first lady and the president about what they think the olympic games mean and how chicago hosting the olympics fits with what we all believe the olympics mean. >> i saw some story on the upcoming the berlin wall anniversary. since the president is going to copenhagen, is there flaws that he will be attending the berlin wall ceremonies? is he thinking of going? >> i think the ceremonies are on november 9. i have not seen any scheduling information. i can check. i am still working on this week. . .

doing so with our allies is important in this. >> what is he doing today? >> working in the oval office. he worked on health care earlier. he got his intelligence update. i have not seen him in a couple of hours. i assume he had lunch. but i do not have it ticktock. >> we know that the other world

leaders are going to this meeting. does that play a role? >> uno what they're doing. i do not know. >> they say that time is running out quickly on the chance of getting a deal in copenhagen. does the president still believe there is a possibility of having a replacement in kyoto, especially given what happened last week? >> i think a bill will be introduced in the senate this week. obviously, the house has taken strong action earlier in the year and this summer. i think, obviously, this was part of what the president did last week in both the general assembly at the un and at the g-20. part of getting any agreement in december is going to be up to

other developed and other developing nations and all of us working together. the president will continue with members of his administration to work towards that goal. >> of copenhagen, is this more official or personal for the president? >> this is official. he is the president of the united states representing a bit of the united states to host the 2016 olympics. it is about the american bid, which is chicago. >> what other officials activities will be going -- be doing? >> there are some meetings on their. >> will he be meeting with the french president as well, with sarkozy, in reference to iran. >> if i am not mistaken, they

talked on freddie. >> i have to questions. first, on friday, with reference to the electronic health records, patients cannot opt out on information on those, such as substance abuse, abortions, and other things. >> i would direct 22 somebody. i have no idea. [laughter] >> the concept of allowing certain patients not being listed -- >> i am not a health ip expert. i am sorry. >> about reducing the number of

agents along the mexican border, could that be considered a risky move considered the boj's said that there are -- the doj said [unintelligible] >> i am not sure exactly batterabout erring bidder on the order. >> we are going to break away from this recorded white house meeting. erasmus and is expected to discuss the war in afghanistan. this will be his first meeting. >> thank you all to the second of a major speecspeeches.

i recognize a number of faces in the crowd. we heard senator richard lugar delivery speech on the future of the alliance and provided congressional perspective on debate. for any of you who were not here, we will have the transcript on the the website and it was also taped by c-span who is here with us again tonight. it is an honor to have you both with us again tonight. i also want to extend a particular thank you. this entire series has been supported by them and it is great to have you with us.

mr. secretary general, i hope your address will spark major debate here in the united states among key legislators. we were lucky enough to host to year during the transition when we had some very good conversations. we hope that this forum will help you achieve that. it is a particular pleasure for me now to pass to senator chuck hagel, one of america's leading foreign policy thinkers. what i mean by a bipartisan is that senator hagel gave a speech in minnesota last week and he is about to go to michigan to give the general for a speech.

-- to give the gerald ford speech. this is the first time in history for one person to give both speeches. the general drums and general scowcroft led the strategic advice -- general jones and general scowcroft led the strategic advice committees. the group is engaged again on these difficult issues and we are working to help shape and influence the debate. with that, it is my honor to turn it over to senator chuck table. -- chuck hagel. >> thank you. your introduction was overpowering. it does give you some sense of my reach into mccarthy possible

abuse and into ford. -- mccarthy's views and into ford. that is what they do with chairman, the kick around come up other than to introduce general jim jones who many of you, if not all of you, not only know who he is, but have worked with general jim jones for many years. i do not know a wider-lens thinker than general jim jones. i have had the opportunity and privilege to work with general jones on many occasions. he captured me out on a boat on

the mediterranean for a couple of days and made me sit through a lot of marines talk about a lot of things that an old army guy has no capacity to understand. [laughter] this man, ed jones, really does stan the gamut -- this man, jones, really does span of the gamut. he is still learning from brent scowcroft, according to scowcroft. nevertheless, we talked very favorably about you today, jim, at lunch. fred had a table full of former national security advisers and, nonetheless, they made at a pretty good group.

jim jones always adds a dimension to whatever he does and he is doing that now and " i think is one of the most defining times in the history of the world. what the secretary general is doing and what some many of you in this room are doing is adding how we're going to shape that world that we're all good going to have to live with for many years. i think that is enough about jones, do you not, freda? that is a whole lot better than what you said about me. our dear friend and one of our great leaders, general jim jones. [applause] >> senator hagel, thank you very

much. thank you for your work here at the atlantic council. congratulations on the tremendous success that you're bringing to the council in terms of revitalizing this venerable institution and trying to get into the wind of the 21st century. congratulations. it is a pleasure to watch it, albeit from a removed position. thank you for the obiit -- thank you for the opportunity to say a few words this evening. nato remains the most successful military alliance in history. of that, there is no doubt. the 28 member states face a new series of threats and challenges that were unthinkable 60 years ago.

its product position as a provider of peace is being put to the test in afghanistan where allied service members from 42 nations work together to defeat al qaeda and the taliban to build a stable and peaceful state. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology threaten aligns populations and their territories, cyber warfare capabilities seek to undermine the very infrastructure that many of us take for granted in our daily lives, and the list of real and potential threats in the world, piracy, climate change, energy security, failed and failing states, and the resumption of all ethnic hatred is daunting and requires cooperation among allies. some outsiders have declared that nato is outnumbered -- is out-moatoded. i emphatically disagree. our speaker tonight also

emphatically disagrees with that notion. he arrived at the home of nato at an extraordinary time when these challenges have prompted an opportunity and collective desire for action he brings to the table -- for action. he brings to the table the energy of an avid outdoorsman and the compassion of a father and a new grandfather. he has hit the ground running and in only two short months, he has begun to lay the groundwork for new nato strategic concepts, one which will address the challenges that i just spoke about and pays the way for nenao into the 21st century. nato has increased new medium --

nato has embraced new media. he has recognized as a growing ballistic missile threats to the alliance and they must play a central role in adapting a force that will protect allies. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great privilege to welcome to the podium who will lead our lives into a new era, the 12th secretary general of the north atlantic treaty organization andrew rasmussen. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, first

of all, thank you very much, jim jones, for your kind introduction. let me also thank the atlantic council for inviting me to speak here today. i know that the atlantic council, which already has a longstanding reputation as a preeminent think tank, has new energy and new wind in its sales. that is the kind of atmosphere that i like. that is why i am pleased to make my first speech in the united states as the new nato secretary here today. that was a very kind introduction. i was the prime minister of denmark for nearly eight years before taking over this post. a lot of people last may -- a

