tv U.S. Senate CSPAN May 31, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
memorial day weekend. legislative business will resume on monday, june 4. and now live to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., may 31, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable carl m. levin, a senator from the state of michigan, to perform the duties
of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 4, 2012. ad >> back to the program about the future of the digital media with founder and chair of dish network charles ergen and talks about the future of broadband.
>> for those who didn't follow the story through, they had to upgrade their whole plant with additional cable which is how we got broadband. >> i think some degree you can give credit to the satellite industry in the united states for bringing broadband to a majority of americans because while the cable industry probably was a little bit of asleep at the real when it came to direct broadcast they were not asleep at the wheel to figure out how to grow their business. they were able to do technology and through a lot of hard work and risk-taking they were able to figure out how to do broadband through their cable plan and upgrade to digital. competition for to us do that. so now the most profitable part of most cable companies today is in fact that broadband plan they did in, in effect because of the satellite industry taking a third of their customers. >> out in the audience itwell really was the doctrine of cable labs with people like dick green and
tom moore and others that gave the cable industry opportunity they had to take advantage particularly of satellite. >> we face it a bit today. netflix is forcing us how to things like over the top video maybe we wouldn't have thought about before and so you have disrupt tores coming into the business and our being asleep at wheel, why we didn't do netflix before netflix did netflix is an issue an indictment of the ceo at the time, i can't remember his name. he certainly was asleep at the wheel. it happens that other people come in and come up with better ideas and you just have to be cognizant of it. >> you mentioned a couple things in terms of innovation. phil mentioned the technology side. you're also pretty aggressive on the sale side. i wasn't here at the time. i understand you offered free satellite dishes to the whole city of boulder at one point in connection with the service, is that right? >> i don't know if we did boulder or not. i know we did some small
towns and a town in southwestern colorado we nt into ridgway and eureka, colorado, where the cable operator was one of our first satellite retailers who was one of the guys who taught me about the business. he was going to shut down the cable system and we went in and gave everybody a free dish and rolled our trucks in and hooked everybody up for free. it was a publicity stunt as anything else but we wanted to take care of people there because we knew they were going to lose their cable so. >> how does, whether technological innovation or sales innovation relate to your management style? are you of the mind, get great managers, let them run the show? are you hands on involved in all the details? talk about your management style. >> well i would say, yeah, i'm more of a micromanager than let somebody just do it. i think you have two kind of philosophies in management. i'm not a manager if you talk to people. they can attest to that. either you trust somebody day one until they prove you
wrong, or, you say, i don't trust you until you show me i can trust you and i'm the latter, which is i don't trust you when i first hire you until you show me you can do it and then i will give you a lot of rope. up until the last year or so i've been very involved in the day-to-day aspects of the business as ceo. now i'm the chairman. i am not as actively involved. i would say i was relatively on top of the business. certainly more so than most ceo's for companies our size and i was there every day and, i was talking to the, you know, i knew i had, i had information flow of the things i thought were important. i still sign checks. that is one of the greatest things you can do. and i've had board members who said you can't sign checks. we'll pass a resolution you can't sign checks but it's the single easiest way to stay on top of your business. if you know where the money is going you know everything, you know most everything about that business and, you may be after the fact.
may be, you know, cows are out of the barn but at least you know something after the fact as opposed to not knowing it so. >> what would you have to sign over? >> i signed every check in that company until, until, probably you know, seven or eight years ago. i went to $5,000 checks. then i went to $10,000 checks. i'm at $100,000 checks. now blockbuster, i sign $10,000 checks. it takes me hour or two every week and i get a feel for the business and i can ask questions. when stanton who is here uses outside legal counsel or there is lawsuit, we did something wrong or we did something right i might not otherwise know about it. he would say i didn't think that was very important. and i would say, well you should tell me about it and i will decide if it is important or not. so i can see the check going to such and such a law firm or such and such consultant and i have a feel for it. >> so you've introduced
and -- >> but i say, it's, if you ever start a business signing checks. you won't read it in a book but sign the checks. as long as you can stand it, sign them. >> the, the newest venture you have in the wireless business is another, at least part of the company proposition. you have already invested $3 billion in spectrum from companies that went bankrupt. the lightsquared saga obviously didn't give this business opportunity a great name. and you are now asking the fcc for flexibility in spectrum that would enable you to offer wireless broadband company. were you go where these other companies like lightsquared have failed, what is your thought about why you can pull this off where others haven't? >> well, i think a few things. first we, we listened to the
president of the united states who said broadband is one, this administration's highest priority and we have a looming crisis coming. we also listened to the chairman of the fcc who said the same thing, many, many times. by the way this chairman was also part, was chief of staff for reed hunt when we got in the dbs business. so we knew that he had a long history of understanding technology. so that was one aspect which is this is a government initiative and a government priority. so that gives you some confidence to go about something when something, when the president of the united states says it is such importance. the second thing was that we really do need more wireless spectrum and it's a shame that the way it, you know, i guess what i've always told the fcc if you started in 1776 you could draw out a good spectrum plan for the united states. but we're not in 1776.
it is all chopped up and doesn't make much sense. spectrum was allocated for business use that wasn't very economical. companies tried to use the spectrum in ways that it wasn't economical in hopes they would be able to use it in a more economical way eventually. we bought debt of companies, waited for them to die and took them out of bankruptcy because we didn't think that was going to be a viable an plan. by going to the government with something creative and saying here is how we create competition and here's how we can alleviate some of the spectrum crunch, we just think it is a good idea. a lot of times good ideas don't work in washington but we have many so, i think we have credibility. we've done it before. so we're not, it is not our first rodeo. second, there's precedent so government does work on precedent and there is precedent for companies to be able to use the spectrumter reese teely or satellite terrestrially.
we knew there were would be interference issues and spectrum would not be used as robust as you want to. so we did a lot of homework between the difficult bands and frequencies and went after frequencies that are pretty clean in terms of that and i questions fourth, we've taken our time, longer than we'd like are but certainly taken our time with the government for them to do a full evaluation of it and asks for input anywhere from nasa to the gps industry who is actually in support of what we're doing. so we don't make some of the mistakes people made in the past. >> you mentioned one -- >> and there is no guaranty, there is no guaranty, we were, for those, i think we went on public notice and public register today after over a year since our first filing. so it takes a long time and there's no guaranty, a, the rules will be accommodating enough to let us into the business, but we take the president at his word. and there is no guaranty
even if we get in the business, it would be a longshot i think that we could compete against at&t and verizon. they're huge, they're huge companies that have the power of incumbency and have the power of scale. having said that, it seems like something we want to try to do. >> phil mentioned lightsquared. you just mentioned you don't have the gps problems that lightsquared had. what other lesson to do you take from their regulatory problems that you're going to try to avoid and take a different playbook? >> well, i think, i commend lightsquared for being innovative and i think that the government, particularly fcc, tried to do the right thing there. i just think that ultimately, and i think politics flays -- plays a role there it probably shouldn't have played. but having said all that, once lightsquared got into it and we saw the kind of problems they were having when we first approached the. >> cc about it, that we
wanted to go to the full commission for a ruling. we didn't want to do staff level. so that's a material difference in terms of how much scrutiny we would get and ultimately the commission decided that they wanted even further scrutiny than that and they went to full rule-making which is even another level of scrutiny and so i think that's really the key to it which if it's not a good idea let's find out about it now before we go and invest in more billions on this plan. >> so, for those in the audience, if you want to submit your questions, please write them and we'll have some people coming down in the audience to pick them up and bring them up. so feel free to share them with us. the proposition of competing against entrenched companies like at&t, verizon, or like tci in early eras for most people that is enough to leave them to think maybe i should find another business. you've done this before. you're now in the prospect of going to do it again.
what were the key lessons or keys to success that enabled you to do this, to basically take on incumbents and win? >> well, i think, i think there's some few things that have to happen. one you have to have a dedicated team that wants to go in the same direction and understand the sacrifices and what it will take to, to be a new entrant and be disruptive to somebody that has that much critical mass in the business. second, i think you have to get lucky. you have to either, technology has to change, your timing has to be right or, the incumbents maybe don't pay as much attention to you as they should or, they make a mistake or something, something has to kind of go right. third i think you have to come in and you have to build a better product. you can't come in with something that is the same as the incumbents. you have to come in, you need to do two things. it has to be better product. it has to be less expensive. has to be better and less expensive. your timing has to be right.
and you have to have a great team to do it. so my analogy for our team is, like a bunch of old cowboys sitting down in texas and we're deciding that the grass is really green in montana, why don't we drive some cows up there and see how it goes? we'll get $2 a day while driving the can he will up there and we'll split the profits up there if we're successful. if that sound like lonesome dove, that is what we're trying to do. >> we have question -- >> by the way, some people want to work in that kind of atmosphere and say let's go on the cattle drive. no, i want to sit here in texas where i'm comfortable and somebody will pay me money. and i can have a living. we'll probably skew a little younger in terms of our employee base. believe it or not people are around for a while looking for another challenge and very knowledgeable that want to go on the cattle drive. one of the things everybody has to read "lonesome dove quote and have to figure out
what they are and most people hope they're not jake spoon. it gives you something to focus width we can focus on something you can understand and that's what we'll go do and go compete against, all the people in the cattle business for 50 years. >> a student asked a question very much on point. he says, when it was just you and your wife, maybe you could just say, you know what? doesn't work out i will be an accountant in alaska, we'll be find. didn't need the money. now you build on a company of 30,000 people. take on a new company proposition and move the whole company from texas to montana is it a harder proposition? i think you answered part of it but how do you think about it? >> yes, it is harder to make that decision. yes, we are a public company. we have a fiduciary responsible to people we didn't have before. we have over 30,000 employees i take very seriously. the fact they need to provide for their families. we don't take it lightly. very similar for us not
taking the risk we think is the bigger risk. this is a case if we're untuck sesful. -- unsuccessful the spectrum still probably has value. this is probably one of those things if we're not successful there are people who have scale in the business today where what we do will be valuable to them. i don't think we're betting the whole company like we were when we had nothing or we had very little. so it is much more difficult. i do think it would be difficult as an entrepreneur to start a business with wife and five kid and things would be difficult to star start a business because you would have the risk there, would be not just yourself but fairly easy when you're 25, 27 years old and you don't have anything. >> what are your estimates on the capital intensity? let's say you are able to get the fcc approvals necessary to build a broadband wireless network terrestrial. what do you think in terms of capital it will take to do that? >> well i can tell you that
the industry is probably spent probably close to $100 billion to do what we're trying to do and we hopefully will do that for a fraction of that cost because technology has changed so rapidly. so one of the things that's, that we could get stopped bevacqua we're started if rule making goes on too long we may miss a window to enter the business but there's new lte technology. so you always want, as disruptor you want to enter when technology is changing. in the satellite business we video changed from analog to digital. we were able to enter right when it changed to digital. in the wireless business of changing to lte, from 3g and cdma technologies and there's huge, huge, it is a world standard. so we'll not have these different standards. it will be one world standard and there's a huge economies of, gain in terms of technology and some are between 10 and 100 times more capacity for same
amount of investment. so it's a good time to enter the business. so we will spend billions of dollars for sure. we'll create tens of thousands of jobs if we're successful. but, you know, we have, we've been saving our money and, you know, we're prepared to go spend that. >> you made an interesting decision, entering a new business, buying the spectrum, you could have bought sprint or t-mobile. why choose to build from the ground up as opposed to buying one of the legacy carriers? >> even, it was just really, a, we didn't know enough about the business to do something like that and second, the cost of the spectrum, it was about the same amount of spectrum that those companies had and so it was, i think t-mobile was, at&t was going to pay 39 billion for them. of course they had 35 million customers and the system was built out but the spectrum that we purchased so far is approaching almost $4 billion now. and it's a, it's similar
kind of spectrum that they have. it seemed like a better economical model for us to do that second thing the technology changes, we don't have any legacy, we can build the technology without a legacy of essentially switching networks and essentially analog phone. so we'll be able to do something called hd voice. certainly our system will be completely ip. your voice will be ip. so you don't have any old legacy. it just means essentially you will just buy a data plan. everything from zeroes and ones. this is me talking. here's what i want to do. i don't know whether people will talk me out of this but i really just want a phone that i can talk as many minutes i want. i can text while i'm talking and can surf the web all at the same time and cost me $50. and when i get the bill, it is $50. because i signed up for a plan from one the carriers. it was $589 but my bill is like $164.28.
and it is like 18 pages long. and i can't, i used to be an accountant. i can't tell you why it is $164. neither can they when i call them if i get through. push one for english and two for spanish. you go to cities sometimes, get five bars but nothing works, right? and so, i don't think, i don't think the wireless business has to be that way. i think you actually could have a phone that works. i think you could actually understand your bill. so i'm really, really interested in doing that. >> do you see that as a function of a breakdown in the wireless market, that it is gearing or already is a due open polely? how competitive do you see the wireless market in broadband. >> it is competitive. it is actually very competitive. only two for sure are going to survive. which is at&t and verizon the rest of the players and there are half a dozen other players they all have their
challenges. and it is unclear, where they will end up. but my experience has been, i've worked with some of the wireless players. they, things got complicated, bills got complicated because they kept adding things on. they also liked it was complicated because from a marketing perspective you didn't understand your bill. if you didn't understand the bill, necessity you have to have it, you send your check in. it is kind of crazy in today's world to say, get 200 text messages and 10 cents more for a text message. doesn't cost anything to send a text message in wireless business today, really. so it just got complicated. doesn't have to be that way. i think everybody will go simple. but will take a driving force to make it simple and take somebody to disrupt. if one phone works when you go to the broncos game and another phone doesn't work, you're going, if you happen to be the person whose phone works tell your friend about it. you will sit right beside them and go, my phone works.
it is from dish network. who is your phone? >> it then that helps business. if you do that you can be success phil. >> we don't do that, if we're like everybody else and we're not better and not not cheaper or less expensive we won't be successful. >> so the, you know, amazing thing here, chars, you're able to think and act like a startup after all these years. what role do you think startups play and do you sometimes look to invest in startups like you did with swing and how do you decide, you know what? let's buy this startup as opposed to start it ourselves? >> well, i mean, i would say one of the problems you have is you, as you get to be a bigger company we're not real entrepreneural now. not like there are a lot of entrepreneurs running around our company. if they were they went out and started their own company. we end up with more professional managers than entrepreneurs.
