technology working group which is not just our organization but it is other federal organizations, the academiaworking with all those people up there and a partnership to come up with the best methodology to expedite people through and to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be non intrusive and make sure it's very efficient. i would say that in this particular case again, i don't think any level of technology, i don't think any level of funding is the reason for why this happened. pure and simple, this is a human error. we could've had the best technology. we could have had all the funding that we would ever want. but there's still would not have prevented this from happening. if people don't follow the established guidelines, something like this is going to happen. as i said before we put 1.2 million people to the white house this past. all those people were put through without incident because we did follow procedure. so i do agree we need to continually look at technology and whenever methodologies are out there to ensure that we get people in as safely as we can. i do think tha

. -- in the clinton administration and a couple of capacities. but my lifelong endeavors have been in academia. by the way, ambassador romero, it is great to see you in so many other friends. i am very proud to be here. the first latino and a democratic administration in this position, and the first political appointee in the bureau of western hemispheric affairs and a democratic government since 1958. where do we stand? let me give you a little background. i want to say that first that i see the situation in latin america as the glass half full rather than half empty. and maybe that is a bed of the historian in me. -- a bit of the historian and me. if you look back not that far ago, we had a situation where between the 1960's and 1980's, you had authoritarian governments in every country except for three. with a terrific experiences like argentina, where 30,000 disappeared, -- with the horrific experiences like in argentina, where 30,000 people disappeared, and in the 1980's, there open complex in a series of concert -- of countries and central america. the economic situation through the 1980

you know, the academia. are dealing with all those people up there in a partnership to see we can come up with the best methodology to expedite people through, and to make sure that we do it in a way that is going to be not interested and make sure it is very efficient. i would say that in this particular case again, i don't think any level of technology, i don't think any level of funding is the reason for why this happened. pure and simple, this is a human error. we could've had the best technology. we could have had all the funding that we would ever want. but this still would not have prevented this from happening. if people don't follow the established guidelines, it's going to track something like this is going to happen. as i said before, we put 1.2 meg people in the white house this past year. and all those people were put through without an incident because we did follow procedure. so i do agree with you that we need to continually look at technology and whatever methodologies are out there to ensur

and also frances did a good job of laying out the consensus view in large parts of academia and the americanelative holes. and i think my role here is toça little bit go with the grinch or scrooge. we would used to go with my children to see "a christmas story" every year andxd when scrooge would launch into the early colloquy, i would turn to my wife and say, you know, he's got a pint. you need to be frugal. she would give me this stare that wives reserve for husbands when they said something stupid and put me back in my place, but basically i would say the consensus view is that allçó problems in american politics could be easily solved if only the members and the parties would stand back and do what's in the best interest of america and engage in kind of an effortless bipartisanship. and that we have an era of hypertoxic, unprecedented partisanship that's loose. i p to the partisanship and i'm going to let larry defend me on this view because he's actually a student of this, but the level of partisanship in america today is not unprecedented. in the 19th century we had equal or worse, so

i am somebody who is trying to go beyond just the ivory tower walls of academia to speak to a large audience. that is a good deal of it. "the huffington post" and my own web site came about out of some frustration and i am writing columns and submitting them all across the country. not one was published. i got one published by the "topeka capital journal" years ago. i was so frustrated,i decided to go out and write my own columns on my own website. i knew someone who knew somebody at "huffington post." the next thing you know i was there. that opportunity has opened up other opportunities. >> give us an example of what that does for you. >> it is actually pretty amazing. i have come to learn that many news producers go to "the huffington post" and i have ended up on radio or television. they would say they've read what i wrote on "huffington post" and it is a tremendous value in that regard. my location in d.c. helps as well. >> fourth generation washingtonian? >> yes. >> i love it where it says on your web site that you are the nephew of walter. fauntroy. >> idea that tongue-in-cheek -- i d

all of are leaders in your communities in the business sector and the academia, we have a few pundits here. it's important to understand what's at stake and that we can't keep on playing games. i mentioned that i was in asia on this trip and thing about the economy. -- thinking about the economy. when i sat down for a round of interviews, not one asked me about asia or the economy, i was several times if i had read sarah palin's book. true. but it's an indication of how our political debate doesn't match up with what we need and where we need to go. but this kind of dialogue helps and i appreciate all of you participating. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> excuse me. because i'm traveling to allentown, pennsylvania -- >> yeah! [laughter] >> i want to make sure that this room of business leaders and labor leaders and others just have a chance real quickly to hear directly from the mayor of allentown who is here right now. come up here, mr. mayor, because i want to make sur

