security and prevention forum. this is a u.s. government

initiative. as we do so much outreach, i find that many of the scientists have a pretty good understanding of bio security and some of the threats that we face. someone mentioned that we need to work on making sure that everyone is understanding and visualizing what the biological threat is, and i think that's a major issue lacking in the general public. essentially my question is, what do we do to better enable visualization of the biological and agricultural threat. >> a good documentary that gets .eople's attention

, this a sudden you say isn't good. what can we do to stop this. would documentary on this be helpful, one that captured people's attention. as factual as you can make it. i don't know if that's right. back to thego comment that we ought to take the lessons we've acquired from the experiences we've had in the last 15 years, whether it's avian influenza or ebola or h1n1. there are lessons there. we've had the leadership, and this isn't meant to be a partisan issue, it's because we've not had the prioritization -- people haven't made the connection between natural and deliberate.

we have got to do a better job of making the connection, whether it's a documentary or leadership that can speak to the issue around the country, or this coordinated effort we've all talked about between congress and the administration, somebody has to make the link, the segway between natural and deliberate and say, the situation, as bad as it is, could be 100 times worse if it were deliberate set of that doesn't take much imagination. that connection could be very helpful. >> i would only add if you watch classified", itde will give you a great idea of how we should do it. i will take any ideas you have from watching all 8 episodes of "declassified." >> we have time for one last question.

good morning. consultant andy proud kansas state grad. you've talked a lot today about the national response with ebol a, avian influenza. obviously it is a worldwide potential problem. how much is the international response, international relationship development being addressed at this point? thank you. >> maybe i will start by saying sort of the same set of problems we have domestically we face internationally. ironically, with all the challenges we face in many parts of the world as the result of we don't seecs,

much more leadership internationally than we do domestically. s a requirement that the united states step up to the plate to provide the elevated leadership and prioritization. the same thingdo internationally we have done domestically, and take those lessons learned and apply them to deliberate circumstances that could and will occur at some point in the future. >> if you look at the international position and all the things we just talked about, how do you muster resources? how do you have a central organization that helps get the researchers where they have to go? if you see the problems we are having, magnify them by 10 overseas. you can see in some cases they are five or 10 years behind. they don't have the -- not that they don't have the interest or effort, they can't muster the same resources. their systems are almost more diffused than ours are in trying

to deal with this problem. and in theally united states we are wrestling with the same problem. that is where i think we can helpde some leadership and on an international basis to get all of our resources mustered up. maybe not everybody has to show breaksiberia when ebola out. maybe that's not the right decision. now everybody wants to show up at the same place, commit some kind of a resource. maybe we break this up, a lot with thisdid strategic force contribution. some folks can do airplanes and some people can do signals collection. we ought to start looking around the globe and say, we will create our deployment opportunities based on what capabilities you bring to the table, and what can happen over time is everybody's capabilities go up over time. we have to start somewhere. do, andhat i try to

that's why we are a little bit behind on the international effort for pandemic response. >> my guess is you know the answer to the question. the case study i would use is ebola. the defense board, i was aware of some things going on at the department of defense to help. i'm on the board of a nonprofit research institute as well that to that.buting there was a lot of confusion, a lot of false starts. that's probably indicative of how well prepared we are internationally for to that. there was a lot of confusion, a lot of ebola and food animal/food plant problems. in bangladesh, are we sure it came in the way they think it came in? are we susceptible in the united states? what steps are we making -- taking to make sure that doesn't happen? these are international

problem.s -- problems. most of the bad stuff is in this country or on the borders. this is dangerous stuff. we ought to approach it the same way we approach some of the human diseases we worry so much about, in my opinion. >> i want to thank our first panel. we are going to now transition to some of the details with our expert panel. phil hoagland, our senior vice president, will be monitoring this panel. most crediblethe people in this town when it comes to anything to do with economics and budget and finance. he started his career at usda. a man not tell you that he leaves once a year to go home. when it comes to some ag creds, bill's the real deal. thank you, bill.

>> good morning, everyone. what i wanted to say. i'm the only agricultural economist at bpc from what i know. welcome everybody, welcome to my aggy colleagues out here. mentioned there is a kansas influence at bpc in the form of one of our founders being bob dole, but i would also point out we are influenced daily mentioned there is a kansas influence at by another t glickman, whoan works with us on a live issues here and we appreciate the influence of kansas. let me say, the second panel here is very distinguished. you have their bios, so i won't

go into all of that. we're going to focus on animal health a little to here and build on a number of issues that came up in the previous panel. , he's beeniate left mentioned by the acting president. he's the dean of the kansas state university college of veterinary medicine. the deputy director with u.s. senate select committee on least, thee, and not codirector of the panel you heard about in the blue ribbon study panel. before we get into some questions that i have, with each of you take a couple of minutes and tell the audience about your perspectives on the bio-agro defense landscape, and -- i don't know if we can of the

optimism from the first panel ,ut on a scale from one to 10 where would you rate the security of our food system today from potentially deadly pathogen's? this is a particular passion of mine and incredibly important. as we sit here today, the agricultural industry gives us one of the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supplies in the world. on average, u.s. consumers only spend about 6.4% of annual expenditures on food. if you compare that globally, it is between 11% and 47%. you know we have a robust agricultural production system

and we are thankful for that, but the things that make it so robust also make it susceptible we knowse introduction that there's probably a little bit of complacency. african swine fever, rubella fever, other diseases that are nationally occurring abroad. we ask ourselves this morning how come it is so difficult to get our arms around what is happening in the biological arena. these pathogens are found naturally across the globe. it's difficult to get your arms around where they are and how they move because they are naturally occurring organisms. we talk a little bit about the global perspective in a few minutes. going back to the comments made occurringth naturally issues, we have seen a lot of those over the last several years. we have had pd and we have had

avian influenza incursions, and we can use those and we have used those to help us prepare for that next natural .ntroduction i think there have been things accomplished since 2001 and a great deal, we can go over those . there are critical gaps that still exist. it wasn't until 2014 when ebola happened that the true meaning of health came to light, and that we saw some of the critical gaps we faced in bio and agro defense. many of you might remember, there was a nurse infected with ebola virus and she had a dog. that brought to light the issues around health and hope -- how close our companion animals are to people on a daily basis, and just what that risk can be from interacting on a day-to-day

.asis we know that we also didn't have the countermeasures outbreak. we did not have diagnostic tests that were validated or animals we could use to test the dog at the time and we didn't have policies in place to show how we would handle it, quarantine, those types of things. i'll call out to usda, dod, those people all came together and quickly put together policies and procedures and validated the diagnostic test so that we have those. in that event we were very much laid bare on how we're going to handle about particular case. had there been other animals and other companion animals, where would they have gone? wherewith they been put in quarantine? we do have some critical gaps that still exist and are prepared. i think there's been a lot done since 2001. we have the surveillance plans, we've got tst