even though we try to have a entrepreneural culture it doesn't work out that way. so you end up having to work with people who are on on theal or ultimately in some cases you may be a requires those. once you acquire them they become a lot less entrepreneural right? because the founder usually, pretty much thinking this guy is not that smart and why is he telling me what to do and i will go do something else. those are difficult things. and, so we'll have to fight those, fight through that. and i think that, the way we've set the company up, i'm really on the wireless side, which really is starting to pretty much from scratch in terms of entrepreneural company. we're going to montana. and dish network continues to run, you know, has a ceo and runs that business and echostar, our engineering company has a ceo and runs that business and hughes has a business and runs that business so they know how to manage those businesses and i'm just signing their checks. keeping them honest.
so but i think we have to start, i think my point is we have to start a wireless business outside of dish network and we'll fold it in as we get it going. >> maybe a little bit of an unfair question but i was interested to hear about the entrepreneural culture you try to create but unable to maintain. could charlie ergen in 1988 work for your company? >> probably not. probably not. i didn't handle authority well. particularly authority i didn't think was as smart as me. i realized that early on. later i realized i was wrong and people were smarter than me but when you're 22 years old or 25 years old you're a little more naive than that. but i think, i think dish would be too slow for me. and the reason, when i worked at frito-lay, the reason i left frito-lay, i was financial analyst, but i wanted to learn about
marketing and operations. they literally said you had to go to ivy league school to be in marketing. i went to unaccredited business school. so i wasn't going to be able to go into the marketing department. in operations well, you finance people don't go to operations. it is actually a step down for you. so i went and rode in trucks on weekend so i could learn about operations. but i thought, and i looked at the business and i came up with a way for that business to save $30 million. and i went into my boss and said, i got a meeting with the comptroller, here is how, just, here is how to save $30 million for a company that made a billion dollars a year. and they said, you don't understand. if we save, we're going to get our bonus this is year. right? if we save $30 million then we've got make another $35 million next year to make our bonus. we just grow 10% a year. right? so i thought, i can't, for me it was, well, a, i was naive. i understand a lot more
about what they were saying now? as a public company. but, having said that, at that point i just said i should go start my own business because how hard can it be? i used walk around, how hard it can be, if i can save $30 million they're not interested it has to be easier. go start a business where you can actually go do stuff. as a result of that we don't manage quarter to quarter. it is a huge advantage, it is a huge, huge, advantage in the marketplace not to go and say, that your earnings went up 10% a year. and sometimes we say earnings went down by 200%. we lost money. sometimes we say our earnings went up by 200%. but we don't have to manage quarter to quarter. so we attract kind of investor not looking for that kind of stability. it gives us a huge advantage. i will give you an example. when we bought the bankrupt companies that had the spectrum, we actually paid the companies before the fcc approved our deal. we actually paid all the
bondholders off before the fcc approved the deal. in fact the fcc took six, six months to approval the deal. we were out literally $3 billion and didn't have approval. the reason we, we were bidding against other bidders. the reason we got the deal was we did not have contingency for fcc approval because there was some risk the fcc wouldn't approve the deal. by actually taking a chance and doing something that was a little bit risky, we were able to get ourself in the position to be in the wireless business where our competition was not able to make that transition. >> i've got a question from barry diller asked when he was here which, when he talked about the content business and who could partner with he was very frustrated he said cable is tough partner because they always want to get a big piece of the business and not interested in dealing with people. i have said, well why don't you work a deal with charlie? you know what?
charlie is not interested in investing in content. a, is that true? if you're willing to put a lot of money on the table when it comes to building a wireless business unlike say comcast which is very interested integrating content you're not going that way? >> there is a few reasons. one is, content takes some expertise we don't have. we're realistic, say, barry dillers of the world know this business a lot better than we do. so we're not really knowledgeable about content. the second thing is, is that the return on content for the, for us, given where we are today, we don't think is is the same as return for us would be in distribution. so we see, you know, distribution as kind of our dna. and third, we want to be, we want to be switchable into content. as soon as we get into content, then that would be the first thing that would pop up on your screen, right? and we want you, we want you to trust us if you're our customer we're putting up everything in an equal
manner and that we give you the choices as to what you want to watch, not what we want you to watch. so, we don't, you know, it's not a secret that comcast owns nbc and it is not a secret that when you watch nbc golf, there is a little golf logo talking about the golf channel. you watch nbc and brian williams tonight the nightly news and they will have thether channel person talking about the and guess who owns the weather channel? right? and maybe the weather channel person is not the best person to talk about the weather. so, companies do that and we didn't want, we didn't want, just human nature that you would do that. we didn't want to get into that. we say we'll be switchable into content. probably not going to be in the content business. we'll make the best distribution path. we'll put it out there for customers. get it wherever they are and pay one price and watch owe this want to watch and hope fuly bay for what they
watch. we fought the a la cartes fights and lost and other fights and lost. >> barry diller also made a proposal if you own distribution you should not be allowed to be in the content business. do you, support that proposal? >> i don't see anything wrong with it as long as you make your content available to other distribution paths. i think you run a little bit of a risk, that the distribution business and own the content and then can only get it one place. for example, i think the fcc this year, last year, had a pretty tough decision to make on something called net neutrality. i think for the most part the fcc got it right which said if you owned distribution you have to make sure you're a fair partner for people that own content and you don't discriminate against content. that would be, had they not ruled that way i think that, history would have shown that to be a real problem. so i think they got that right. and, you know, i'm not, i'm
not scared of open access. i'm not scared of competition. and, i look at it, i look at it primarily it is a product that i want. if we don't do a lot of market research, we're not doing a lot of, it is just kind, is that what you want? i'm pretty sure everybody in this audience wants a phone that works and that you understand your bill. i'm pretty sure you want it. v on your tv set and want it on your tablet and want it on your phone no matter where you are. i'm pretty sure you want to surf the web no matter where you are. i'm sure you want to make a phone call wherever you are. i think you don't need to do a lot of research. would be nice to get that from company. >> i need to read lonesome dove to learn a little more. >> it is a good story. >> i will read it. >> awed -- audience questions. are you ready for speed round. >> sure. >> when offered $100 million first time why did you view it as lottery payout rather
than seed money for the next company? >> didn't think i could start another company to be honest with you. at that point i knew what it took to start a company. had i none what it took to start a company, and my partners got into it we burned the bridge. no going back for us. we had to make it successfulful. i didn't think i could do it again. >> hours, emotion, why not? >> it was everything. it was, it was, it is cliche but we were open seven days a week. . .
>> you said people were not standing in line to buy your dishes. what did you learn about technology diffusion in order to get people to try something different in that sense? >> well, i guess the first thing was that they weren't standing in line, but people looked at the crazy thing, and they cost literally $20 # ,000, and that was the main reason they were not standing in line, but, you know, we did market research. we said, why aren't you buying?
people liked it, but it was too big and too expensive. too big and too expensive. nobody said we don't like the tv picture quality. at the time, tv was free. nobody said we don't want free tv so, too big, too expensive. every day we just think about, well, how do you make it small #er -- smaller and less expensive? we eventually got the cost of the system down, and as an industry, we got it down to $1,000, and it was smaller, never to the appointment where it was free where you can put it in your house and nobody would see it. the lesson there really is that people will tell you why they don't like the product, and then you just have to change >> what don't you like about the provider today, and what don't you like about the wireless cell phone provider today, and what don't you like about the broadband provider today?
in this group, there would be a good consensus about those questions, and what we have to do is go attack those things, those consensus things, we have to attack those things and do our own product today, we're not perfect by any means. >> went to law school, what up sights do you have how to -- insiewghts do you have to use lawyers most effectively? >> well -- [laughter] >> why were people laughing? >> yeah, well, you know, i've had a good time with lawyers. i'm unique. i'm the only ceo who likes to go to depositions. [laughter] but i find law fascinating. oafs not a lawyer -- i was not a lawyer by training, and it's a good thought process. lawyers are disciplined, and discipline is a good thing, and
you have a thought process of how things work, and if you're a lawyer, you become creative so, you know, it's an interesting part -- i think it's a really good discipline for business whether you practice law or not. it's a really good discipline. we've had lawyers be very successful in companies in many different aspects of the company as a result of that. we try to take lawyers out and make them into business people. [laughter] it's a great thought process, and they are really, really smart too. i like working with smart people. it's a good foundation to have no matter what you might do in business, and i only say try to maintain some kind of creativity. when i talk to lawyers, it's more about, you know, how can i do this opposed to what the law says, you know, about it. it's more about, well, how can we go do it? let's think about how we do it
so lived through this one, but we want to do local to local television and network television on satellite, and we want to do it in the local community, so this denver, you get denver tv stations, and at first, the broadcasting industry didn't want to help us do that, and the others didn't want to do it because they didn't have the capacity. they didn't view it as a copyright violation if we did it. that was right for us at the time to start that, and, of course, ultimately became -- probably the one thing that will save the broadcast industry now is the payments they get from retransmission consent, and they ultimately supported legislation, as did direct tv, tuesday that, but it took -- it didn't look on the surface that we could do it until news corp., you know, was created.
>> so when you are down with the wireless century, come to law school and teach about that any time you want. >> well, i think it's difficult. i think under sarbanes-oxley and other stuff today, you have to be careful with lawyers who run the company, and you want to listen to counsel, but many times i have to say, well, understand that, but lawyers are not running the company, and so you have to -- you can lawyer up everything so that there's no -- you can live in a bubble if you want to; right? you're probably not going to get a disease. you can play in the mud and dirt and not get a disease either because you get immune to it. [laughter] pick your poisen. we choose to play in the mud. >> so it's sort of hard to know where to end this cyber conversation, but let me end on
one note that again is is a true north. there's a lot of students here in the audience taking in all you got to say and all the implications today would be lawyers, technologists, and entrepreneurs. what advice do you give to students on how to have a satisfying and rewarding career in really -- the run ewe had is spectacular, but what would you tell your younger self and this group of students going forward? >> first off, don't take a lot of advice. [laughter] if there's one thing that helps you the most is to continue to learn so those of you still in school, spent a lot of money to learn, but, you know, what you do when you're 20 or 22 you don't -- hopefully you don't stop learning and what you do
between now and 100 makes a difference, and so get yourself in a position where whatever you do, you're actually learning something, and that's really easy to learn now with the internet and things, but it can be traveling, learning other cultures, the big world out there, but it can be about a particular field, and you probably will become passionate about something you are good at. i was not passionate about satellites. it was not like i saw sputnik and wanted to launch a satellite. the better we got at it, the more passion not we got about it. go learn something and that you'll probably find you're passionate about certain thing, and when you are good at something, become knowledge baling about something, you'll be passionate about it too, and then you can actually be in a field that you're passionate about that makes, where, you know, you don't really work. you don't really have a job.
it's great. really -- get in an environment where you can learn, and google's like a college campus right now. you don't have to pitch a tent in the middle of the floor, but they are learning. it's a great environment for whatever you do. if you go to a law firm, don't go to the one that pays the most money, but where you learn the most if you can afford to do it. >> i want to thank you so much for taking the time. it was meaningful. thank you. [applause] >> to learn more about telecommunications and tv innovation, coming up this weekend on this year's national cable and telecommunications convention, panels on the future of film and music distribution with ceos of verizon wireless
>> writing is a transactional process. writing assumes reading. it goes back to that question about, you know, a tree falling in the forest if there's no one there to hear it. if you write a wonderful novel, one of the parts of the process is that you want readers to be enlarged and enriched by it, and you have to pull out everything at your di pose sal to do that. >> author and award winning novelist talks about the guide to social policy and the politics that make it happen live sunday on "in-depth," and she'll be ready for your calls, tweets, and e-mails starting noon eastern on booktv's in-depth sunday on c-span2. >> first law is to go to green
bay to find out what it's like in winter. don't live in hot springs to decide what it was like for bill clinton. i had never been to vietnam before. how could i write about it without going to the battlefield? i had to go. >> "marched into sunlight," he wrote about two turns points in the war, one in vietnam, and here in the u.s.. over the past four years, he's been traveling and researching his newest book, and he'll recount his journey and take your phone calls june 17th, live on booktv. glnchts -- at 1:25 this afternoon, president obama welcomes george w. wish to the white house. live coverage of that here on c-span2. right now, though, a discussion
of creating transparency in congress on today's "washington journal." >> host: next guest, democrat from illinois in the 5th district, and welcome, sir. >> guest: thank you, thanks for having me. >> host: what does the word "transparency" mean to you? >> guest: i think access so americans know what's going on in their government. >> host: does that happen in government currently? >> guest: for example, the largest part of the spending is not not budget process, tax expenditures, a 1.2 trillion. regardless how effective is, exactly how we use the money. >> host: there's an effort you started taking a look at a transparency caucus. explain that process and how that started. >> guest: we started it to address all of these issues. remember, i come from illinois where my last eight governors were convicted on corruption charges. two of my immediate predecessors, a couple of the
last four, also have been convicted of corruption charges. you know, enough is enough, and we need to send a message to the american public that's not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the passion of the cnn report that shows only 15% of the american public thinks that congress will do the right thing for them. the purpose of funding the transparency caucus is to look in and be their own watchdog, but they can't be the watchdog without the information, what their goff's doing. we're trying to make as much information accessible to the public so they know how the decisions are being made. >> host: one of the efforts on the line was the transparency government act of 2010. some of the things you found important in the bill included a tightening of lobbying rules, earmarks data base, create members of congress data base, puts hearings and mark ups
online. doesn't that happen somewhat already? >> guest: not realliment things are a little scattered. it's hard to get everything. also, a similar measure, a congressional mandated reports act, the executive branch in congress create reports about what's happening in our country and why, and what needs to happen from defense spending to health care to education. whatwhat happens to the reportss they gather dust on a shelf. we passed a measure that puts all of those into a central data base, a searchable data base so the idea is everybody from iowa, california to new york gets access to that information about what's happening in their country and why and how their money is spent. >> host: under the bill, is it all searchable data bases to bring transparency? >> guest: all searchable data bases. as much access as possible.