that is where the power of academia comes in. that is where i think it will help win the long term. >> if i may, i think that is the critical piece of what this committee is trying to focus on. identifying who they are i think that to a broader battle is more troubling. it is the long term message. we're fighting an ideology. when we are out there trying to stop this, this is a message war. it is wherever messages to be derived and right now, we are considerably behind in fighting the battle. this is an ongoing struggle. i hate to say pepsi verses coke, but this is a long term branding issue -- pepsi vs coke, but this is a long-term branding issue. i will to comment on that after we get the doctors testimony. please go ahead. >> mr. chairman, distinguished members, i think you for allowing me to be here today. i will keep my if remarks normal and conversational. a lot to put the internet and perspective. the injured matt is not a series of training camps. if -- the internet is not a series of training camps. it is an attempt to pr

i would simply say that the caller obviously has a the conventional wisdom of american academia todaych is that somehow these evil europeans came to america and took over and murdered and killed for 300 years. that is a total misreading of american, western history. people who have that perspective are not generally open to contrary opinions. i commend the gentleman for his passion. host: coming from james, i thought that the "haters" took sunday off. caller: good morning. only to quickly comment on health care issue. i am for reform, but i tell you what i. if i were watching across the parking lot and is on became up to the my flesh -- i would think that i could get these things are down. the democrat would walk up to zombie and demand healthcare. that is how prophetic the left is. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i do agree that we need to get out of afghanistan. there's no logical reason that our men and women should be dying in the mountains fighting men who have fought and triggers for 1000 years. no matter where the interest come from. our problem from terrorism i

i think frances did a very good job of what i would say is laying out the consensus view in large parts of academiand the american public in terms of bipartisanship and partisanship and the relative roles. and i think my role here is to a little bit go with the grinch or scrooge. i used to take my children over to the national theater and we would see "a christmas story" every year and when scrooge would launch into his early colloquy, i would turn to my wife and say, he's got a point. [laughter] >> you need to be frugal and she would give me the stare that wives reserved for their husbands when they said something stupid and put me back in place. but basically i would say the consensus view is that all of our problems in american politics could be easily solved if only the members and the parties would stand back and do what's in the best interest of america and engage in kind of an effortless bipartisanship. and that we have an era of hypertoxic unprecedented partisanship that's loose. first part of the argument goes to the partisanship. and i'm going to let larry defend me on this view 'cause he

the object of academic inquiry. to put it another way, modern american conservatism, a marginalized orphan in academia when i began research on that a generation ago, has become a middle-aged, which of course raises the uncomfortable question, our old age and re-marginalization just around the corner? occurrent explanations of the conservative predicaments tend to fall into two distinct categories. the first stresses the movement's political failures and frustrations during their recent presidency of george w. bush. with the exception of its tax-cutting policies and judicial nominations, bush's administration at least on the home front, now seems to many conservative stalwarts who have been in considerable a degree in liberal republican administration more akin to rockefeller, nixon and reagan. the second cluster of explanations for conservatism's focus is not so much on the external political but on internal factors, that is the structure and dynamics of the conservative movement itself. perhaps the most important thing to understand about modern american conservatism is that it is not and has never been unit focal. it is

panelists from the business and academia and public policy groups and discuss benefits and risks associatedwith information-sharing. federal trade commission hosts the discussion. it is an hour. >> hello, welcome to panel two. this morning we heard a lot of conversation from jim harper and what consumers really want and what about disclose you are and transparency. we'll get the answers from this distinguished group of panels. this panel will draws address what we know about consumer expectations with with respect to use of information. we heard surveys present little value on this issue because they don't actually measure real consumer behavior. on the other hand, there is general agreement that consumers don't understand what happens behind the scenes. they browse or they search on line. they visit web sites or complete a survey. relying on consumer behavior to understand consumers expectations and use of their information has limitations. our expert panel today is prepared to talk about the issues in light of their own she roich, informing consumers about data flows or as vehicle of cons

the army. he has served in academia, on the faculty of princeton. everybody knows him as the former ceo. has every advisory committee in the world that he has been on. so, mr. augustine, with that pedigree, we are honored you are here. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. senator hutchison, senator vitter, members of the committee -- i appreciate this chance to appear on behalf of our committee and describe our results. i will submit for the record my prepared statement in briefly summarize it now. you provided the proper opening, and that is that the human space flights program in america is at a tipping point right now. probably more so than at any time when president kennedy to the leadership to say that we should have such a program. before it began, i would like to acknowledge the enormous effort and dedication of the members of the committee i have had the privilege of serving with. i have rarely worked with people who put in the hours and effort this group has. i would like to take note of the fact that the support we received from nasa was extraordinary. extremely competent peop

we have leaders from just about every sector of the economy, government, labor, academia, nonprofit, inesses of all sizes. i know that year unions are universities or cities are companies do not run themselves, so i appreciate you taking the time to be here. i appreciate the need perspective that each of you brings to the great economic challenge before us. the continuing plight of millions of americans who are still out of work. sometimes in this town would talk about these things in clinical and academic ways, but this is not an academic debate. with one in 10 americans out of work and millions of more not have enough hours to support themselves, this is a struggle that cuts deep and touches people across this nation. every day, i meet people or hear from people who talk about sending out resume after resume, and they have been hunting for a job for over a year and still cannot find anything. they have not just lost the paycheck they need to live, they are losing the sense of dignity and identity that comes from having a job. i hear from business owners who face the heart. of having