lot people asked me at the time while i would want to give up that very special job to head up an organization that some consider out of date and which is struggling with a very difficult operation in afghanistan. my answer then was as clear as it is now -- because nato remains the gold standard when it comes to international security cooperation, because i believe firmly in the benefits and the potential of the trans- atlantic partnership, now as much as ever, because we must succeed in afghanistan, and i intend to make that happen, and, finally, because i want to help

shape the new nato, not least through the new strategic concept. these are the more specific reasons why i accepted my new job. however, there is what i would call a more overall reason and that became even more clear to me during the past weekend. i visited springfield, ill., as you all know, the hometown of abraham lincoln, with the impressive lincoln library and museum and the old state capitol where lincoln served as state legislator before his presidency. in 1858, lincoln gave a speech

in which he praises the desire for liberty as the strongest defense against despotism. "our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all man, in all lands everywhere. destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors >" ." of all did, abraham lincoln gave this speech on 9/11/1858, a reminder of the timeless truth and significance of these words. and i consider it a duty to work

for the accomplishment of these values and principles in the world of today and tomorrow. therefore, i was pleased to take on responsibilities as leader of the world's strongest military alliance, an alliance that is not just military, but to build on shared political values. of course, taking the job was the easy part. making a hell happened -- making it all happen is slightly more complicated. meeting the security challenges we have today will take all 28 members of this alliance standing together and pulling together in the same direction. and it is my job to help make sure we do. as nato secretary-general, i have to straddle the atlantic

with 1 foot in europe and one in north america. when europe and north america come together, i am more comfortable. when they drift apart, i am the first to feel the pain. [laughter] and i must say at front that i am little concerned about the doubts that i hear these days in the united states about nato. some look at the operation in afghanistan and wonder if the europeans have the will to fight. some wonder if the europeans have the capability to fight, even if they wanted to. others simply think that the

days of strong transatlantic points is a relic of the past and that the future of the united states is asia or india or maybe some morals -- somewhere else. i want to tackle these doubts head on. i must say that i get the impression that many americans are losing sight of what nato is and how much it does in the interest of u.s. security and international security and that is a trend we need to reverse. afghanistan is a case in point. i know that there are many here in washington who are frustrated by the restrictions

some nato nations put on their forces. by the time it takes for nato to make decisions, the reluctance of some countries to send more forces to the mission, even for training, let me be very clear. i understand those frustration. i am already working hard to address those very real problems. but i also think that people are missing the forest for the trees. yes, running this mission as a nato operation has its share of challenges. all things considered, that is to be expected. but those challenges are far, far outweighed by the benefits, including very much for the united states.

first and foremost, all 28 nato countries are in the mission without exception. that is solidarity. and there are 13 other countries, all nato partners, with troops in the field as well. 41 countries in total, nato and non-nato, all under nato command. this is no ad hoc coalition of the willing. this is an alliance that has proven its staying power every day. that brings the second benefit, boots on the ground. there are 35,009 u.s. troops in the mission. that is 40% of the total -- there are 35,000 non-u.s. troops

in the mission. that is 40% of the total. expert trips have been provided to the mission from non-u.s. members. 15 countries have increased their contributions during that time. none has cut back. i am not sure all of this gets as much visibility in the u.s. as it deserves. and the allies are not running conventional wisdom. 14 countries have forces in the south and east, alongside u.s. forces. and while body count is no measure of solidarity, it is, unfortunately, a symbol of commitment. over 20 countries have had their soldiers killed, some in large

numbers. every wednesday, i begin the meeting of nato ambassadors by offering my condolences to the country's that have lost -- to the countries who have lost soldiers in the previous weeks. that happens every week without exception since i took office. so i will not accept from anyone the opinion that the europeans and the canadians are not paying the price in afghanistan. they are. let me mention one other benefit that sometimes goes unseen, development assistance. billions have been pledged to help rebuild afghanistan and hundreds of millions have been

spent by nato allies in afghanistan. it is all part of the same package. it is a team effort to achieve a common gold at a very high price in blood and treasure. these are not costs the u.s. can afford to pay their own. because of nato and through nato, they are cost we bear together. to my mind, afghanistan does not accept that nato is past its prime. it proves the opposite. the solidarity built up over 60 years is being strongly tested in afghanistan. and it is building up over years, despite casualty's and setbacks. that is a huge achievement and a precious asset -- despite

casualties and setbacks. that is a huge achievement and a precious asset i hope is appreciated here in the united states. there is no doubt that the united states is understandable -- is an indispensable part of this mission. but talking down the european and canadian contributions, as some here in the united states do on occasion, can be done -- can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. if they did not feel as if their efforts and sacrifices are recognized, they will be less inclined to make those efforts and the sacrifices. and that is not in anyone's

interest. and it does not reflect the reality on the ground, first and foremost, in afghanistan. we are there together. and that is the only way we should go forward. that is my first main point. if we are to succeed in afghanistan, it will only be if we do it together. i deliberately said "if we succeed." i know that despite everything we have already done, our goal in afghanistan is not guaranteed. that brings me to my second point. we cannot simply continue doing exactly what we're doing now. things are one to have to change. the reasons are clear. public support is falling

because of rising casualties, because of concerns about the way the elections were held, but, most of all, because of a sense among many people that, despite all the problems, we are not getting anywhere -- despite all the progress, we're not getting anywhere. the problem is of the communication. we, in government, have not shown to our population how much has been accomplished. 7 million afghan students are in school. a third of them are girls. 85% of the population has access to basic health care, up from 6% a few years ago. millions of people can vote and did so in the past election, despite the taliban threat.

women can walk the streets and sit in parliament and hold jobs and al qaeda has no safe haven, no training camps, no launch pads against us in the west. these are huge and achievements in just eight years. but the reality is that this mission cannot continue forever and it should not continue forever. and our populations, afghan and international, want to see light at the end of the tunnel. they want to see the beginning of transition to afghan need. that means, from the security point of view, afghans taking the lead responsibility with international forces in a

supporting role. it means afghans running their own schools, their own hospitals, their own government. i believe, if we can show transition actually happening, our public will continue to support this mission through success. but i am convinced that, if we do not clearly and completely begin to move to afghan lead, it will be impossible to sustain public support for this mission over the long term. sooner, rather than later, a transition must begin. but let no one spin this as a run for the exits. it is not. nato will stay for as long as it takes to succeed.