who funded a frame work of this sense? real cost of corruption in government whether it's at the local, federal, or state level is there's a loss of trust. the decisions we have to make here are tough enough, but if you have the public's respect and trust, and even if they disagree with you, democracy's going to work. when you don't have the public's trust and these decisions are made willie-nillie without perfect information going back and forth, then we fail. >> host: if you want to ask questions, it's 202-374 -- reach out to us on twitter, new jersey, you are up first for the guest. this is diana on the democrats' line. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i just want to turn it into the
last segment about homeland security and security threats, and now transparency, there's an underground city. i saw a pbs special about how there's big underground cities, and we cannot account for how much we spend on homeland security. the department of defense cannot account for their spending, and all the people like politicians like juliani, there at ground zero, enriched themselves, millionaires now. >> host: the question is, ma'am? >> caller: how can it be transparent to reveal to the public what's going on and talking about trust in the government, this is why because we see politicians are in kahoots with everybody not to provide the best welfare to every citizen in the united states. >> guest: you raised a good
point. at this point in time, the department of defense spending is 20% of the entire budget. they cannot be audited. they say they will not be audit ready for seven to eight years. in other words, one out of every $5 spent, we don't know exactly how it's spent or where or what it holds for the future. that's not good government or efficient government, and it's transparent, but begs for a corruption to exist. on the homeland security issues, we're actually working to volt this week, i believe, on the reauthorization of the homeland security money. members of congress not on the committee don't get to see the details of how the dollars are spent. they are blindly asked to vote to split that measure. a lot more transpaper sigh could be brought into the process as well. >> host: texas, good morning, go ahead. >> caller: i was curious, you
mentioned the 2010 transparency act, and i was curious if -- does that act not apply to the administration? >> guest: well, our acts apply to different people. i mean, i probably introduced a dozen measures that apply to the executive branch and to the legislative branch. it really depends on the issue. the most recent is the lobbiest transparency act dealing with how the lobbyist community addresses what we do in washington. with the executive branch and with house and the senate. for example, if a lobbyist is less than 20% of the their time lobbying, they are underground. they don't have to report who they lobby or what extent they lobby at all. also, right now, if someone lobbies, they don't have to say who they are lobbying, just have to report house or senate. people ought to know how decisions are made and who influences those decisions.
it's a good point. most of our reform measures and issues that deal with transparency equally apply to the executive and legislative branches. >> host: do they have to report the lobbies they meet with? >> guest: no. >> host: why is that? >> guest: good question. i think that all this should be a two way street. we should be able to publicly put online who influences us and how we go forward. i mean, at this point in time, who influences us, i suppose the most accurate way to decide how that's happening now, how lobbyist dollars are used and paid contribution. another fair question to raise is if that should be continued. >> host: 20% change the definition of a lobbyist? >> guest: to a large extent. it gets rid of the loophole that says if you lobby at all, you have to report that. former members, very powerful
people, in a lobby -- if a very short period of time, there's a team of what regular lobbyists do. we have to know what former members and members of the executive brarchg are doing to influence government. >> host: wisconsin, good morning, on with mike, and this is dave, our republican line. >> caller: yes, i got a question about this transparency in government when president obama did some campaign promises. one of the promises is that everything he's passed or is pending would be open to the public. previously, and he said that they didn't -- they were working on it. why isn't everything open to the public? why don't we have this transparency? >> guest: well, i honestly think the obama administration has made great strides to improve transparency. now, people often ask me if i introduce measures to target individual members of congress or the administration.
i think, you know, i've been doing this a dozen years now, and my own home state of illinois where corruption is an extraordinary problem, you just simply can't do that. you need measures that are a good ten years ago, in the present day, and that will be important ten years from now. it has to be bipartisan. you can't use any of these measures to target a party or an individual. if i learned anything else about corruption is it wears both hats. as long as they make us out of flesh and blood, people will fall short of what they should do so it's not a lot of bipartisan efforts in the congress, but it's important to say it about transparency and corruption. i don't see a lot of bipartisan cooperation on social issues or even fiscal issues. i have to be all honest. i've seen it when it deals with transparency and accountability. the measures that deal with corruption like pension reform,
clean up government act, which restored services, project shield, you know, illinois got on a pension reform act for us to help that get passed. burner took the lead with me on the restoration act, and senator kirk, bicameral, bipartisan level, helped me deal with corruption with homeland security back in illinois called project shield. if we're going to be successful with this, we can't be a target. you can't be something used to go after one individual and one party. we have to recognize that the proface has to be cleaned up, and it has to be done across, bipartisan, bicameral and not to be just effective now, but in 20 years. >> host: how many members in your caucus? >> guest: oh, about 40. >> host: good sized number? >> guest: it's a good number of people participating. we're still struggling with, i think, in congress, the caucus as a whole is the battle between
caucuses and committees for who takes over what jury dictions. sometimes people will see a due publictive effort on encroachment of their territory. i want to see caucuses used as information gathering bringing the public into the process. >> host: alabama, thank you for waiting. this is mary, democratic line. >> caller: yes? >> host: you're on, ma'am, go ahead. >> caller: yes. i was concerned about how you come together and work together and i was wondering why we starve the state, and we're all in one nation? i wonder why we could not work together for transparency with the democrats and also with republicans. of course, we're all one, and i wanted to know why they could not work together and come together for transparency. >> guest: well, i think it's the point here. before i get to what we're accomplishing, i will say
this -- often the house and the senate, i think, they sort of are like bad football games in the administration when you sort of floor it out, and part of the problem with democrats and republicans being in control when the house is if something goes wrong, and there's an investigation, it's a bunker mentality. both parties do it 6789 they refuse to address the problem because of criticism on their members. they should recognize there's no sacred cows. if there's an investigation warranted, that should take place on a bipartisan basis. on the good side of all of this, as with corruption, with transparency, i see bipartisan cooperation. just at the beginning here, the initial stages, again, we have a measure dealing with transparency in the budget. we are working on that, a republican from ohio, and
taxpayers, there's an important measure dealing with transparency. lobbyists disclose sure, we have republicans starting to show support. access to congressionally mandated reports, again, republicans on the bills with us. it is the point, and we move together on critical issues. however, this countries agrees or disagrees on important matters, we have to agree that the process is clear and transparent, and that there's accountability to the american taxpayers. i don't believe we'll have unanimity on anything, but this is a diverse country with different view points. the process has to be fair and accountable, and i think that makes the process work best for everyone. >> host: perhaps we should have stiffer penalties for those who commit corruption. >> guest: i think the
corruption there. part of the is the loss of trust with the public. selective gone as a cook county commissioner my own party. i took on machine and passed about six really important transparency measures at the county, ethics measures. and i brought that with me here. i took congressman emanuel's place here right on the heels of the book with which the possible that was taking place. you don't forget that when you come here. you bring the same principle to washington, d.c. we were dealing with in chicago and illinois. >> host: middletown, new york, richard, republican line you are on. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i'm just curious on transparency if the logan act covers like today their meeting with the group in virginia, you really never hidden me talking about it. even though they thank me for not not covering it, like david
rockefeller and the queen of the netherlands and everybody is there but you can look at information and disability in ability in violation of the private sectors and government agencies. it's like hillary and obama was there before the election. and the press corps for the white house was hijacked on a plane when obama's going to be on the plane and he was in chantilly, virginia, when he was going to pick the vice president. i'd like you about the act. a lot of things don't get covered. i mean, like now they are saying that ron paul is not romney's nominee when the real delegate count i'm looking at right now is 672 for romney and 186 for ron paul. >> host: the column their.
go ahead. >> guest: haven't read it. had a meeting this morning with bipartisan working group on the debt and deficit. so i'll be glad to read this and find out more about what he's talking about how this might apply. breaking news today but i'd be glad to look into it. it's the kind of issue that we appreciate and respect. >> host: east petersburg, pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning. what i would like to say, i agree with transparency and maybe if we had transparency in the last decade we would have known that the wars were not on the books. and when someone comes in that are scratching their head and wonder why our budget is so high, well, why our budget is so low, why we're spending so much money, you wonder where you're getting it from. then you put everything on the budget and you look at it, and suddenly the budget is through the roof. you blame the person who tries
to do something transparently. and that's what i don't understand. why blame this administration for taking the deficit high, when it would have been higher if the wars were put on the books in the first place. we would've all known something about it. >> guest: i can't agree more. everything we stand should be in the budget. budget is a planning document. it's also a message the american public about how their dollars are being spent. every war, every dollar should be in the budget so people know what we are spending. the fact is congress doesn't approve the budget doesn't mean anything anymore and we need to do that as well. recognized as well but i said at the beginning is very important as well. $1.2 trillion a year on tax breaks, tax expenditures, are not in the budget whatsoever. right now if you went out and purchased a car, to get to and
from work, the interest on that loan is not tax deductible. but if your neighbor without and bought a yacht, took out a loan to buy the yacht, the interest on that loan would be tax deductible. that is tax break. that is tax expenditures. we have no accountability on how much money there is there. we have no accountability on how effective it is. there's no sunset provision with those measures. in addition to the war spending you talked about, there's about $1.2 trillion a year which were not on the books at all. they need to be there so we know how your dollars are being spent. the secondary measure, the taxpayer relief. you get your property tax bill. most jurisdictions there's a pie chart that shows you exactly how your dollars are being spent. taxpayer receives conjugated he killed received at the end of the year. how much of your money goes to an education, health care, defense and so forth.
it's just, your largest purchase of you is probably taxes. you ought to know exactly how those dollars are being spent. you also need to recognize that many americans, because they're being kept blindfolded us information don't understand it affects policy. most americans think that about a third of their dollars are being spent on foreign aid when the number is closer to about 1.5%. that impacts dramatically how congressional leaders make decisions on how to spend those dollars. >> host: we have our network, 24 hour networks, indeed tended organizations that deal with this type of information, access. aside from that why, if there's a lot of looking into how congress works? >> guest: you could have 1000 researchers working for you now. you would not be able to find this. this is a needle in a haystack personified. there's trillions hear that you're kind of pull apart and understand would those monies are going. it's just impossible.
you're a sophisticated researcher, your organization is, it should be easy for anybody across this country to go online and know exactly how the money is being spent and how the government works. this shouldn't be so complicated. it shouldn't take award-winning investigators to find out how this government operates. >> host: like freedom of information act? >> guest: it shouldn't take for you to get basic information. foia can be delayed. administrations as far back that had foia, it shouldn't take foia to get basic information about how your tax dollars are being spent, how your government is operating. who is influencing the decision making. >> host: illinois, good morning. democrat line. >> caller: i don't think we need a committee on transparency. it's quite transparent that our
nation is nothing but a bunch of fraudsters, crooks, and you're going to be crushed like a bug. i admire your efforts, but you have no chance of taking on what you are trying do. you will be thrown out under the bus by those who know exactly where the money is going. the $1.2 trillion is going in their pockets, and you're not going to be able to stop it. i appreciate you trying, but get ready to be squashed like a bug. our country was founded on crooks, robbers, murderers, thieves, the whole shebang. >> guest: well, i respect what you are saying. but let me put it this way. i'm a cubs fan. i'm eternally optimistic. anybody can have a bad century. but when it comes to the issue you talk about, i think what you're stressing here is what i
have been trying to address. the fact that most americans feel so strongly in the negative sense about their elected official, dramatically impacts our ability to make the right decision. you're from illinois, i'm from illinois. the people in springfield will have to make very, very difficult choices. with scarce resources. i've always felt that if we have the public's respect him even if we disagree, the democratic process can continue. we don't have the public's trust and we don't have the public's respect. those choices are going to bring us down. it's going to be impossible to lead without the public's trust. there are folks who are trying to do the right thing. the degree of frustration that your comments show, it's not just to you. i hear it all the time. i asked folks to have some faith, and that there are a lot of strong, good people,
hard-working people on the hill, in the white house, and all of state government who are trying very hard to make things better, whose hearts are in the right place, work hard. have faith and we can get past the headlines of those who let the public down. we're trying to make things better. >> host: you have a project called reinventing government and user with a bunch of -- that concept of reinventing government over all. what are you going to do with that? >> guest: i started at the cook county level with reinventing. the purpose, for me, i don't see government as a negative. i don't see government as the evil let others do. but i do recognize it has to be effective and as efficient as possible. to respect the taxpayers hard earned dollars into make sure it is served well. i remember that the heroes of 9/11 were public servants. public servants teach our kids. they protect us.
so i respect the mission of government. the mission of government matters, but it has to be the in the most efficient process possible. the notion of reinventing, if you were to start over, what should government do, and who should do it and how should that work. when i did this at the local level, the idea was to streamline and consolidate. i like that our courts out there and jails in people protecting, but if they operate the most efficient process possible, we save taxpayers and we can keep that nation going. for cook county it was fairly easy. most of the government was designed for 100 years ago, not changes ago. the same concepts are true here. when we look at military spending, for example, a lot of our spending is hung up on post-world war ii cold war scenario. if we were to start over, what will we do to protect our country, how would we defend herself? and from it is focused on homeland security and protecting
our allies. is not having a large force in europe. it's not having a large nuclear weapon, warehouse. it's starting over asking ourselves, if we're going to protect ourselves starting today with today's issues, how would we change things? as the notion of reinventing. my report shows about 60 ways of saving $2 trillion. in support of the simpson-bowles measures, using the concepts. >> host: lack of government auditing is be passionate is by design, not mistakes. they are swimming in tax dollars carrying buckets. >> guest: we could be here for four hours and we were here peoples constant screams. i do believe that the american taxpayer, if they had information they need, to make decisions that they want to make, through the electoral process, when they're kept from this information that cynicism is read.
that cynicism is very little but create the negativity on the hill, excuse the policymaking process, makes a farmer difficult for us to do the right thing. >> host: if you get what you wanted, what would that look for the average citizen? >> guest: just a few fingertips, on their fingertips would be accessed how decisions are being made, who is influencing those decisions and how is their tax dollars being spent? how does our government work? all the reports that have ever been done about government are extraordinary warehouse, wealth of information that we can learn from. everyone without extraordinary research skills ought to be able to know what's happening inside their government, how it operates, who's influencing, with tax dollars are going. then they can make better decisions in the electoral process. >> host: good morning to craig, republican line. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a two-part question. the first part is why is he
blamed -- applying trust transparent in congress? the other question is there were $350 million given to the state of california for disabled children, and yet out of the $350 million, $26 million was held back to administer the funds, and $324 million was never given or spent on disabled children it was earmarked for. >> guest: the second part of your question, it's hard for me to follow every group of dollars that goes into every state. i tried to the best again in my own district in the state of illinois. but i do believe you get to the good point. when large spending programs take place, transportation, for example, i always felt it would be good to set aside a bit of that money to have an internal watchdog to make sure the dollars are spent well. the emea return loop of information back to people who make those decisions, the executive and legislative
branch. you certainly don't need $26 million to finish a project that size. by do think a smaller amount of money should be set aside for internal investigators to be embedded in those programs. we tried to pass a measure that allowed states to do just that, to allow them to deal with the corruption internally with their transportation dollars. it passed the house. we're still trying to 112th congress. >> host: our next call comes from michigan. shawn, independent line. caller, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. my question to you is about a your disclosure and your willingness to tell the american people what you are -- my question is is there any mechanism within your vision to preempt the boat with getting information out? my issue is, there is a starving
need for information. we want to know what our congress is doing. we do have a lack of trust. we see over and over again things are passed or put out. these are quickly disclose, acted on in the next big thing comes up. there's a lot of these that falls under the rug. special interests, earmarks, things are changing the law. change or negation between lawmakers. >> guest: several points. let me touch on a few of them. first of all, as measures are introduced, as issues are discussed, information and reports and so forth, i think with the technology available to
put almost everything online, that the american public, not just the people who are making decisions in congress, or state capitals have access to information to do just what you talk about. that you want to begin to understand. you did reference earmarks. let me say this. earmarks were originally a reform measure because it identified who was targeting certain projects and supporting them. what i favored was putting all that online, requiring full disclosure. i think what's happened in 112th congress congress with earmarks is that one step a sort of unofficially man. they went underground and which is the opposite effect of a reform measure. i think you have hidden earmarks to take place, particularly in the defense industry right now. and that's a real shame. if you're going to promote the bill, if you're going to promote a project, use an individual member to put that online and tell people why you're doing it.