i would simply say that the caller obviously has a the conventional wisdom of american academia todayomehow these evil europeans came to america and took over and murdered and killed for 300 years. that is a total misreading of american, western history. people who have that perspective are not generally open to contrary opinions. i commend the gentleman for his passion. host: coming from james, i thought that the "haters" took sunday off. caller: good morning. only to quickly comment on health care issue. i am for reform, but i tell you what i. if i were watching across the parking lot and is on became up to the my flesh -- i would think that i could get these things are down. the democrat would walk up to zombie and demand healthcare. that is how prophetic the left is. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i do agree that we need to get out of afghanistan. there's no logical reason that our men and women should be dying in the mountains fighting men who have fought and triggers for 1000 years. no matter where the interest come from. our problem from terrorism is in saudi a

the banking crisis of 1991. that is how i cut my teeth in academia. i have seen this before. this will happen again. the best we can hope for is that this bill will reduce the frequency and severity of future crises, and that is the best we can do, because there will always be new markets that will get out of control, and if we have a systemic risk monitor, we will attenuate those bubbles, but we will never put them out, so let's not over-promise. >> i believe the false positives in the banking industry as well as the economy may lead policy- makers not to the bold systemic redesign that is needed. if you lift the current intervention, a lot has been said about we have been pulled from vanessa edge of the of this, but let's fourth of what we really did. we've made too big to fail vaguer, landing -- and landing among those institutions is going down. the fund is depleted. if you will look of the reality of unemployment, it is growing. poverty is growing. the fact of the matter is wall the economy is technically out of recession, america is in deep depression, so i guess my bottom line is we have not c

science which is frequently in collaboration with our colleagues at nih or academia can help bridge this gap and help get the products they're. we also in this evaluation process that we do, can take innovation steps to make that go faster. products are developed. and one of the things we really put our resources into is when there's a very important public health problem, like pandemic influenza, to interact intensively with the product developers from their earliest stages and try to say, how do we have a process where production, devaluation, etc., we discover problems where we speed it up early rather than coming to a point at the end of the day where, let's say, a product can be manufactured or there is a safety question late in again. we tried were possible to provide guidance. and for example, i will mention we have provided guidance on how to safely produced so cultured based vaccines that all manufacturers can use to accelerate their development. and then we have some regulatory mechanisms, including accelerated approval. asks overread approval allows us to approve a medical product based on what we

all of you are leaders in your communities in the business sector and labor sector and in academia, we even have a few pundits here. and it is important to fand what is at stake and that we can't keep on playing games. i mentioned that i was in asia on this trip, and thinking about the chi, and i sat down for a round of interviews, and not one of them asked me about asia. and in the one of them asked me about the economy. i was asked several times had i read sarah payen's book? and tru. but it is an indication of how -- how -- how our mill debate doesn't match up with what we need to do and where we need to go. but this kind of dialogue helps and i appreciate all of you participating. thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captions performed by the national captioning institute] >> excuse me. i just -- because i'm traveling to allentown, pennsylvania. i want to make sure that this room of business leaders, and labor leaders and -- others, just have a chance, real quickly to hear directly from the mayor of allentown who is here right n

we have the technology working group which is not just our organization, but other federal organizations, academiadealing with all of those people in a partnership to see if we can come up with the best methodology to expedite people through end to make sure that we do it in a way that is going to be non intrusive and make sure that it is very efficient. in this particular case, i don't think that any level of technology, any level of funding is a the reason for this happening. . simple, this is a human error. -- pure and simple, this is a human hair. -- pure and simple, this is a human error. we put 1.2 million people through the white house over the past year. all of those people were put through without an incident because we did follow procedures. i do agree with you that we need to continually look at technology and whenever methodologies are out there to ensure that we get people in safely as we can. i do think that it did not matter in this particular situation. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from california, mr. lundgren. >> if thank you, mr. chairman. it is too bad th

they used to pass each other's opinions back-and-forth for grammar, corrections, the kinds of thing you do and academia. in fact when i asked him about this relationship, which to many people seem strange because he is such a conservative then she is a liberal. he said we both started out as academics. we both took academics very seriously and during her confirmation hearings are remember senator herb kohl said what is with u.n. scalia? she said he is the only one kent-- back in make me laugh, which i thought was funny. [laughter] any way she was quite helpful in this book and said you know i love him but sometimes i could strangle him and went on to talk about how she thinks his legacy wooden door, which actually she thinks that his approach is so far to the right that it will not endure. as i said right now i think he is prevailing. i think he has attained the apex of his legal career in part because of having the vote of chief justice john roberts and the second u.s. the soucy justice, samuel alito both appointees of george w. bush but they certainly have given him votes that he didn't have 21st art