and i want to repeat that -- as long as it takes. but that cannot mean forever. that means we have to start doing things a little different. general the crystal -- general mcchrystal's church -- assessment is being assessed -- general mikemcchrystal's strategic assessment is being assessed. we will discuss the resourced aspect as well. but one thing is already clear. if the afghan security forces are to take the lead, they will

need to be better trained, better equipped, and likely more numerous. that means we will all have to invest more in training and equipping them because they are not ready now. it is a very simple calculation. we have to do more now if we want to be able to do less later. that is why nato has just established a training mission in afghanistan. i will be pushing allies very hard for resources to resource it fully. we cannot do transition on the cheap. that would be the ultimate false economy.

that applies to the civilian efforts as well. i discussed that with you and secretary general benjamiban kin last week. in a nutshell, i believe that that conference needs to be sent -- needs to set a clear strategy, establish milestones, and earmarked resources in the coming years. i have no illusions. none of this will be quick and none of it will be easy. we will need to have patience. we will need more resources. and, unfortunately, we will

lose more young soldiers to the terrorist attacks of the taliban. but i fully agree with president obama when he says that this is not a war of choice, but of necessity. it is obvious that, if we do not succeed, afghanistan will again be a terrorist camp. pakistan -- nuclear-armed pakistan will be severely destabilize. extremism will spread fast into central asia and then to europe. that is simply the reality. that brings me to my third point. today, our territorial defense begins far away from our own borders. the 21st century nato needs to

look and to act beyond europe and north america in order to keep europe and north america safe. proliferation is another good example. the proliferation of missiles far beyond our borders is a clear and growing menace to our territory and our population. non percolation -- nonproliferation measures are in force, but they're not enough. iran shows us why. that means we must also look at deploying missile defense. the recent announcement by president obama on missile defense was, to my mind, important for two reasons. first, it laid out a road map for deploying a missile defense

in a realistic time frame with proven technology against a visible threat. second, this plan puts missile defense solidly in a nato context. participation is open to all allies with protection for all allies. that is the way in which we need to create -- to face 21st century challenges, not going it alone, but together, sharing the risks and the costs. that brings us full circle back to afghanistan. to my mind, the way forward may be difficult to navigate, but it is clear. first, the nato allies must continue to stand united to

recognize each other's contributions and to see this through together. second, we must, as an international community, begin now to plan for and invest in a comprehensive transition to afghan lead, military and civilian. and third, we must take on fundamental truth that this mission is very clear, that today and into the future, territorial defense begins far beyond our borders. that understanding must be an important part of shaping nato's future. ladies and gentlemen, i have come to nato as a reformer. i do not intend to deviate from

that mission. secretary albright is leading a team of 12 experts that i have selected to start the process of drafting a new strategic concept for nato. it is, of course, not for me to save what i think their conclusions should be -- to say what their conclusions should be. but i can tell you what should be the principles that guide their work. they should be ambitious but realistic with regard to resources. they should be firm on nato's core task, defense of their territories and populations, but flexible in their understanding of what that means in the 21st century. and they should see nato not as

an island, but as an organization that needs to be more fully anchored and engaged in the international system. they will submit their report to me next spring and i will then lead a process of negotiation amongst allies that will see a new strategic concept of groups at a summit in portugal next fall. i can assure you that the results will be a nato that is more modern, more out of looking, and more capable than ever of providing security for its members. but i am convinced that some things in nato will not change. we will stand united for, as

abraham lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. the united states will continue to be the ultimate guarantor of security and peace in europe. america's allies in nato will remain europe's closest friends , your most reliable partners, your brothers in arms. and nato will remain the home but in which now almost 1 billion people are safe and secure. thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. secretary general, thank you for making a truly important statement on nato, afghanistan, and the u.s. relationship with afghanistan, and choosing the

atlantic council for the place to do it. i thank you for the praise of the atlantic council after center hagel's opening remarks. -- after senate for hagel's opening remarks. he quoted lincoln. "[unintelligible] the occasion is piled high. we must rise to the occasion. so the cases new and we must act anew. anyway, you have been saying that we must disenthrall ourselves. here's my question. i think we're setting your all

languages that things will have to change. do you agree with the general's report? secondarily, what impact does that report have on our allies? on the one hand, if the u.s. gets more involved with more troops, your allies may back off. others say, the u.s. is showing weakness and there is the same outcome. i wonder if you could speak to that, to the report and what impact that has on the allies. >> first of all, i would say that, basically, i share the views presented by the general. his assessment opens a more

comprehensive approach and addressing afghanistan -- approach in addressing afghanistan. we have to step up our efforts in civil reconstruction and pursue any more population- centered approach. -- and pursue a more prope population-centric approach. now we have to go through his initial assessment and analysis, discuss it within the alliance, agree on the approach, and then we can make a decision on resources. but one thing is clear to me.

we need more resources for our training mission in afghanistan. that is to develop the capacity on the afghan security forces. therefore, i would urge all allies, including the european allies, to provide more resources for the training mission, trainers and financial contributions to make sure that we can fund an increased number of afghan troops. >> thank you. on missile defense, you spoke briefly about that. it is a big topic at the moment. one argument is that the way it was announced without

consultation hurts the relationship with allies. he talked pretty compellingly about how nato is much more involved now with the lan-based system. -- land-based system, including poland. >> first of all, if i may, i would like to slightly correct you. i do not agree that the united states did not consult. on the contrary. i appreciate very much that the united states consulted and brief nato allies before announcing this issue. i consider the new missile defense plan more flexible, more

inclusive, then the previous plans. in that respect, it accommodates wishes expressed by a number of european allies. so i looked very much for to a process in which nato will be strongly engaged. that will also be beneficial for some of our eastern allies that might be concerned about this. the new plans allow flexible and a decentralized system that protect all allies.