>> host: the caller mentioned lack of trust. came up with an overall number, 14.6% right now. that's about the right direction -- 33% said it was the right direction. 58% said it was on the wrong track. does transparency a just those numbers? >> guest: i think it does. we have to remember, our country has been polarized on issues for a long time. we are going to funded differences on whether we agree with what our lawmakers do. there's 435 members of the house of representatives. we come from very diverse areas. our public isn't going to agree on very many issues. but i do believe that if they know whose influence, why we're making decisions, what information we're using to make those decisions and have access
to the same database, there is a trust factor which is extraordinarily important in the democratic process. we have lost that. as a result, i thinks one of the reasons we have further polarization, further distrust. we have an anger there. and i respect that and. i just ask the folks that they target that democratic process, to do it, use this in the election. what i want to do to help them make this decision is to get them all the information they need of what's happening. >> host: built on our democratic slime. >> caller: hello. thank you for letting me call him. my question or statement is that i think the problem with congress is that the method of compensation is wrong. i think we're paying people based upon not doing something, and we should be paying them
based upon the objective of accomplishing something. for example, my whole life i worked on a basis as an executive being paid a minimal salary, and paid a bonus. when things were good, and i accomplished something, i made a lot of money. and today, that's the way the government should work. it should be based upon being paid a minimal salary, and paid upon completing an objective. the objective, for example, is getting employment up. and when you get employment up, you get paid. but otherwise, you're not a. and that should be true for congress and its staff. >> guest: let me say this. i think that incident should be
built into what government does. i don't necessarily think it applies in that manner because i'm not sure how you quantify with an elected official. but clearly win government contracts, we showed and you have incentives, for example, in construction projects for good work, work being done before it is do. other than that it sort of hard to quantify. let me just say this. i have seen an extraordinary outspoken critic of the government and a lot of levels and what we need to do is change things. but idb the that the majority of elected official work very hard and the heart is in the right place. 60, 70, 80 hours a week is a very common workweek to publish these things. i think the frustration are talking about is one is of a larger issue of economic downturn and what's happened ethics levels. so i get that. but i think if we stay together
and focus on gathering the information we need to make the right decision, we will get to this point. i think you need to fairly compensate people who work in the public's trust, and if they don't do their jobs, it's not so much innocent financially. they get voted out of office. >> host: are there limits to transparency? our last guest talked about intelligence matters, specifically intelligence agencies and talk and big terms of others but when you have sensitive information like that. how transmission we be? >> guest: we don't want to release information that will betray the public's trust and make them less safe. it's an extraordinary difficult balancing act. probably overprotective of some of those issues. when it deals with spending dollars. just because what you do is sensitive from protect appointed you of this country, doesn't mean they shouldn't be more oversight and does mean there's
an unlimited budget. the fact of the matter is the defense industry wastes a lot of money. i think it's been about half a billion dollars a year on musical fans. so you can't use the blanket well, it's for national security. to let people do anything they want. there needs to be more insight. >> host: next call is colorado springs colorado on our republican line. richard. >> caller: yes. president obama and the democrats control congress for the first two years in his office. what he armed forces journal had a speech about the strategic incoherence in defense budget. where none of the services have really good plans. we are supposed to fight joint warfare and they can't even get our act together and actually. i also used to work in washington and i know for the
first two years of president obama's term in office, one of the biggest problems was to get the employees in the civilian agencies to deploy also because they need them for counterinsurgency warfare. so you are, you, a past two civil servants. and the third thing is i need some who work for the national academy of sciences. and talk to the troops, and the troops dashed up wanted a rifle that was more legal. instead, they are spending $3 billion on renewable energy, putting it to the defense budget, you know? the logic escapes me why we're screwed people over putting their lives in harm's way. spent we will leave "washington journal" at this point and go live now to the official portrait unveiling ceremony for former president george w. bush and former first lady laura bush. earlier president obama and
first lady michelle obama hosted a private lunch for president george w. bush. laura bush and former president george h.w. bush and barbara bush. the meeting took place in the bedroom of the white house. george w. bush was last at the white house back in january to help out with patient earthquake american relief efforts. that was january 2010. [applause]
>> good afternoon. i'm fred wright, chairman of the board of the white house historical association. the association is honored to be part of today's historic ceremony and to have played a role in the range for the magnificent portraits that are about to be unveiled. the white house historical association was founded 50 years ago by first lady jacqueline kennedy, with two specific missions. the first is to educate and inform the public about the history of the white house and the distinguished group of americans that have inhabited it. in this regard it is an exciting time for us as we mark the 50th anniversary campaign for white house history. to the north of the white house,
at historic decatur house we just launched the new david rubenstein national center for white house. mixture to the south of the white house we will open a newly redesigned white house visitor center. it will give the millions of visitors to washington each year a chance to gain a broader understanding of life in the white house. if we can just acquire something on the east and west we will have the place surrounded. the other mission of the association is to provide funds to preserve the white house public rooms and enhance its incomparable collection of decorative and fine arts. over the five decades and 10 president since our finding -- found, the association is proud to provide nearly $40 million of financial support for refurbishing and making important acquisitions for the white house. through the portraits of our presidents and first ladies come it's a wonderful tradition that here in america's house our country honors those who have honored us. the tradition began with the
acquisition of george washington's portrait in 1800. it was purchased by the united states government. it was viewed as such an important national treasure it was the object of dolly madison's greatest concerns when the british burned the white house 1814. the white house historical association has been privileged to commission the official portrait of very president and first lady over the last 50 years and to acquire historical portraits of those who were previously missing from the white house collection. in our digital world, where summon images are mere flashes on a screen, these enduring portraits of great americans by acclaimed artists are lasting tributes to our presidents and first ladies, and will forever be part of the white house collection. today, the portraits of president george w. bush and first lady laura bush will be added to this unique collection of those who occupied this thousand served our nation with distinction. and to those great presidential
portrait artists whose works here include gilbert stuart, john singer sargent, aaron sheckler, we now add john howard stanton, whose today's event may once again prompt weather's great debates that's taken place often within the white house, strong arguments we made him both sides. it's not a debate over issues were between parties. it's debate as to whether the portrait actually looks like the president and first lady. [laughter] and we will soon find that out. it is now my distinct pleasure to introduce the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. please everybody have a seat. well, good afternoon, everybody. thank you, fred, for that introduction. to president george h. w. bush and barbara, all the members of
the bush family who are here, it is a great privilege to have you here today. and to president and mrs. bush, welcome back to the house that you called home for eight years. the white house is many things at once. it's a working office. it's a living museum. it's an enduring symbol of our democracy. but at the end of the day when the visitors go home and the lights go down, a few of us are blessed with a tremendous honor to actually live here. i think it's fair to say that every president is acutely aware that we are just temporary residence. that we are renters here. we are charged with the upkeep into our lease runs out. but we also leave a piece of ourselves in this place. and today with the unveiling of a portrait next to me, president and mrs. bush will take their
place alongside the men and women who built this country, and those who worked to perfect it. it's been said that no one can ever truly understand what it's like being president until they sit behind a desk and feel the weight and responsibility for the first time. and that is true. after three and a half years in office, and much more gray hair, i have a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by the presidents who came before me. including my the immediate predecessor, president bush. in this job no decision that reaches your desk these easy. no choice you make is without cost. no matter how hard you try you will not make everybody happy. i think that something president bush and i both learned pretty quickly. and that's why from time to time those of us have had the privilege to hold this office find ourselves turning to the only people on earth who know the feeling. we may have our differences
politically, but the presidency transcends those differences. we all love this country. we all want america to succeed. we all believe that when it comes to moving this country forward, we have an obligation to pull together. and we all follow the humble heroic example of our first president, george washington, who knew that a true test of patriotism is the willingness to freely and graciously passed the reins of power on to somebody else. that certainly has been true of president bush. the months before i took the oval office were a chaotic time. we knew our economy was in trouble, our fellow americans were in pain, but we wouldn't know until later just how breathtaking the financial crisis had been. and still, over the two and half months, in the midst of that crisis, president bush, his cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today, went out of
your ways. george, you went out of your way to make sure that the transition to the new administration was as seamless as possible. president bush understood that rescuing our economy was not just a democratic or republican issue. it was an american priority. i will always be grateful for that. the same is true for our national security. none of us will ever forget where we were on that terrible september day when our country was attacked. all of us will always remember the image of president bush standing on that pile of rubble, bullhorn in hand, conveying extraordinary strength and resolve to the american people, but also representing the strength and resolve of the american people. and last year when we delivered justice to osama bin laden, i made it clear that our success was due to many people in many
organizations working together over many years, across two administrations. that's why my first call, which you can forces were safely out of harm's way, was to president bush. because protecting our country is neither the work of one person or the task at one period of time. it's an ongoing obligation that we all share. finally, on a personal note, michelle and i are grateful for the entire bush family for their guidance and example during our own transition. george, i will always remove the gathering you hosted for all the living former presidents before took office. your kind words of encouragement, plus you also do a really good sports package. [laughter] i use it. [laughter] laura, you reminded us that the most rewarding thing about
living in this house it isn't the title or the part of the chance to shine a spotlight on issues that matter most. and the fact the u.n. george raised to smart, beautiful daughters, first as girls visiting their grandparents and then as teenagers preparing to head out into the world, that ogg is a gives michelle i tremendous hope as we try to do the right thing by our own daughters in this slightly odd atmosphere at we have created. jenna and barbara, we will never forget the advice you gave sasha in bolivia as they begin their lives in washington. they told them to surround themselves with loyal friends, never stop doing what they love. to slide down the banister's occasionally, to play sardines on the lawn. to meet new people and to try new things and to try to absorb everything and enjoy all of it. and i can play that malia and sasha took that advice to our. it really meant a lot. one of the greatest strengths of
our democracy is our ability to peacefully and routinely go through transitions of power. it speaks to the fact that we've always had leaders who believe in america, and everything it stands for, above all else. leaders and their families who are willing to devote their lives to the country that they love. this is what we will think about every time we pass these portraits, just as millions of other visitors will do in the decades and perhaps even the centuries to come. i want to thank john, the artist behind these beautiful works. for his efforts. and on behalf of the american people, i want to thank most sincerely president and mrs. bush for their extraordinary service to our country. and now i'd like to invite him on stage to take part in the presentation. [applause]
behavior sells. [laughter] mr. president, thank you for your warm hospitality. madam first lady, thank you so much for inviting our rowdy friends. to my hanging. laura and i are honored to be here. mr. vice president, thank you for coming. we are overwhelmed by your hospitality, and thank you for feeding the bush family, all 14 members of us who are here. i want to thank our girls for coming. i thank mom and dad, brother, sister, in-laws, and and uncles but i appreciate you taking your time. i know you are as excited as laura and me to be able to come back here, and particularly think the people who helped make this house a home for us for eight years, the white house staff. i want to thank fred ryan and the white house historical
association and bill allman, the white house curator. i am pleased that my portrait brings an interesting symmetry to the white house collection. it now starts and ends with a george w. [laughter] when the british burned the white house, as fred mentioned, in 1814, dolly madison famously saved this portrait of the first george w. [laughter] now michelle -- [laughter] if anything happens -- [laughter] there's your man. [laughter] [applause] i am also pleased, mr. president, that when you
>> i want to thank john for agreeing to use his considerable talents to paint my likeness. you have done a fine job with the challenging subject. in the portrait there's a painting by garner called a charge to keep it hung in the oval office for eight years of my presidency. i asked john to included because it reminds me of the wonderful people with whom i was privileged to serve. whether they served in the cabinet or on the presidential staff, these men and women, many of whom are here, worked hard and served with honor. we had a charge to keep, and we kept the charge. it is my privilege to introduce the greatest first lady ever -- [laughter] sorry, mom. [laughter]
would you agree to a tie? [laughter] a woman who brought such grace and dignity and love in this house. [applause] >> thank you all. thanks, everybody. thank you all. thanks, everyone. thank you all. okay, that's enough. thank you very much. enka, darling. thank you, president, mrs. obama. thank you for your kindness and your consideration today. it was really gracious of you to invite us back to the white house to hang a few family pictures.
[laughter] and i'm sure you know nothing makes a house a home like having portraits of its former occupants staring down at you from the walls. [laughter] this is not the first time i've had the opportunity to confront an artistic likeness of myself. a few years ago just after the 2008 election, a friend sent me something he found in the gift shop of the national constitution center in philadelphia. it was a laura bush bobblehead doll. [laughter] he said he found on the clearance shelf. [laughter] but i'm flattered and grateful to know that this particular work has a permanent home, and thanks to the masterful talents of john howard sanden. i like it a whole lot better than they do that bobblehead doll. thank you very much, john howard sanden. you are terrific to work with, and thanks to elizabeth and her
family who joined you today. thank you very, very much, john. [applause] >> and, of course, it's meaningful to me as a private person to know that these portraits will be on view at the white house, that my portrait will hang down the hall from my mother-in-law. and that george's portrait will hang very close to his dad's. but was more meaningful is it's meaningful to me as a citizen. this was our family's home for eight years. it was our home, but it wasn't our house. this house belongs to the people whose portraits will never hang here. the ordinary and not so ordinary people whose lives inspired us, and whose expectations guided us during the years that we live
here. in this room, i many other people who stood by us as we faced the tragedy of september 11, and who worked with us in the years after. thanks to each and everyone of you for your service to our country. [applause] >> i hope others will see in this portrait what i see. a woman who was honored and humbled to live in the white house during the period of great challenge and who will never forget the countless american faces who make up the true portrait of that time. thank you all very much. thanks so much. thank you, michelle. [applause]
>> i don't think we have enough tissue to go around. jenna and barbara, they are just a mess. [laughter] but i want to thank president and mrs. bush for joining us today. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank laura for providing such a wonderful model of strength and grace for me to follow, as first lady. it is an interesting job, and it's just been amazing to learn from your example, not just as a first lady but as a mother of
two wonderful daughters. you know, you're on the other side of where we hope to be in a couple of years, two dogs that set up straight, and think lovingly about their mom and their dad. [laughter] we are working towards that goal, but you've done a terrific job. i also want to echo barack. we couldn't be more thankful for the warmth and grace is -- gracefulness that both of you showed, all of you showed our family. when we moved in three years ago. it is truly, truly a privilege for us to occupy this house. and hopefully we are setting the same example of warmth and love and hope that you all have provided as well. the warmth is truly reflected in these portraits, and i promise you -- [laughter] i promise, i'm going straight --
[laughter] and i'm sure it will be closer right downstairs, i will get right to it. so i am thrilled for all of the white house visitors who will soon have the chance to enjoy them as well, and i'm thrilled for both of you as you join these incredible americans whose portraits of already displayed here at the white house. so congratulations again. congratulations on the work that you've done, the example that you have provided to this country, and of what it means to be an american family. we are so happy and proud and honored to be a part. and with that, it is my pleasure to invite you all to join us for a reception right outside the statement. now it is time to eat. thank you all so much. [applause]
the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. >> coming up shortly a house homeland security subcommittee looks at tsa inspections of trucking and rail industry. witnesses included chief of police for amtrak and the chief operating officer of greyhound. that hearing is expected to be live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. right now discussion on intelligence legislation being debated debate in the house. >> host: joining us representative mike conaway, republican from texas, senate intelligence armed services member of the committee. welcome. >> guest: good to be with you. >> host: today discussion to work on intelligence authorization act. what is that? >> guest: it should be an annual bill. it is now that we're back in regular order. we witness issues without an authorization bill. the authorization bill sets forth the programs in our jurisdiction for what the intelligence community will do over the next year the school
2013. and authorize spending for all the programs and also the programs themselves. >> host: and these are spending and budgets for major intelligence agencies such as -- >> guest: cia, nsa, central intelligence agency, national security agency, national -- about 16 different agencies but some of them falling under the department of defense as well. we authorize spending. >> host: who gets the most money out of that pot? >> guest: i can die we spend about roughly $72 billion on this over all initiative. i can't break it down for you beyond that. >> host: you can tell us they cia gets more, that nsa gets more? >> guest: i can't say that. >> host: how much do the as for? how much a republicans offering? >> guest: a business 72 billion. it's a little more than the president asked for, requested
in his budget. it squares with our budget, the budget act that we passed in march in the house. it squares with that number and it is less than what we spent last year. >> host: when it comes to the overall work of intelligence, where is the focus? is a still al qaeda or are there other parts of the world that are now more of the focus? >> guest: it's been a balanced focus. we've got adversaries and threats from the world. most high profiled work is being done is against al qaeda and the islamic jihadists and violent threat there. winding down so as if we don't troops in iraq, but still a big part of what we do is to make sure that the folks in afghanistan have the intelligence they need as well. threats coming at us from around the world that aren't emanating from afghanistan, and not only direct threats of but we do a lot of work trying to find out what our competitors in countries around the world are
doing, and we have great people doing that. >> host: if you do make a list of those around the world other than afghanistan that are areas of interest for you -- >> guest: china, russia, and the notion of the two most emerging kind of issues and we need to watch what they're doing. china is not a threat. rush is not a threat per se. although there are those who say that the cyber attacks coming out of both of those countries, either state-sponsored and/or just bad actors in those countries are a direct threat. every single leader country. a big part of what we're doing is trying to find a place for cyber defense and cyber folks, nsa to protect america and america's interest from those attacks. >> host: the money for intelligence, is a for manpower or for technology? >> guest: we have more people anything else. this bill will put the cap on the number of people. we do plus of the fbi's counterintelligence surveillance team, aligning them to watch more foreign spies on a day in
and day out basis but the bulk of the money is spent on people. we do spend a fair amount of money on near-term high and research, looking for the latest, greatest new technique and tools that is going after to keep america on the frontage. so that our professionals that we put in place, intelligence professionals put in place, how those tools and equipment that they need to do the job we're asking them to do. >> host: how many people involved? >> guest: enough. i can't give you that number either. that's frustrating but it's frustrating for folks back home to listen to this. i'm not debating you. i'm just not answering you. because that would be intelligence and our adversaries and competitive around the world would like to know. it would put us at a disadvantage to give up that information. one of the roles the committee itself is to be that watchdog, to be those eyes and ears for the folks back home to make sure
the intelligence community is taking resources that are taxpayer provides to them into using them in areas that should be used and we intended them to be used. that's the role of the committee. i know for a fact that folks in the house take that role very serious i. >> host: intelligence and intelligence matters is a topic of our discussion with representative mike conaway of texas. you can talk to him about these matters as well, (202) 737-0001 for republicans. (202) 737-0002 for democrats. (202) 628-0205 for independence. you can send us an e-mail as well. >> caller: thank you for c-span. representative, patriot act was passed by george bush, republican house and senate. it is the biggest andrew lee individual liberty and freedom in the united states. ..
that we have not had an attack and the president did authorize the killing of bin laden and the peachtree at act came into play each and every day. it is well supervised by the size of a chorus that nothing is done without court approval and in fact, if you are still on the line i would ask you what intrusion into your quiet left is the featured at our cabin itself, but you can argue the president is doing a good shot because he uses the patriot act every day and argue he shouldn't have in order to protect america. some of the act comes up for renewal. we are having this extended discussion on whether or not the act is appropriate between on the end of december. >> host: what is the likelihood of renewal? guest curator will be fine tuning and tweaking to address issues that have come up that gives people concerns, just like with the nda. with the detainee provisions. we worked hard to get the
detainee provisions this year, so there will be an opportunity to address specifically and think about reauthorize any act. no act ever been passed is a perfect bill. whether it is the authorization that, we'll fine-tune it next year. it will address me thinks next year. that is why support the intel committee. by the way, -- that's right, [inaudible] it is the work of the intelligence committee that we go to the support that we do every year. the six-day gap under mike rogers leadership. now we did one for 11 and 12 last year that we are doing the one for 2013 on the bill. by the way, this is a broad bipartisan bill. 19 sets coming out of committee. everyone is on board, and a lot of hard work going on to address all the issues both sides have with respect to this this bill
and this is a bipartisan effort coming forward out of committee. >> host: herb, democrats find, go ahead. >> caller: jess, mr. conaway, you are reluctant to disclose the number of employees and our intelligence community, but i can say that the cost, the total cost of our total intelligence community is over $70 billion. that is more than the rest of the world combined. i am questioning whether we are getting a bang for the buck. for example, 9/11, the entire intelligence community didn't have a clue and shortly before our invasion of iraq, the current head of the cia and the oval office told then president bush it is a slam dunk. there are weapons of mass destruction and we know how a night. that was and what is the intelligence committee committee oversight committee in the house of senate outraged at this mistake? or with the president at the time outraged?
know, take it to cai -- cia the presidential medal of freedom. my suggestion, mr. congressman, is we need another church commission to totally overhaul our intelligence community to find out why they totally missed the boat as a result of the tremendous amount of money we spend. >> host: congressmen. >> guest: some argue the intelligence coming out of the late 90s and the timeframe is underresourced and what we try to do today with this authorization bill is to properly resourced and save money, don't spend that we don't need to get the resources to the team that needs to do that. there's been a great deal of introspection of the last 10 years after what happened in 9/11 and what happened with respect to iraq. we now have a defense -- director of national intelligence in response to some of the things you're talking
about. we do in fact have a better blend in and sharing of resources of tools and information between the agency. obviously the tendency is to be two silo it up and not share the information. the mindset has not changed. it is not perfect yet, but since i've been on the committee, this is my fourth year of the committee we are doing a much better job of each of the 16 agencies not only work in their path and what they're supposed newcomer to share it across the nation sees the information if god. we are better today than they were in 2001 at nasa church commission, i'm not sure what it is part of that, we've made major changes in 9/11 and iraq and the goal of the committee is to try to profit the resource the work of our professionals. >> host: mike is next on our independent line for representatives mike conaway. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. there are billions of americans who feel just like i do, that the deeper a nation guessing
that, that it loses a sense of its authority and a sense of control. so what does the new? that passes for love to get itself back a sense of control. now this has been -- this has met with then descend from the citizenry and to handle this dissent, we have the patriot act. we have the ndaa and the homeland security purchasing 750 million rounds a 40 caliber hollow point ammunition, ammunition that was outlawed in 1899 for use in any military. and i think it's plain to most people that the real fear among starr government is the fear of the citizenry.
>> guest: well, that is one man's opinion. i don't fear my government and i don't think you should either. i'm not sure what the basis of your millions of folks statement face. i'm a cpa by trade and i try to be careful about making statements like that worried about the facts and they says to make that assertion. i certainly know you feel that way you feel very strongly about it. but i am not one of those who fears their government. one of the things we do in the authorization bill is that the same emphasis on auditing all 60 of these agencies and audit financial statement that the department of defense over the last three years we've had a big effort to try and force the pentagon to build up a together financial statements. use only on panetta last october take the issue on himself as the secretary of defense and that the initiative forward. we did the exact same thing so they can provide us the good housekeeping seal of approval and it shows they are spending the money where we want them to
in ways they want them to and have the assurance they are doing it. so i'm not sure how to react to the broader statement that she fear this government. >> host: could some of those be consolidated and stuck it as a nation sees? >> guest: we know us. i mean, the bigger an organization get, sometimes the less efficient it is. look what happened at dhs and bring all of those and the struggles and triumphs go into that. as i things that constantly look at the theater makes sense. >> host: one of the elements is authorizing something called the defense clandestine service. what is that? >> guest: these are men and women who serve in our military who are trained to call out intelligence to krulak and develop relationships in this country is. previous to this initiative they would simply move into this job, get trained for a short period of time to go back into other
units. this sets up an opportunity to have the clandestine service of men and women who are trained to make it the best thing for about and the continuing value for that they will stay in this pad. previously there is no path for promotion through the ranks of this particular initiative. he simply says we recognize how valuable this is and is valuable to have and women serve in a particular area of the world throughout the entire career. we don't want to penalize for doing us a dig at the same promotions other folks are getting that provided great service to this country. it's basically a refocusing into a path that says this is important for our country in the military to have this capacity because many times our military sachets and others have access to foreign governments and foreign individuals that are cia people could never get access to. >> host: is this newer base somewhere else? >> guest: not a new agency,
just a new focus and career path for these folks. >> guest: >> host: thomas, republican line. >> caller: good morning, congressman conaway. but the department of defense and united states navy identifying the fluctuating course and controlling from hostile nation as a security threat, why have the armed services committee voted down to this is the biofuels industry? i am aware that they may be good pay a high price for 450,000 gallons of fuel, which was in the hour d&d spectrum. if you can support our industry in its infancy, we are quite sure we will be able to deliver fuel at a cheaper rate than petroleum commissary. >> are you specifically talking about the blended aviation fuel that was purchased for the rams
at the pacific exercises this summer? $5 million has been painted the tickets then. the previous caller is talked about the impact that has on this country and ability to project our values and depots around the world. this contributes to that. i understand the intention, but the department of defense needs to take whatever resources they can get him focused on the pointy end of our story. the aviation is to focus on fixing dollars a gallon rather than for other spirit of medicus research and development going on there and the work performed by the department of defense as an example to reduce the number of convoys needed to traverse afghanistan because we can figure out ways to power things going on at forward operating bases stop following diesel back and forth. that's what the defense had to be doing. this particular initiative doesn't do that. he sought to haul it back and forth, just like traditional feels good to spend money at a
time of a trained 80,000 soldiers out of the army 20,000 marines out of the core simply didn't make sense to me. >> host: one of the most serious domestic security threats at present while keeping the in the public aware contributed defusing them. >> host: the threats are no different today than they have been. obviously iran and its nuclear program and attempts to become a nuclear power is probably the biggest threat that we face. we have an everyday threat from al qaeda and islamic jihad is in the radical as they are to want to try to do something that's an ongoing basis. they are continuing to evolve and figure ways to frighten americans with doing things that we've got folks focused on now. and it got 10, 20, 15, 20 are things as a part of the overall initiative to provide president and congress at the forward-looking perspective that tries to anticipate where the adversaries and competitors around the world are going so that we have the proper defenses
and countermeasures in place whenever they developed the techniques they think are best for their country to defend them. it's not going effort every day. >> host: troves domestically versus surveillance. what is your take on that? >> guest: this is triggered by the authorization bill, which forces faa to allow us to fly along their borders. i'm from texas. we have a lot remote order with mexico they ran some 1200 miles connecting 1500 miles. make sense to have applied remotely piloted aircraft with cameras they don't dumplings that we can see what is going on and see things try to come across the river and make some sense. this is unrelated to the effort as policeorces and other local agencies who see the advantages and value of a tag to code view of having things -- remotely piloted aircraft over specific
information that will be local communities as to how they want to do that. i'm a border security issues cease to make sense to buy more at these planes, particularly in remote areas of the country and mexico in order to augment and strengthen our border security. >> host: angel, democratic line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. before george bush took off bill clinton and the republicans turned a lot of fat from the government. and then, 9/11 happened and and we created homeland security. homeland security half a million employees. and now, what about folding all of these government agencies like homeland security and the cia and the fbi into one agency and trimming the fat tire, to?