>> so the system is better for the alliance than the previous one? >> from an alliance point of view, yes, it is better. >> welcome back to washington. i am nick burns. i am a former united states ambassador to nato. afghanistan is obviously a an issue of the hour. i want to ask you to address one of the points that you made more specifically. i was ambassador to nato when the allies decided to go into afghanistan. we saw that as a combat mission, given the for those involved, the taliban and al qaeda. i agree with you. we do not want to have a war of words in the atlantic about who is doing what and who is not contributing.

looking forward, what is your hope of contributions, both on the civilian side and the military side. on the military said, the largest ally has beehad a new election could you think he'd german -- a new election. do you think germany could have a larger role? >> thank you very much. of course, that is a very tough question and you know that. first of all, let me give you a more general answer. obviously, it would be an advantage for our commanders in the field if they could make --

if nations allow a more flexible use of troops. it is obvious. we are speaking out about the so-called caveats. as the secretary-general of nato, i would urge allies to allow as much flexibility as possible in the use of their troop contributions in afghanistan. that is my general remarks. more specifically, you refer to germany. i know this question has very often been up for discussion. i think it is fair to say that we should take into consideration germany's history. and we should take into

consideration that it was a huge step forward when germany actually decided to contribute to our mission in afghanistan. you should not underestimate the importance and significance of that step in domestic german policy. i think we should realize that this is a gradual process. i do not put dissipate in germany-bashing. i think we should recognize their contribution and let it be gradual -- a gradual development. but to then let me return to my introductory remarks. i would, nevertheless, urge all allies to allow flexible use of troops in afghanistan.

>> it should also be said that some of teenagers of the north -- some of the situations of the north are different from the south. >> we have stepped up the situation in the north. >> another and former nato ambassador, robert hunter. >> thank you very much. if we stick to just former nato ambassadors, we will be here all night. [laughter] may i raise something about your sister institution, the european union? india think there's a chance of getting more efforts out -- and do you think there is a chance of getting more efforts out of the european union?

your country has shown extraordinary leadership over the years. one nato ally makes it difficult with the european union. that is one thing that could inspire people in this country to see that europeans are they're pulling their weight [no audio] >> actually, they european union has put afghanistan higher on the agenda. i think it is very much a question of how we formulate our strategy. we do not need a new strategy,

but a slightly changed approach to implement the strategy we have already laid down. i think it will be easier to get the european governments to increase their contributions if they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. this is the reason why i speak about transition. also, concerning security, we should expand our training mission in afghanistan. i consider it easier for european countries to contribute to our training mission with personnel as well as funds than with combat units. you can see an increase in european contributions. >> the woman in the back has

been quite patient. >> thank you for a chance. i am not an ambassador. thank you for a chance to ask the question. [laughter] i would like to ask you about the nato expansion to the east. you talk about solidarity. the ukraine has only taken part in peacekeeping operation of the alliance. nato membership for the ukraine is still open. what are the major obstacles for them to become a member of the alliance? >> first of all, let me express my strong appreciation of the ukrainian commitment to the nato-led operations. we appreciate very much there

significant contributions. next, let me stress that the decision we took at the nato summit in bucharest in 2008 stands. as you remember, we decided that ukraine will become a member of nato, provided they fulfil the necessary criteria, which is also the answer to your question. neither ukraine north georgia fulfill the necessary criteria at this state. this is the reason why we have established a nato-ukraine commission and a nato-georgia commission. within the framework of these commissions, they prepare a national annual programs with the payment to reform their defense and their societies more

broadly. hopefully, they will fulfil the necessary criteria in the future and then the bucharest declaration still stands. >> here in the front. >> mr. secretary general, i was an investor in the 1980's. [laughter] we could not deploy missiles or counter employee missiles. -we mobilize on both sides of te atlantic. we fought anew and acted inouye. we did our own assessment. -- we fought a new and acted a

new. anewwe o -- we fought anew and acted anew. if we do not have a mobilization and urgency, we're not going to make it in either place. i spoke with madeleine albright. domestic clocks do not take along with the conceptual or strategic concept. if we're going to sustain this, a greater sense of urgency and the mobilization and really thinking anew and reform that comes more quickly than the clock sitter ticking against adversity on the domestic front is needed. i thank you for your leadership

and your service. >> mr. secretary general, [unintelligible] >> i feel there is a political momentum. the fact that they ask me to lead a new strategic concept next year testifies to that fact. .

>> and i hope strategic concepts can serve as a lever for such reforms. we also need to look closer into how we finance within nato. i think we could achieve significant synergies if we went for collective solutions and more common funding. so i think there is a lot to do. and at the end of the day, it's also about the taxpayers' money. i think we owe it to the taxpayers to make sure we get

value for our money and spend our money more efficiently than today. and unfortunately, in general, there is a gap between the ambitions and the requirements and the willingness to fight. and this is an issue i'm going to address up front in the coming weeks and months because it's not acceptable that we just add new requirements and ambitions without being prepared to finance it. >> thank you, mr. secretary general. >> mr. secretary general, thank you for your comments. i would like to return to the question of afghanistan. one of the possibilities emerging from the mccrystal review could be the recommendation that we're going to need to add tens of thousands

of troops and spend tens of billions of dollars or euros and be engaged there possibly 10 years. if that is the case, how would you make that in nato to prevent this solution. and one of the requirements on the civilian side was to put all the provisional -- provincial reconstruction teams under a single command, does that have a possibility of happening if the situation demands it? >> well, i think it's premature to make any final judgments as far as resources are concerned. i'm definitely not going to do so right now. as i said, strategy first,

resources then. we have received milk crystal's so-called initial assessment, on the basis of that, we will have to discuss how to fully resource our mission in afghanistan, but i'm not going to comment on that right now. [inaudible] >> provincial reconstruction teams. >> definitely we need better coordination among the p.r.t.'s. i also think we need an improved cooperation between the p.r.c. and hopefully an increased u.n. presence in afghanistan. and i think it would be in accordance with mccrystal's

recommendations if we ensure not only u.n. presence in afghanistan to fulfill our ambitions to step up the endeavors in the reconstruction but to ensure better cooperation between the u.n. and the p.r.t.'s. >> time for a couple more questions. in the corner, a non-ambassador. >> thank you. as the secretary general well knows, i read the danish newspaper and now based in washington d.c. rasmussen is a common name in denmark. the current prime minister, mr. rasmussen's successor is also called rasmussen. i want to know more about the

afghans taking the lead as you quite rightly said and i wonder if you could tell us more about your possible analysis of the afghan government as a partner in that vital process because obviously it's not training from outside. the afghan government has to be a legitimate and durable partner in that process and do you have any thoughts that you might share with us perhaps not the quality of the afghan government but how to improve the legitimacy and the cooperation between the allied forces and your work and the afghan government might play out in the future. >> thank you very much. yes, we need a credible and legitimate, of course, government in afghanistan. we, right now, are in the midst of the electoral process. votes have been counted.