>> well, of course part of the issue is they can operate inside the united states. you wouldn't want them under an umbrella with the fbi of its operating in the united states. to maintaining the separation between that those two functions do is important in the sense of being able to give. you heard a caller earlier who is concerned about what the federal government might be doing to his and his quiet interest. so keeping a separate seems to make some sense. but your overall point is correct. we have to constantly go through the exercise of the department of defense has done not at that 178 billion inefficiencies they've come up with. 100 they're able to reach trial against things more important to them than to them than some of the things they decided to cut. 78 was a reduction that are pushing -- we required the intelligence committees to do the very exact same thing.
we look for the efficiencies that we can do things as cheaply as we can, but still not heard admission that we all believe is important. and that is providing information to try to protect this country from threats around the world. you are spot on with respect to the concept. i just don't think we had to put the fbi and cia under the same and only have one later. ogg is such a president of the united states. >> guest: you talked about how you thought there is better sharing of information between the agencies. how is that being that? >> guest: one quick example is the national counterterrorism center, where we have brought people in every agency into one central location. they are bringing backgrounds from agencies to that exercise and going through that and going back to their agencies, having served shoulder to shoulder with people from all the branches and
build those personal relationships to have to break down from some of those barriers so that something is going on. we also have regional managers in the sense that the director of national intelligence is that it has at these various think it is called regional managers come and which they would take subject matter and have responsibility across all agencies for subject under two lander break down the barriers, inappropriate barriers between various agencies. constantly looking at ways to do the issue better because you don't want something to happen because one piece of the information and another entity has a second piece and put together. they work every single day is to not let that happen. >> host: we are talking about presented as mike conaway, serves on the flight. he is a member they appeared well-maintained, vermont.
good morning, go ahead. >> good morning, mr. conaway. i would like to sit just that the root problem in the middle east is continual unending water between israel and her neighbors. there should be a solution to that. unfortunately, america continues to defend and oppose a solution. the solution has to be mandated. those two opposing forces will never agree. russia, china, france and england have to be involved in this. you fellows, talking about both parties, get a lot of political contributions from agencies that create and i'm sure you don't like a situation where you have to go out and solicit money can tenderly to run for office. >> host: international partners. >> guest: i don't know if any agency that gives any member of
congress or president any money. that's not our system works. i pushed back a a little on that. israel, i'm pretty straightforward. i read the old testament and god says in the old testament were the ones god bless those to bless israel and our curse those who curse israel. i take god at his word. we are not in a position to mandate to a sovereign people like that. so we don't have the moral authority to do aid to israel what they would do. we need to work with them so they affect work with palestinians to create the two state solution they'll want. by the same token on the other side has to come at the table as well and i have not seen them coming to a table to the israelis where they want to try to solve it. i can assure you that the folks living in israel wake up every morning with the threats they wake up with. they would dearly love to not wake up with those that. it is lifestyle you and i have no way to understand that.
every single day someone could drop a rocket or mortar at your house. we don't face that in the united states or have that issue. the folks in israel intentionally keeping the site going because they enjoy the circumstances. we have to work with both sides in mandating anything would be something i would think in the role. >> host: from coldwater, michigan, and david, republican. >> guest: good morning, congressmen conaway. hello? >> guest: you're on. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, congressmen conaway. the former caller brought up something about wmd. during the last one being conflict, there was some 400 tons of nuclear weapons from saddam hussein who that were shipped from iraq. these that were recovered and sent to oak ridge national labs and that is through but the word
of the mds and the president was correct in its occupation of iraq stop saddam from using the weapons. he had to hide them in another country and they've now been found and proven to have come from there. as the palestinians question someone talked about, what that lemonade the palestinians problems? re: need agreement in 1940 but those people. i think we should just drop a couple hundred nuclear weapons -- >> guest: not sure -- i know there are chemical and biological weapons in libya that folks are really hard to protect that that they didn't challenge the wrong hands. i'm not aware of a nuclear weapons gentleman is hacking about. >> guest: there is an acronym, despite the discussions called the cyberintelligence sharing and protect act. but is that? >> guest: that is an act that
will allow us to provide the authorities at nsa and i'm sure that the space economy better country every single day. we have some of the brightest and smartest people working at nsa led by the great patriot and individual named keith alexander. they see threats coming everyday, but there is a gulf between their ability to see that and the ability to share with the.com world and we try to figure out a way to provide nsa authorities to share the top secret information that is gained at great cost to protect the.com world here that the issue is about. >> host: how much will this go over the years? >> guest: is a huge issue. some state sponsor or some state are mere military, large as it has so in the united states. it's clear what the response is to be and who should respond and how we respond in those kinds of things. we have the equivalent to that
destructive attack as we see here, every single moment is somebody attacking some system we have in place. we have certain infrastructure that should be protected. but this bill is beginning to try to build that agreement among americans is how we should protect cyber? whose role should it be? we have a cybercommand protecting.gov and nsa that is the overall agency. bright people over there who know things they would be helpful for the private sector to know, but there's no way to share that with a private sector at this point in time. this is one of the threats we face. we're spending a lot of money and research we spent a lot of money in the tactical efforts every single day to protect.gov and .mil from these attacks. but the rest of the private sector's son is well protected. >> host: there's a front-page story in the "washington post" about cyberplan acts of the pentagon's turning to private sector.
universities as part of an ambitious effort to develop technologies to prove cyberwarfare capabilities launch effective attacks and can likely retaliation. have you been briefed on this at all? >> guest: no, it's one of the programs that go on and where 50 years would've been some connecticut experiment going on to figure out the best way to do x, y and z and that's a natural evolution. we want to be on the leading edge of everything and the cyberworld is an arena where we have to be the best. this initiative to provide the u.s. the tools necessary to do those things we want to do. i'm not giving end of the authorization to do it but doesn't use those tools, but puts them in the development phase that makes sense that when the time comes should we needed to be be able to launch cyberoffensive tax or whatever as well as defensive tools that we've got that many guys have initiatives like that in order to stay. >> host: one of the questions
you have to ask you for their engage in something that is, do you think? >> guest: that's an area of pride -- we haven't coalesced around a common answer at this point in time. what would be the proper response to a cyberattack in this direction? was proportional, all this kind of questions that have to be answered and were in the lead in in the starting point for hoping the american people understand how important this is and why would they turn the computer on there are folks in other parts of the world who are using their computer to do things they really wouldn't want them to do if they knew what was going on. so this as they become more mature consciousness and then you have a really malicious folks that could use this to take the critical infrastructure that have dramatic impact. >> host: carl from new orleans, go ahead. >> caller: were attacking a
homeland security, domestic terrorism. i have to know, do we have a lot of police officers that do a lot of dirt to people in the community and uphold the constitution for us. what is congress going to do about the police officers and people in the position of authority could use that here at home and terrorist people in the neighborhood who just got slapped on the wrist and don't get arrested or thrown in jail for thatcomment began we look for other people outside america and every people in power. what is the congress going to do about that? >> guest: well, i share your outrage on that. nothing angers me more than see some and abuse authorities or power they have been taken the initiative things they shouldn't do. we have all the laws to stop by to make that against the law. they are in fact protect the appeared to have the citizens in earnest to place the city
council and leadership that the police department to handle that problem. that is a local issue. one of the reasons we're $16 trillion in debt is good folks look to the federal government to solve problems that have to be solved in new orleans. so we have to refocus and do a better job, saying what should the federal government do and states and communities do for themselves? this initiative must be solved in new orleans. your city council, mayor, baker said. that's where you have to go to focus the average pc the things going on. we don't need additional federal laws to do in new orleans for you guys should be doing for yourselves. >> host: from your dave, your thoughts and syria as far as what should our world right now should be. >> guest: are both right now should be what we are doing and understand the intelligence side is what is happening in syria and where the opposition groups are, how effective they might or might not be.
the defense -- i suspect the plan is being put in place and the president decide we need to do something broader than that things are doing. the human rights violations going on is incredible staff with serious killing themselves. it's an awful circumstance, but iran's hoping i'll answer that bad. so it's a tense situation. i don't think there's any harpring out to center troops and their, but that is something the president will have to chew on. >> host: combining weapons? >> guest: again, we don't see a cohesive armed opposition group where that can be effective on a bigger scale or lots of groups over there, individually and villages and locations take it upon themselves to do what they need to do there, but no cohesive group that we see right now would be someone with weapons like that.
>> guest: how much is contracted out or privatize neither different laws of government contractors? >> guest: don't have the information off the top of my head. it's been a focus to reduce the number of contractors and the department of defense as well as in the intelligence communities. i don't have any percentage that breaks out like that. the broad general statement is now, there are several rules for contractors in terms of couct than there are for anybody as an american citizen. again, it is a broad statement that he may be some merit. if we see something but the general statement coming as they don't have a separate set of rules. >> host: will bolster contractors played? >> guest: what they play a lot of back-office support, technical support for everything going on. and quite frankly we contract with folks took coast by another folks as well. >> host: bellows falls,
vermont, independent line. >> guest: hi, mr. conaway. it is closely with military and police and my question to you is to profit personally from any of this through investments are ownerships of corporations? i think my answer the air. thank you. >> guest: not intentionally. i have a very static portfolio. if you look at my assets over the last seven years, i've had are little changed now. i've investments in mutual funds and private health entries that may have some interest in some of the issues you talk about. but you know, it will sound self-serving to you, but i never think about that issue in terms of how approximate are doing something like that. one, i don't know own that many stocks directly. most of them is through mutual funds or managed account or someone else is making those
decisions. at the back of financial statement from year-to-year, you will see some rain is pretty static. i don't do much treating it all. i don't have time to do it. i'm focused on those full-time job and the folks in district 11. >> host: next up, atlanta, georgia appeared mark on the republican line. >> caller: as that disabled vet hum cut that, i think anyone sending another men into combat should be of that. they should be sending them to military that have no military experience and watching the bodies and seen what a bomb would do to bring somebody. i think anybody that sends another man into a combat zone out to have military experience to do it. i just want to see how they do that. and one other thing, we spent some much money on these weapons
and a lot of them come to the men on the field and he do not function as are supposed to. just like this rapture where the oxygen is not getting to the frame and it's causing them to actually blackout. that is something that should be carried before was never allowed to put and. i just don't understand. >> guest: thanks, caller. that issue is going to be tougher and tougher to implement. as the united states gets bigger and either shrink or will static number of people who serve in the military, you'll have fewer and fewer people have those experiences you think that the very good leader. they cannot happen is impossible to do. it is important. three people in congress who have served and seen anything since you're talking about. with respect to s. 22, some pilots are affected in seminar.
we have a hundred and 86 planes in the air and defendant had ground personnel with symptoms the pilots are talking about. there's a full-court press going to figure out what that is. it is one we want available at the time we needed them to have a problem with it. when you find something that's not numeric row height to fix that i've got great confidence that the department of defense is working this issue as hard as they can because we want those planes back in the air. >> host: when the call, travis, democrat line. >> caller: yeah, i would just like to say when it comes to security threats, you should play the longer we stay and these undeclared wars that the more threats we may have do to maybe innocent civilians have been killed. sometimes stuff like that happens and may cause where wage towards the u.s. another thing i would like to ask about is there's a lot of
conspiracy about fema camps and everything can be seen from history and how police officers and how that has been abused. but can you say to american citizens that can reassure them that when the american citizen can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial, how can you assure that that will not be abused in the future? >> guest: well, thanks. at length on the first question. the last question was addressed in the ndaa would have to notify congress than 45 hours and the rationale for what that goes for her. i guarantee there will be abuses go on? know, i can. we are people and we put people who have claimed in positions of responsibility and the vast majority of the time those folks who felt responsible amarilla
with great pride. from time to time as someone who screws up and does something they would want them to do the voodoo of really good job to put those people in jail. but the respect to price in afghanistan and other places i'm unwilling to drop our guard and say look, were not going to try to protect ourselves in that regard. the last stages in iraq and afghanistan to protect civilians. you're exactly right. every time because somebody is collateral damage so to speak that is not actually involved in the fight created a potential enemy and more so in afghanistan than iraq. our team under petraeus when he was there and admiral john allen were extraordinary lengths to make sure that nobody gets hurt that's not a bad guy because we recognize the impact that hurting folks that we are trying to protect what we get the bad guys does us no good. the impact it has an ability to continue to get the bad guys is degraded. every time i heard somebody our
team works really hard to note that happened. host our guest is mike conaway. he serves on the select intelligence and armed services committee. >> guest: thank you. >> live now to capitol hill as the house homeland subcommittee looks at tsa tracking of rail industry. among testifying will be the chief of police for amtrak and the chief operating officer greyhound. the hearing is just getting underway. congressman mike rogers of alabama. >> i appreciate your willingness to do so. less than 2% of tsa's come in nearly a billion dollars budget goes towards savings. there's too primary reasons for this. first nat aviation is a major focus of our enemies. second, service systems are accessible to me and the people everyday. they have to remain open for many reasons, not the least of which is to keep our economy on track.