complaints are now being dealt with. we have established institutions in afghanistan to deal with these things. and i think we should now let these institutions conclude their work. they have now decided to recount a number of votes and probably properly certify election results at the beginning of october. we don't know what will be the outcome, the final outcome of the elections, but i think as a general remark, we should let the afghans decide whether they consider the elections to be credible or not. whether there will be a second round of presidential elections or not, we don't know. but anyway, we need a credible

and legitimate afghan government and we need to hold the afghan government accountable to international obligations and to legitimate expectations from the afghan people. this is the reason why i strongly support to organize an international conference before the end of this year -- not that conferences solve problems, but i think we need a new contract between the international community and the afghan government. and i think we should address these problems head on and tell the afghan government whatever might be the outcome of the elections, tell the afghan

government that it is a present requisite of a strong international come -- commitment. that they ensure good governance, including a strong fight against corruption, that they actually deliver basic services to the afghan people. i think this is also an important part of the transition to afghan lead, that we establish such a new contract between the international community and the afghan government. >> i'm going to take three quick questions one after another, with you one minute for each of the questions. the woman in the back first. and then two right here in the second row and third row. and we'll close with an ambassador. >> i'm thank you for coming

here. you are giving us a picture of what has been lacking and one of them is communication especially in the last eight years. if it is not to go after bin laden what is nato doing in afghanistan if it hasn't been successful after eight years? >> please, this gentleman. >> former u.s. ambassador but to the iaea. mr. secretary general, thank you for mentioning iran. i know nick and kurt and other representatives have tried to get the north atlantic counsel to talk about the security threat but without success. now that we have discovered that iran has a second enrichment facility has it come to seriously look at iran and what are the implications for a

nuclear-armed iran. >> kurt volcker, nice to see you again and thank you for taking time to come to washington. you made a powerful statement. my question goes back to the question david asked because it is a question of urgency. you made a remarkable demonstration of commitment as prime minister to the atlantic alliance and to afghanistan and have become a leader of the alliance. and when we met in april, we talked about the other leaders of nato. and i think for the strategic concept to be a success, yes, it needs to drive reform, but it needs to be the basis of a political compact that engages the national leaderships of each of the nato countries to invest in nato and have a commitment to our alliance and our future.

we see that in you and you have demonstrated that. do you see this rising on the political agenda of national leaders in each of the allied countries, whether it's germany, france, italy, because i think it's going to take that kind of national political commitment to make that new kind of compact. and you talked about a compact with afghanistan, but a compact with the united states' continuing commitment to europe and europe's continuing commitment in helping the united states in dealing with global challenges. >> thank you very much. first question. our mission in afghanistan is much broader than just to look for bin laden. let me stress that. we are in afghanistan, first and foremost, to improve our own

security. we cannot allow afghanistan once again to become a safe haven for international terrorism. if we did, terrorists would easily spread from afghanistan through central asia, to europe and further. so this is the reason, first and foremost, why we are in afghanistan. but in addition to that, i think it's also from a long-term point of view crucial to build a stable democracy in afghanistan, taking into consideration that there's no military solution solely if we are to ensure a long-term stability in the region, we should go for the establishment of a stable democracy in afghanistan.

and this will be my criteria of success that we can gradually transfer responsibility to the afghans themselves from security to development, as i have said today. iran, well, i think at this stage, the right approach concerning iran is that the international community puts the maximum pressure, political and diplomatic pressure on iran within the framework of the so-called five-plus-one group. and new intelligence information and the actual behavior of iran,

just stress the importance of such continued international pressure on iran. if iran eventually acquires nuclear capability, then it will, of course, be a matter of concern for nato, because then nato members might be strengthened. i think we should think in stages here, here and now, diplomatic pressure on iran and then let's see. finally on nato, yes, i fully agree. we need a strengthened political commitment to nato. and i know from my previous capacity as prime minister that nato sometimes seems a bit

distant in the daily life of a prime minister, because, i mean, you have a lot of things to deal with. it will always be that way, but it is my ambition to ensure that my colleagues or former colleagues get more engaged in daily nato work and business. i would very much like a stronger political jshdernl political engagement. i think it will take more meetings among ministers and also heads of state and government to ensure that. i know from experience within the european union that the facts that european ministers

and heads of state and government meet on a regular basis, really contribute to ar strong daily commitment to the european union. and we need that kind of commitment to nato as well. i know for practical reasons, it will not be possible to organize just as many ministers as we see in the european union, but i have a secret dream, and now it's public, that i could organize more ministers within nato to establish the compact that you rightly spoke about. >> mr. secretary general, i think we all have been honored and delighted to experience your first public statements speech

in the united states. this was just fantastic. a lot to think about. i want to thank our chairman for getting us off to a good start and general jones, president obama's national security adviser. it means a lot to us that you were here. i think also if you look throughout this room at the level of people attending underscores not only the importance that people give to the mission but the confidence they have in you. you are seeing president obama tomorrow. i think he very much lives by the lincoln quote, the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. you have told us that this entire session and told us about the need of change and given us concrete ideas about how to start implementing them. thank you so much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tuesday on c-span, the senate finance committee will continue working on a amendments to its health care bill. this is the last of five committees to review health care legislation before the full senate debates the bill. watch the health care markup live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. as the health care debate continues in congress, two liberal groups, progressive change committee and democracy

for america are targeting senator max baucus for not including a public option in his version of the health care reform bill. now a look at that ad. >> our name is binge perrine. i live here in montana. last year i collapsed because of congenital heart problems and i have no insurance and no company will insure me. my friends have held bake sales and benefits, but my wife and i still owe over $100,000 in medical bills. none of this debt would have piled if i had the option of buying into the public option plan. private insurance companies need competition. they profit by denying care to people like me. senator baucus oppose giving

families like mine the choice, i have to ask who's side are you on? >> as the focus on health care continues, c-span's health care hub is a key resource. you can find all the recent congressional hearings and events, speeches by the president and town hall meetings, also you'll find ads, links and your health care comments via twitter. the health care hub at c-span.org slash health care. >> now former white house homeland security adviser frances townsend and her perspective on homeland defense. from the heritage foundation here in washington, d.c., it's 50 minutes.