no pun in 10 did. having said that, the transportation is an attractive target and since we can't scream everyone and everything to get on a train, truck or bus, intelligence service is important. since 9/11 has been attacks against mass transit systems worldwide papers also been a number of plots against her in transit systems. thankfully the work of our intelligence community and the diligence of everyday citizens of self-destructive plants. that does not mean that we can afford to lose focus. regardless of its failings in providing aviation security committee assiduous were clearly defined in that environment. on the other hand, local transit agencies and enforcement -- one person take the lead in providing surface transportation and so far at tsa has done a good job of making sure it stays that way. looks like one of the fervor service initiatives tsa is responsible for has not been
well received are well managed. at a hearing held by the subcommittee last year, industry witnesses voiced concerns at tsa service inspection program. their concerns prechter hearing today. over the last several months come the subcommittee staff conducted oversight. there are five other problems we know about. number one commend the service of factors have transportation experience whatsoever. many service inspectors from screening passengers at airports. number two committees inspectors report should the federal directors of the local airports who commonly do not protect service transportation. number three, at least one local tsa official indicated he is always looking for things first inspectors to do to occupy their time. number four, the service inspectors have two things to look for in a typical day, whether a transit system is reporting incidents to the tsa and whether there's a security person on duty.
finally, the work of inspectors may not be as robust as reported. according to one, inspectors have more activities to make it look like they are busier than they really are. these findings are disturbing to me. you have tsa hiring more and more inspectors and yet, where does the security benefit? the last five years the budget has quadrupled in the history of the program, only with situations that resulted and punitive fines against the country as a result of these inspections. at party city tsa is a limited amount of money to transportation security under some great programs out there, particularly the grant program administered by fema. this program allows local transit agencies to fund counterterrorism teams, canine detection teams another successful initiatives. we over to the taxpayer to the close of the inspectors program can determine whether it's good use of limited resources are at the time he would be better spent another service initiatives designed to prevent an attack.
keeping in mind that we'll want the state system and a secure transit possible. i look forward to hearing from stakeholders about the tsa -- how the tsa can do a better job of allocating resources. no one has more invested in this than you do. and normally right now appealed to the ranking member. she is i told the witnesses is tied up in the intelligence committee and will be in and out when price will turn turn to her for that. now, i want to go back to get started with their witnesses. who devise other members of day of opening statements they can submit for the record. we are pleased that several witnesses before a stand in support topic. let me remind his statements within the record. versus chief john o'connor currently served as chief of police for amtrak. cheap o'connor has a sensibility for a security strategy, implementation of measures and
delivery of uninformed -- uniformed, not uninformed. investigative and special operations police for amtrak and current position cheap o'connor served as chief of patrol, which is the metropolitan in new york before returning amtrak police department made to 98 served as the long island police department. the largest commuter with a road in the u.s. for 25 years have been risen through the ranks. the chair welcomes back cheap o'connor and you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, ranking member rogers. it's an honor and privilege to appear before this committee. and that democratic and service-based transportation systems is as high as it has ever been. all too often we hear of another
overseas attack unfortunately a foiled attack on this country. panetta institute issued a report last year, which detailed attacks on transit systems since 9/11. a list of more than 1800 attacks on bus and rail targets are resulting in over 3900 deaths and countless injuries. in 2012, heritage foundation report said in the u.s. alone more than 50 terror plots have been foiled since 9/11. many of them targeted at service transportation systems. we know that al qaeda continues to worship and white taxis magazine inspire as well as through skillful use of the internet. we must therefore make every reasonable effort to remain vigilant because the threat is real. amtrak supposed to provide a security of those who depend in our system is one of prevention, partnership and participation. on the prevention side we deploy
hundreds of uniformed officers and investigators have more than 30 locations around the country. the staffers are overlaid a special operations forces, which include one of the most skillful canine units in operation today. many of our canines have been trained at the university to develop a technique known as vapor wake for detecting movement of explosives through large crowds such as those on a train terminals. however, no one department can handle the enormity of the transportation security crafted hand. press the emphasis on partnership. based initially in the northeast coalition first formed by n.y.p.d. commissioner ray kelley, amtrak has worked with the tsa to form a network card will save, which now coordinates efforts of more than 200 agencies in over 40 states to protect amtrak and local transit systems. amtrak has also been accepted as an associate member of a network
of european rail police agencies sharing best practices and our systems. additionally we conduct as friends have joined training after its and appointments that are system. we have also turned toward 19,000 employees in the reading public in an effort to leverage knowledge and familiarity with their system. for a variety training efforts and public outreach, we have given our employees and the public both the tools they need to identify suspicious circumstances and the means to share their observations with the proper authorities. i would like to say that the tsa has been a good federal partner. tracks partnered with the tsa has produced significant improvement transit security. the tsa has been at the forefront and deport development including deployments, joint screening for explosives, establishment of advisory group in transit police chief,
assisting and directing funding for infrastructure protection operational security and the administration of the base program to assist agencies in the application of their security affairs. this is only a partial list, but it's a substantial one. that being said in today's tough economic times, i think it would be prudent to ensure that all of the tsa zephyrs that the best possible use of their respective budget allocations. one program in particular that i agree is worth a closer examination is the service sector program. amtrak's express what this program has been somewhat mixed. on the one hand the program has been helpful for as and the-based assessment of the northeast corridor. on the other hand, amtrak has encountered difficulties or interpretation of regulations by different tsa field officers. and for my inquiry as mission completion and disconnect the tsa headquarters at times.
today the program is partially overseen by sun 58 security direct heirs who often have airline security has a higher priority in their view of their responsibilities. it is not clear to amtrak this is the best structure for service transportation and it is also unclear whether the program is funded and structured continues to add value to the overall security efforts. our preference would be to program take on a more operational focus. in closing, i think the tsa deserves high marks for his service transportation security efforts notwithstanding improvements that could be made to the service transportation program. i had submitted a written statement for the record and appreciate the opportunity to share these are marks of the glad to answer any questions the committee may have. thank you. >> thank you on the cheap
o'connor for testimony. second is mr. skip elliott, vice president of safety and environment and he will be testifying on behalf of a american railroads. a 34 year veteran prior to joining ca 60 to 1998 mr. alli works were consolidated to corporation and the philadelphia-based capacities and the police safety and environmental departments. the chair now recognizes mr. alli for five minutes to summarize his opening statement. ballgown. >> afternoons, i'm skip elliott and i've been available at her for 35 years. i currently serve as vice president of public safety for csx transportation and transportation safety. iberville police department, homeland security and industrial hygiene programs. i'm pleased to be here before you today testifying on behalf of the csx and the association of american river is an peripheral security issues in
general and the transportation security administration inspection program in particular. on the topic of post-9/11 industry security actions, csx from a real security immediately after 9/11 there was the tsa or dhs or industry moved rapidly to voluntarily address a new threat environment and develop and implement a highly regarded unified risk based approach to security. on the topic of tsa's service transportation in fact is, tsa has an active form of regulations and we support the goals of regulations and are committed to full compliance. that said we have several concerns regarding the tsa service transportation inspection program. first, tsa is troubled by the lack of consistency by service inspectors and the regulatory requirements removing hazardous materials by rail. we frequently encounter inspectors who apply provisions of regulations in different ways that actions except a complaint by some tsa offices are labeled
as violations that produce official citations by others. this is struggling to csx as we strive to secure your network that spans 21,000 has attracted 23 states and encompasses over 13,000 local jurisdictions. our counterparts at other railroads indicate this is not just an issue for csx. second, it is unfortunate in fact there is routinely focus on minor paperwork issues that elevated administrative errors to the level of serious infractions with letters of investigation that threat than $10,000 fine. for example, the regulation in its chain of custody requirements for rail cars carry toxic inhalation chemicals. csx has received warnings or a chain of custody because names of employees were not spelled the same in the form we use. times were up by several minutes the names of commodities were inserted in the wrong location in the form.
administrative inconsistencies such as variation in spelling due to the verbal exchange of names so that by the loud did not provide a meaningful security breach. in fact, csx has been praised for providing flawless positive and secure handoff of chemicals only to receive violations for very minor administrative errors. we believe the lack of consistency and standardization and inspection priorities and activities are related to tsa organizational construct. service inspectors should not report the freeville bridge to the tsa headquarters official responsible for service transportation or security is reported to be a liaison with the service transportation issues. mr. chairman, as you indicated, report to directors as primary focus on aviation security. on the topic of information sharing and technology, we asked the committee to urge tsa's ongoing efforts to improve quality and timeliness of
actionable intelligence analysis for the rail sector. products will support efforts of her as security professionals and tsa focusing on true significant threats and concerns. finally, current tsa regulations are mired in cumbersome annual procedures as evidenced by the chain of custody rule. we encourage tsa to incorporate modern technology approaches that provide better, more robust security enhancements for freight rail transportation. u.s. rep rail industry is quickly expanding to elegies solutions for safety and security and tsa needs to follow suit. in conclusion, we recognize complexity and challenges faced both by the government in u.s. real industry and ensuring the safe and secure movement of people and projects in a post-9/11 world. we look forward to working with the committee and tsa and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the important topic. thank you. >> thank you, mr. elliott. our third witness serves as
president of bulldog hiway. i like that name. mr. byrd, previously served in addition to the south carolina maritime association charleston motor carrier association. president and ceo of the tract, mr. berg and i now recognize her five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. members of the subcommittee committee met for the opportunity to testify and tsa service transportation inspection program. i'm a missile fired at and president and ceo of bulldog hiway is in charleston, south carolina. testifying on behalf of the american trucking association where he presently serves as vice chairman. i want to think the subcommittee for addressing the continued multiplicity of background checks. ata is a strong supporter of the modern security credentials back
and my act as congress will soon pass this bill to bring some common sense to a government security credential process. again, you thank you for your support and leadership on this issue. ata and its members participate in many industry and government efforts to enhance security and the highways that were here for example, we made on a quarterly basis of industry stakeholders. tsa officials and other government counterparts in greece communications and share ideas to improve security of the highways. such initiatives are essential to further enhancing cooperation and coordination between industry and government agencies. aqa has followed with him and tries to establish higher visibility operations and service transportation. these efforts have focused on use of this bill intermodal preparedness and response program also known as viper teams. ata became aware of the team highway exercise in georgia and
in tennessee, mostly through the media. it is important to note that ata support such operations as long as they are based on intelligence or specific risks that require increased vigilance and security on our highways. at a recent meeting, tsa officials informed industry the departments that have a facility such as base stations was not due to any specific threat or intelligence. rather, tsa stated the byford teams were invited by state law enforcement agencies to augment their security capabilities. ata was informed during highway operations teams distributed information to commercial drivers about reporting for us to shape activities that might witness while on duty. deploying resources for such a purpose seems contrary to tsa assistant secretary object at seven-point risk-based intelligence driven operation to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce vulnerabilities.
ata fully agrees with mr. pistols approach for employee the approach. does that highway operations need media headlines from the same cannot be said for results of activities. this committee should request reports describing results of the highway operations as well as other similar initiatives. the report should detail specific operations that result. only such information is provided with this committee, tsa officials and industry representatives be able to assess the cost benefit of undertaking such operations. again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee and i'm pleased to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. byrd. next mr. william blankenship of greyhound lines. yes then with greyhound lines since 1996. mr. blankenship oversees operations as well as monetary safety and security.
prior to becoming ceo of greyhound lines, mr. blanchard served as director of manager for the western region. the chair recognizes mr. blankenship for five minutes. >> that afternoon. chairman roger is a member of the subcommittee on bill blankenship, ceo of a rail line and i'm honored to be here to discuss the tsa surface inspection program. in october 2001, less in 30 days after 9/11 a terrorist attack and overpowered driver of an alanna found rambus took over the bus and crashed it, killing seven passengers including the terrace and ensuring dirty. not knowing if this was the first of a coordinated series of attacks come at greyhound ceo the nationwide shutdowns of all surveys. after approximate 12 hours they determine this is the work of a long while for greyhound service is resumed. it underscores the vulnerability of america's inner-city bus network, ground buses serve every major city in the continental united states with
open terminals and downtown locations and operate almost every interstate highway across miss the nations major bridges multiple daily trips. greyhound has responded vigorously through the daily threat since 2001 riefenstahl driver shows that on board emergency communications and response systems and all buses have installed or upgraded facility security systems, instituted random screening of passengers a major terminals and connectors security training for all operational maintenance personnel. greyhound us participate into programs that involve tsa service transportation spec yours and the base assessment and intermodal response programs, viper. they are not at the corcoran security efforts. under the base assessment, tsa inspectors to an on-site analysis of individual analyses and recommendations for security improvements. some of these recommendations
are hopeful the others are not particularly realistic in the context of a bus terminal. so far can a greyhound terminals have participated in this analysis. the viper teams or two or more individual city streets looking for potential terrorist or suspicious activity. this business are completely random and are more focused on transit and amtrak. grounds should not receive any feedback after these visits. the visits are useful as a visible deterrent when they occur, but greyhound security efforts are more important to address the security. one area of concern we have is a silo approach to service transportation that tsa has taken the past. this limits effectiveness of tsa service transportation efforts. for example, tsa funding canine for major transit agencies. greyhound tried to get tsa to authorize use of dogs in nearby terminals, which would have little if any have come out
costs. we cannot break through the model is that tsa ought to make that happen. we are pleased recently tsa is taken action and a great buzz under their direct air service transportation. greece won the at the new director directorate occurred she understands the risk associated with intercity bus service and will move to integrate intercity buses into the program in a way that will enhance overall service transportation. the single most important tsa activity regard to intercity bus security as its administration of the intercity bus security grant program, which has averaged around $10 million per year through fiscal 2011. in fiscal 2012, congress included the intercity bus security grant program is one of the eligible service transportation programs, the dhs chose not to make funding available for you. we believe the intercity bus security project should remain eligible for federal funding in the three combined service transportation fund or
otherwise. the fact is intercity buses grew roughly 720 million passengers annually comparable to the airlines. given those numbers in the world by track record of terry's best attacks come as difficult including federal security program that explains the dollars available for aviation security and not in for intercity bus security is well-balanced. in our view, part of projects such as greyhound program should continue to be supported. thank you for the opportunity to testify. ..