>> welcome and good morning. i want welcome you to the heritage foundation. i'm the policy analyst for homeland security here at the heritage foundation. i hope you will find this thote provoking and informative. you will find your agenda. your textbooks contain a ton of heritage research on the topics we will present this week. if you like the stuff you see and go to heritage.org. we will start the program today and we will introduce today's key note speaker. >> i coordinate homeland

security and defense and national security here at the heritage foundation. i looked in the dictionary and if you look at spectacular public servant, the definition is fran townsend. she has risen in the bush administration, both the counterterrorism adviser to the president and homeland security adviser to the president at an important time when we were figuring things outgoing through katrina. remarkable period of service. and i got to see that service continue because fran was asked by secretary napolitano to chair a task force that looked at the homeland security advisory system. and that is remarkable that she is valued on both sides of the aisle and it was great experience working with her and it was a complicated subject and thanks to her leadership and

thanks to the leadership of judge webster, we finished on time. and great report. it's remarkable and extraordinary person she is. everything we did on the task force, as i remember working with her at the n.s.c., what does this mean for people on the ground and keeping the nation free, safe and prosperous. we couldn't have a better person to speak to us. please join with me. she will talk and do some questions and answers. [applause] >> i will do my best to live up to that introduction. i'm bound to fall short. it's a little embarrassing.

jim, we couldn't have picked a better time for heritage to have this forum. when we look at what's happening in new york and denver in that we've seen pop up dozzins, frankly, since 9/11, i think we worry about this one in a special way because of what it suggests to us about the absolute continuing commitment of our enemies to attack us here at home. this one is different, at least it appears different from everything we are reading in the press and what we see in the court documents. and so this is a good time for us to reflect on the difficulty and the importance of the homeland security mission. you know, i was out of government for a little bit of time and i was at the u.s. chamber of commerce and i got a request to speak by congressman, then congressman ray lahood. ray was having a constituent forum. and he had these business groups

in and wanted somebody to come up and speak and hosting it at the library of congress and wanted someone to speak about homeland security. i arrived a little bit early. and i was shown to a seat. there was a speaker ahead of me. and there was no air conditioning. it was very, very warm and i thought how am i go go to hold this audience. i start to listen to the speaker ahead of me, young, nice looking, almost sounds like a preacher and gives a very impassioned speech, very uplifting, frankly, about believing in things that are impossible and how he believed in things that were impossible and at that point in time, it was during the democratic primary and believing in things that are impossible, frederick douglass fights for african americans to vote and suffrage had been a fight and hillary

clinton has broken the glass ceiling and very popular in the democratic primary and he believes in things that are impossible and ends on this high note and ray lahood looks over and sort of shrugged his shoulders and i'm now going to speak about homeland security. i stood up and put my speech aside and i thought ok, this is a public speaker's real nightmare and i said you know, we have something in common, i too, believe in things that are impossible and if i had asked that same audience on september 12, 2001, the likelihood that we would get more than eight years now without another attack on american soil those people would have raised their hands and told me that is impossible. with the work of many men and women around the world in uniform, in cia, in homeland security, in the f.b.i. and justice department, we actually

managed to believe in the impossible, but we did the impossible. i start with that story, because i think we need to appreciate the difficulty of the task and the responsibility we've put on the nation's public servants, not only here in washington and in federal departments, but in state and local agencies. this really wsh did he do ask them to do something that is near impossible. when you understand you are facing an enemy who is willing to die to succeed, it's awfully hard to be right absolutely every time when you're either in the federal government or you're in a state and local first responder. the new administration is charged with the same impossible task. you've got some very good, very experienced people in john brennan at the white house, director opinion etta, admiral blair and general jones, but the

task isn't easier for them even with all their experience. you know, secretary napolitano has talked about the gaitest threat to the country has been come placensy. one would hope that this latest case in new york and denver would be a wakeup call to the country. the minimum it goes from the headlines, it will leave the public's memory and onto the next thing. not so with those inside the government charged with the responsibility of stopping the next attack. but i do worry that bureaucracy like the american people can become complacent. i mentioned to jim before coming in here, when i see bureaucratic turf battles between the director of national intelligence and the director of cia, they have enough time to

fight bureaucratic turf wars and not focused enough omission. i will say to you having the privilege to serve on the cia director's external advisory board, i will tell you how impressed i am that the men and women of the cia are actually focused on the mission of gathering intelligence and protecting the american people. this poor agency, it's one of the few agencies in the government where their failures or their vulnerabilities are played out publicly and successes can't be talked about. let me say this because i can without concern of classification, having sat through a day-long external advisory board meeting, i can assure you that the men and women of the cia, since my time of leaving government since january of 2008, have continued to develop additional capabilities, have continued to

strengthen their existing capabilities, have continued to strengthen their alliances around the world and as a result of those things, we do see successes whether it's the disruption of the recent plot, they are public servants that the american people will never know who deserve our praise and thanks for that. whenever you are in government, particularly at the senior level, you realize that one of your greatest challenges besides maintaining the support of the american people is what i refer to is the tyranny of the inbox, that is, you don't get to the long-term things because the things you are fighting every day consume all of your time, all of your attention and all of your energy. you know, as the saying goes, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. secretary napolitano has tried

to highlight her priorities as she moves forward, but it will be a challenge for her. hurricanes don't stop coming. we can't prevent the swine flu, which is already of proportions which we hope never to have to see. so she has to deal with those things. at the same time, she must work to have this department set its roots deeper in the federal government, so it can function on a daily basis in ar really effective way. jim mentioned that she had asked judge webster and i to help lead this task force, the homeland security alert system. i told the press when i first agreed to take this assignment, this challenge on, it was really thankless, right. this is the thing that the pundits love to make fun of. i went home and i have two children, 14 and eight.

the eight-year-old decided he would have his input and gave me the sesame street color codes, like elmo red. my children were making fun of this thing. but i tell you, here's the most useful part of that discussion and that was the explicit acknowledgement and jim helped lead this discussion, the acknowledgement, like the department that we've asked the to do too many things and then we complain it doesn't do it well. so we don't feel like it does them equally well. in terms of communicating to inside the government first responders, in terms of setting expectations, the alert system does it well, but what it doesn't do well is communicate with the american people.

they know it as a communication tool with them and don't think it performs very well. if they don't think it does, then it doesn't. and then we need to be clear about how are we going to improve it. and the task force made a number of recommendations. i hope the secretary and the policy-making community will seriously consider those recommendations. but there are some things that haven't changed and we need to change about how we think about homeland security. you know everyone from the 9/11 commission on has complained about the structure of congressional oversight. this is one of those third rails here in town because of course, oversight involves appropriations committees and funding and all sorts of political lines. but we can't expect a more efficient, effective department of homeland security if they're going to spend an incredible

amount of time on capitol hill answering the same questions to, i have lost count of the dozens of committees they have to report to. and the president is in a position of having the majority of both houses of congress and the white house to do something about it. the problem is, this is the tyranny of the inbox. when you have to deal with the crisis in the economy and health care and all the other issues that are facing us, getting congressional oversight right whether it's for duret or cia doesn't rise to the top of the list but let's not present vend that that doesn't matter. it does matter. and when we want to criticize the federal agencies for lack of effectiveness or efficiency, we ought to remember the structure we put them in in which they are required to operate. there are the other sort of noncrisis issues that actually

can be debilitating if we don't pay attention to them. the 9/11 commission made explicit mention of the importance of information sharing. president bush had me lead an effort to craft a national information-sharing strategy, that is sharing information not only horizontally across the federal government, which i would submit to you is better than it's ever been, but also vertically across down to first and local first responders. thinks a work in progress. we should never feel as though we have solved the information-sharing problem. that said, the american people in the wake of the tragedy of september 11 understood that we needed a better, stronger system of homeland security of counterterrorism. they understood there had been

mistakes because people didn't understand the gravity and urgency of the threat. as i say to my children, nobody gets to make the same mistake twice without recognizing the con questionses. you -- recognizing the consequences. when there is another attack, there will be a problem with information sharing. if that is true, if i am right, people need to lose their jobs. the american people have a right to expect that when we have made a mistake and been pointed out that we fix it. as i said, i think there has been tremendous progress made on information sharing. as we looked at the homeland security alert system and sat with mayors, governors, police chiefs and first responders, we have not solved the vertical information-sharing system. there are fusion centers at the

state level which help. but we are by no means done. and i think this is a problem -- the tyranny of the inbox, this is an issue that falls down the list of priorities. this has to be the priority not only of the secretary but also the white house. if it is not, it will not get fixed. and so i repeat to you this is not a sexy issue, information sharing, but it is one that will absolutely be our downfall in terms of stopping an attack. it's the state and local first responders, these attacks are less likely to happen, to be planned, plotted and executed here in the nation's capital but will happen in state and local communities. and first responders are likely to have access to that information at a point in time when we can stop it. i also think, we have heard much

about the use of smart power. the term tends to be soft power. i don't like that. i like smart power. while language is important, it's not screws about language, but also about how do we incorporate the dollars that government spends on foreign aid, how do we use that money smartly to achieve our national security objectives. this is something i worked on while i was in the white house. this is a very difficult issue. right now, there is no director of usaid. that's a problem. lack of leadership is a problem. the integration of foreign aid into our national security objectives and then having metrics and holding people accountable. we complain that those are the budgets that get cut mostly because people don't see an investment and we have to be honest on why we are spending those dollars. it's not because we are good,

kind and generous people, we are. if we are going to be stewards of the american taxpayers' dollars, we have to show a return on investment. i think there is a return of investment if it goes into our national security agenda. it hasn't been done and needs to be done. language matters. i was at at another think tank in town giving a speech and i arrived early and i will protect the guilty in this story, but there is an american germ who has security responsibilities in this country and he described the struggle -- you will see i used the word with some judgment, the general described the terrorism problem as quote a persistent struggle against violent extremism, end quote. this made me angry and the

general left before i had the opportunity to speak. that didn't stop me from saying, you know what? here's my problem. for policy and political reasons, we now eschooed the war on terrorism. you can call it a conflict. if my sons were in uniform fighting overseas, i would resent it being called a persistent struggle. if you have a teenager as i do, getting him to do his homework and take a shower every day is a persistent struggle. what we are fighting in afghanistan or iraq is a war or conflict, but it is more than just a persistent struggle. only in washington will we sacrifice clarity for political correctness. we do our men and women in uniform a disservice when whe do

that. we have to be clear about what we're doing. many people criticize the former president for referring to it as islamo-facism. i'm ok if you don't like that phrase, but this is a conflict, armed conflict with extremists who want to kill us. if we ask men and women to go overseas to protect us, we have to be willing to call it what it is so they understand who their enemy is and what they're fighting for. i talked about congressional oversight. let me sort of -- before i open it up, talk about what i call the big items. these are long-term issues that i think really do get lost in the every day shuffle. and it's not through mall feesance. having sat in these seats and

understanding you can work seven days a week and still not get enough done, i'm pretty sympathetic. but i think that's where places like heritage can play a role, and that is thinking through helping the administration, helping current policy makers and politicians think through the long-term issues and make the important investments that need to be made if we're going to be successful in the long-term. i am a prig proponent of a formal education and training system for homeland security, not just across the federal government. do i think -- people say, how did you wind up where you wound up in the white house? and i wish i could tell you that i sat out deliberately to get there. it's not the case. i literally, when the country was in a crisis, i had a unique background. i served in law enforcement in

intelligence positions, i served in policy and operational positions. we don't make people like that. we don't set out as a federal government deliberately to build people with that experience. so post-9/11 world rkts my experience was unique. it wasn't that i was special, but my background and experience was unique. i have become a tremendous proponent of the government actually needs to build people with that kind of experience. we need -- my experience was not only across the federal government. i worked at the state and local level. we need to build people like that. and that takes money. it takes a commitment and takes an infrastructure that doesn't currently exist. we have the seeds of it at the national defense university now. we have programs that address it. none of them really incorporate state and local first responders. the military will tell you if you want to fight together well, you have to train together. we need a program that actually

enlists state and local first responders into an education system, long-term education system so that they understand federal capabilities and the feds can rightfully expect. we need a gold water-nichols. this is not without pain or jefment. and getting to purple as they call those assignments, getting there was not easy. and that continues to be a work in progress, but it is a very much accepted part of military life. and while we see again the seeds of it in the federal civilian bureaucracy, it's not a requirement to promotion. i became a member of the senior executive service and nobody required me -- they ask you all kinds of things in terms of your management skills and your leadership skills. nobody required as part of that that i served in another federal agency other than the one i come up in.

no one required that i do time outside a retation inside the justice department to get there. that's a problem. we need people who understand all the tools of national power, where the authorities and capabilities reside and how to access them and use them effectively. budgeting, this is probably, along with goldwater-nichols. we have homeland security quad drenial review going on, much mirroring the defense review. since i have been out of depoft, if you talk to any c.e.o. and you tell them that you have a budget and employees the size of the department of homeland security and they have to plan and execute on a one-year budget cycle and look at you as if you're crazy, because they say you can't do r&d on a one-year

budget cycle and can't have education and training on a one-year budget cycle. it doesn't work that way. we don't expect our successful companies to do it. and the notion that we expect what is among the most important in federal agencies -- by the way, it's not just d. hmple s., the f.b.i. and cia. they operated for years on not only did they suffer under a 12-month budget cycle but had to rely on supplementals so they never knew how much they were going to spend in a given year. there are all sorts of reasons that that is the case. many of them are political, but the answer is d.o.d. doesn't work that way. we understand when you are doing large military procurements that you can't do it on a one-year budget cycle. so we have a model for baking that and correcting the budget

cycle so that d.h.s. can plan over the long-term to have a campus and have a single home. we do have a system that allows the f.b.i. to plan for an increase in the number of analysts and agents. we just have to give them access to long-term budget planning and frankly it means holding them accountable for it. so, if i was to give you the wish list, it would be a long-term training and education program, a goldwater-nochols for the civilian bureaucracy and multi-year budgeting process for the civilian agencies, much more akin to d.o.d. i have run you through. i promised jim i would do questions and answers. >> if you have a question, just raise your hand. if you would state your name or affiliation, that would be great. i want to ask the first

question. and i can't believe i'm asking this question, what is the department of homeland security all about? and we know they do storms and other things and there are people that say, homeland security needs to be br combating international terrorism. that's its core competency and other people say homeland security needs to do that. it needs to be about immigration and border security and everything else. we are having the same debate we had after 9/11. where do you come on this continuing great debate on this issue? >> if i was starting from a blank slate, i probably would have built it different. it's the old story, it's easier to start small and get the smaller mission right, strengthen it, then add to it and move on. everyone figured we have one

bite at the apple and built this conglomeration of agencies and we feel like they don't do any of them particularly well. i will say this, i think there is value in having the varied missions because you can leverage capability from around the department depending on the crisis you're responding to. i wouldn't break it apart, but i do think it needs to be clear -- at the department level, the secretary sets her priorities. you need to set priorities for each of the component parts. they need to answer up to her priorities and need to explain how they are supporting her priorities but need to articulate their own. the fedges and analysis division at d.h.s. i encourage you to ask charlie about it, many good people have led that director in the department. it still suffers from a lack of identity about what its mission

is. it shouldn't be a mini cia or f.b.i., but it can be the focal point for sharing information. charlie made tremendous progress with that but that's a component that lacks an identity and needs one. on the other hand, we have to be clear that we can't divert the attention of some of the cow competencies whether it's the coast guard, immigration, customs enforcement we can't mess with what they do well and allow them the budget and resources to do it. i would not break it apart. i would leave it and give it the time and resources to get the synnergy out of the conglomeration. >> we'll go down here first.

>> two questions. first question is, homeland security responsible for cyber security? and if it is, it seems like all the publicity goes to the guns and shooting and yet cyber security is probably more of a threat than that is. how do we respond? >> it's interesting. the last document i prepared for president bush before i left the white house was the classified presidential directive, which is sort of the foundation stone to what has become the national cyber security effort. the answer to your first question, d.h.s. is charged with taking the lead, particularly across the federal government, but with the private sector. here's the problem and confusion. anybody hotels you they have the capability -- it's one of the things -- my pet peeves say they

fight for turf. this is exhibit one. there are good reasons we want d.h.s. to take the lead. we want to respect privacy and civil liberty concerns. we want it to be governed by the legal regime and as required here in the u.s. that's how we got to d.h.s. being given that authority. the government gets there for good reason, but the problem is they don't have the capability. most people in government would say the capability resides under n.s.a. that's where we have people who know how to do this but no in civilian agencies. if you gave them all the money they needed, it will take them a decade to grow the capability. it resides in the military or private sector where people get paid a lot more money for that expertise. we have seen it in the new

administration has found in getting someone to lead this effort. this is the problem. i do worry about the fact the guns and kicking in doors makes better television and interesting stories, but i think people sorely underestimate the consequences of a large-scale cyber attack. there will be a cyber 9/11. and regrettably that's what it's going to take before people pay attention to this. now, publicly, i think people are within in government that are concerned and focused about this. but being focused doesn't do much unless you have capability. in d.o.d., there is not just the attention and discipline to this but real thought leadership about what are the legal authorities, what should the policy be and what legal authorities do we not have that we need. and i think d.o.d. -- i give secretary gates and particularly the vice chairman of the joint

chiefs who used to run strathcom, he was the guy i went to. you have really smart people, focused on this issue and will lead this effort if not publicly, certainly behind the scenes. but it's going to require a commitment from congress. this is a dangerous area. we relie -- the internet undergirards our financial system and our economy. this is not a good place for gotcha, which is what we get to in this town too much. it requires leadership on capitol hill as well. >> you mentioned several key points. communication between the original sources and the people

is the most critical, yet we don't have it. for example, transportation and whether as you have seen the document here are two critical activities, which are not covered very well. in 1966, i'll give you the example, for example, in 1966, there was a palm sunday tornado in chicago. it wiped out all communications there and north. that one incident triggered the noaa weather radio system, which has about 100 or 1,000 stations nationwide. and because of that, states clammered to get this built,

and, in fact, they began to put their own money into it. that was local. you have the same thing in transportation. you have transportation management agencies at the state and local level. you have weather offices, 120 some odd throughout the country have have up-to-date information but there is no direct link to the people with radio. now getting to the technology part. a company up here in columbia has built high-definition radio. you use two side band channels, one could be used for weather, the other for transportation. there are several hundred stations in operation throughout the country right now, so it's not a question of technology. it's not a question of information sources, because

both are available. the key is to provide the frequencies on the upper side of the fm broadcast band rather than establish a complete new system. so no matter whoever buys a radio will have access to these alerts and to this information in graphicic -- graphic form. >> seems silly i keep coming back to my kids. if my 14-year-old was sitting here and listening to what you were saying, he would scratch his head. we have a single radio in my house and the people who listen to it are my husband and i when i'm cooking in the kitchen. my kids live by whether it's the iphone, blackberry. it's not just to your point, i

would take it and put it to the nth degree. we don't all communicate the same way. it requires a commitment. part of the homeland security task force recommendation was to look at the all new means of social media to communicate with every age group and economic group and put the message out. i take your point, there are things that are available without new technology, but we have to think about this with a very open mind. >> i would like to go back to the national security point you made. you said it would take approximately 10 years to translate from the nsa and d.o.d.'s perspective, what advice would you give to the d.h.s. leadership today to help accelerate that translation? >> it's a great question. one of the things -- i'm going to relate it