>> i have over 20 years of experience in transportation safety and security including commanding positions within the maryland state police. approximate 150,000 members are small business truckers from all 50 states. the majority of trucking in this country is small business. 93% of our nation's motor carriers 20 or fewer trucks. more than 69% of all freight tonnage is moved by truck and the bulk is completed by small business truckers. involving the men and women who make their livelihood behind the wheel of truck makes sense for our nation's homeland security efforts. these men and women travel to all areas of our infrastructure and with the proper training these individuals add tremendous value to securing our nation. the first observer program which is a strong partner is dhs still provided to them that training.
first observer helps promote the security of our transportation infrastructure by enabling the sharing of information from well-trained and concerned professionals so have the capacity -- security breaches. ooida brings a unique perspective to help develop training modules to enhance participation of professionals like truckers of a particular vantage point to this report suspicious activity that may have been overlooked in the past. first observer cohen offers 12 different training modules covering everything from truck and motorcoach drivers to port and highway workers. one example of how this was utilize was to join the lead opportunity -- super bowl. they trained over 1000 event staff and personne personal ande integrity awareness. first observer giunta program, while also engaging the thousands long-haul trucking hours on the road every day. it is truly a force multiplier for homeland security. some of the recent success
stories that i can speak of including full hijack of a motorcoach, a destruction of a bomb plot targeting former president george w. bush, and for the plots against west coast power plants. these successes validate the first observer mission. ooida has learned their more receptive to drink from individuals who have distinct knowledge of their industry. feedback from members produced in the first observer program to show the training they received was geared specifically towards them and they felt a positive mission. this program takes homeland security since the and in return, first observer mayors are taking it's a slick and helping to make the program a success. to the best of my knowledge first observer has far exceeded tsa's expectations. the program has been endorsed by 137 industry and affiliate associations and organizations, and despite the successes the program faces challenges. first observer has been operating under a no cost extension since january 1, 2012.
broader budgetary challenges, unbalanced funding and resource priorities within dhs, especially tsa, threatened the program's ability to meet its mission. along this program to falter would send a clear message that tsa places greater value and other much of transfer. is widely known that the lion share of funding within tsa is allocated towards the aviation sector. less than 2% is dedicated to service transportation arena. not taking in regard to significant economic importance of service expectation trade and its infrastructure. although it is hopeful congress will address this imbalance. and they need a commitment from congress and the department. our collective service transportation personnel to observe assessment port in the areas of expertise helps achieve homeland security czar over all mission. at a cost below somewhat tsa's other priorities.
especially those focused on substituting technology for real-life professional eyes on the road. today, first observer has over 160,000 program members. of these with several hundred school bus and truck drivers in the chairman singh chicago, as was over 2000 the ranking member's district. this is an activity that should be prioritized moving for. thank you much for your time. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. morris. and they do agree with you. we could be smart about the way we're spending our money. that's one of the reasons we want to have this test by on the record. i recognize myself for the first set of questions. chief o'connor, what did you mean when you said tsa should have more operational focus? what does that term mean to? >> as i said in my testimony, and trucks approaches prevention, partnership and participation. i think that's where the tsa inspectors should be focusing their efforts.
they should be helping agencies and direct prevention efforts, like supporting vipers. they should be helping us partner with the communities to help protect the local transit system, and they should be helping us train our employees and doing public outreach. not going out enforcing regulations that do not add to the valley of security. >> have you noticed the increased numbers of these tsa assets in your stations? >> we get a lot of support, you know, on the normal vipers. in terms of the inspectors, we are getting sporadic reports around the country on showing up in station profiles, and efforts that unsure our will intention, but i'm not sure it would add to the value of security. they did assess this with a
program but again, once the program is in place, where do we go from there? >> i had the privilege of visiting with one of your facilities in new york a couple go and i was very impressed with what you are doing. as you know i'm a big supporter of that. mr. elliott, i'm aware that alabama participates in the secured a program to can you elaborate more on that, please? >> yes, mr. chairman. first of all, i'd like to thank the state for participation in what we think is a very worthwhile program. at csx we believe transparency is very important in building solid and credible security. it's our securing a program is actually technology-based program that allows bona fide security, homeland security agencies, in the case of the states. it's typically fusion centers but we also partnerships in federal agencies that after allow these agencies to see in a
real-time format every train that is operate on csx transportation, and then to quickly identify every railcar, every commodity that is being transported within those trains. we think that's the import because oftentimes state and federal agencies may be given upon csx to translate information and you lose valuable time. what the secured a program does is allow the state and federal homeland security centers to have this real-time access to all csx trains and commodities, so if he did indication of a credible our confirmed threat, they can see the real commodities that are moving through their states on csx and they can take the appropriate action by contacting csx we can either stop trains are move trains to at a faster pace in order to provide the level of security that we need. >> great. i don't think we have, can you put that up on the screen, this chart? visually i hope you get the gist
of this, but in 2008 we had just under 200 of these inspectors for surface transportation, and any five year. you can see it as double to where we now have 404 of these inspectors. and my question is, do you all think we've seen a commiserate enhancement of security, or not? i opened that up to anyone. i will start with you, mr. elliott. >> mr. chairman, i think it's fair to say that much like my colleagues on the witness stand today, we appreciate a lot of the very good work that tsa does. however, it's been our experience that with the increase of service transportation inspectors who we see with increased frequency in our railyards, that really all we're seeing is not just one inspector who would come to kind of review the transfer of custody regulation, but we're
seeing multiple inspectors basically just showing up to look at the same regulation. so i'm not sure we are seeing any comments or at enhancements in security by the addition of the more service transportation inspections. >> yes, sir know, do you think it's been worth doubling the workforce from a security standpoint? >> i have not seen that, nope. >> mr. byrd, yes or no? >> no. >> chief o'connor? >> no. i run i see an increase in k-9s, an increase in public and employee training. >> mr. blankenship? >> the only increase we really seeing is in the baseline inspections that have occurred. >> mr. morris? >> no, sir, i have not. >> we've been joined by my friend and colleague from texas who has come from the intelligence community were i'm sure she has made the world safer, and we're glad to have her here. i recognize her for any statement she may have. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, into the witnesses for the testimony. the chairman has been gracious.
thank you members. we are all so in immigration subcommittee so i thank you very much. this is a subject that is enormously close to my heart, and i thank all of you for your participation and this valuable hearing that will provide, and that is providing insights and critical french traction issues but as ranking member, i continue support the allocation of adequate resources aimed at enhancing the efficiency, safety and security of our rail and mass transit systems. there is no doubt, and i know that you gentlemen on the front line, that when we think of the target, the target that has been most attracted to what ever franchised her script you can think of, it is a transportation mode. we will fool ourselves if we don't recognize that the surface transportation is clearly in the
eye of the storm. this morning's news reported that buses transport more people, released the same amount of people, as the aviation industry. how many americans would know that? which is why i offered an amendment to the service transportation ticketing measure recently by the full committee, recently considered by the full committee and my and then that would authorize $409 for the transportation security grant program in fiscal year 2012, and fiscal year 2013. i want you to know the good news is the and name it was unanimous supported by this committee but i'm pleased member on both side of recognize the need to authorize these funds, in the near future the house will consider fy 2013 department of homeland security appropriations bill and i will respectfully request that my colleagues continue their strong commitment to transportation security grant funding and the appropriations measures on the floor of the house. if you're happily going off to the casinos in louisiana and parts of texas, and/or if you're
having to get to grandma's house, you're using a motor transportation that could in essence be a target. i cannot overstate the importance of funding, for grants that allow state and local jurisdictions to secure our nation's transportation infrastructure. according to the national counterterrorism center's for 2004, over 1000 terrorist attacks were waged worldwide against mass transit and passenger rail targets resulting over 2000 deaths and over 9000 injuries. effect where one of the first congressional delegations to visit mumbai after the series of attacks there, and to visit the station where these heinous attacks after. madrid, london, mumbai and moscow. we've been fortunate that we have not put on that list one of our sites, even though of course it was a plot to attack the newark city subway system in 2009. everybody rumors at times square alleged bomber that was trying to disrupt times square, a, if you will, centerpoint or rail,
subway, fines, crossing in that area. given the open nature of our mass transportation system, the millions of people user subways, buses and i was each day, the effort to assure adequate funding for security grants should be high priority for this congress. that divides -- the demise of osama bin laden, we should be diligent. if enacted this bill would ensure that tsa provides the kind of attention and resources necessary to effectively operate circuit and mass transit. the bill authorizes the heart of additional surface inspectors to validate secure programs that impact our surface and mass transit. let me indicate how much i think this hearing is crucial, and i will caution that we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. it is important that we work with tsa to make changes. it's important tsa hires additional transportation security inspectors. being the first step.
however, the agency must also ensure regulation impacting trading and front-line workers across surface of the mass transit but issued insured for public comment. without this overreaching framework, single acts and injuries or programs are likely to have little impact. it must include the can mechanism my bill such as the protocol, strengthen stakeholder outreach, revision for the security assistance grants program and recognition of the importance of increase resources for k. 19 to i'm looking for to these efforts to go for any fast and expeditious way. i also look forward to testament that has come about for the first observational program fully known as highway watch, and i believe that this hearing, mr. chairman, answers a number of questions that the congress does maintain its responsibilities of oversight and diligence because it is important to secure the homeland in all aspects. without i yield back. >> with a regimen like to go ahead and take a five minute
questions because i would like to do so, and tried to abbreviate my questions speak to are recognized as ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> first of all, i am, i have -- i have taken it to heart of visiting various sites and watching the work that is done. let me give you just this one question. unlike airports, where security is completely federalize, the local transit law enforcement agencies bear the brunt of security program for surface transportation systems. as we discussed moving forward with tsa's program, i would like to know what your major resource and operational challenges are, and how tsa can use inspectors with proper experience and expertise to help you meet those
regulations which do not add to security, but develop a partnership with the agencies and help in their prevention efforts, help them partnering with local communities, and helping and training employees and doing public outreach. i think the whole program needs to be look from top to bottom to see if that's where the efforts are going. >> i thank you. i'm going to yield back and come back to get these questions answered at the next go round. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. turner for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm interested, mr. elliott, in the inspectors. there are no 400 rail inspectors, did i hear that right? >> yes. >> and what is their mandate
lacks. >> with regard, congressman, with regards to freight rail security, there is one tsa regulation, the one that deals with a secure and positive handoff of toxic an inhalation hazard to their focus has been wholly to go out to our rail facilities, and basically focus on how well that regulation is being adhered to. really come as i mentioned before in my testimony, we value a lot of the good positive relationship with tsa but what we're typically say now, we do have concerns about the level of knowledge and training that the service dissertation inspectors are getting, especially since their growth was so fast. but we are basically sing multiple inspectors coming out to basically observe the same function in a number of limited locations. again, we recognized that tsa bring some great value, partnerships we have with them but i'm not sure that we're seeing the total value of this program. >> isn't there already, rather
profound infrastructure for safe handling of coupling and uncoupling of cars, toxic materials, and other agencies, transportation? these are homeland security inspectors. >> that's correct. predominantly freight rail safety and security regulations, under the auspices of the federal railroad administration. we traditionally see a number of fra and specters are out in the real property looking at compliance with the regulations they oversee. but the one regulation currently that tsa has jurisdiction over is the secure and positive handoff. that basically requires that there is a fiscal handoff of toxic inhalation products such as dioxin, chlorine and hikers passionate and anhydrous ammonia. we recognize that there is a
significant difference in the security threat to freight transportation versus the security that needs to be focused on and the traveling public. again, we focus quite significant on a number of security issues. we're just not quite so sure that the focus that tsa has put on this one particular interest is really -- >> you see this as a redundancy? >> there are two things. one, i do see it somewhat of a redundancy with what the federal railroad administration focuses on in its security and safety initiative. quite honestly i would say that i think we work very hard and want to ensure full compliance with regulation to again come in my testimony, we get lauded on one hand by an inspector who watches the fiscal handoff and indicates that we're doing it perfectly. then on to take exception to the fact that we may have a misspelled name on something maybe. the indication to us that has to be that we meeting the intention
of the regulation, but the inspectors man to find something so they're turning to some very minor administrative issues instead. >> thank you. another question for chief o'connor. for all the rhetoric stations, et cetera, the only effective detectors or the noses of k-9s, am i correct? do we have enough? >> i don't think they would be -- they would be achieved in a country that says he has enough resources. but certainly k-9s we need to expand that. they are one of the most versatile tools and most skilled tools out there. and i think they should be expanded, not only in surface transportation -- [inaudible] >> they are very appreciative of their handlers and a good program creates a good team.
but i think they should be widely used throughout the whole transportation industry. >> thank you. i yield back. >> nag you know what i like chief o'connor. mr. richmond is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for a person represents a district that has just about everybody at the table with large print and in new orleans, louisiana, you can take amtrak and greyhound, which i was right next to the new orleans superdome, and the new orleans arena. you can look at csx and all of our major rail lines that come right into the port of new orleans and some of our chemical plants, and not to mention the truckers. i guess the disturbing part, it appears as though you all take your jobs very, very safely, and
you all have recommendations from the boots on the ground, so to speak of the front line of defense. it appears as though the working relationship with tsa in terms of suggestions on how to make things actually work better and safer, that there is some gap in terms of feedback or input, or maybe the sense that they don't respond or take your suggestion seriously. so i guess my first question which would be a very general question, and judas -- you can submit for the answers in writing. but i would be curious to know what you all make recommendations such as less focus on operation and not get stuck on regulations that have no direct connection to safety. what kind of feedback do you
get? do you have any suggestions for us? the center, this may take writing, those regulations that are redundant, that are misguided in terms of not a very direct connection of safety, i'd like to know about those because at the end of the day, i think that new orleans is a very sensitive for delicate city when it comes to transportation security. so we want to make sure we get it right. so chief o'connor, if we start with you, just go down the line, that would be very efficient. >> let me start by saying in other areas working with tsa, our partnership has been very good. when we first started out with vipers, we had a lot of problems. but then we reached agreement to work on operational plans together and where we both signed off on the purpose of vipers and how they would be deployed. but for some reason that hasn't
happened in the inspector program. in a canine program, we work hand in glove with them. and, in fact, they come to us to learn about the canine program, and have made efforts to expand it based upon our state. we have raised these issues with administrator pistole. he's aware of them. he has promised that you look into some of these issues, but we're still waiting waiting for the results of those. >> just to be clear. for you it's really the problem with the inspector program? >> that's right. >> okay. >> congressman, i would underscore passionate underscore our gaze with tsa, i would rate our relationship with the freight rail branch, the headquarters group that basically focus on regulation and policy as being very good. we have had good interaction with the group since its inception and traditionally they will listen to our concerns. most of the folks within the group actually come from a royal
backgrounds which we find very helpful. we don't always agree with some of the regulations that they bring food. what we understand that they have a task in trying to make his country safe and we can appreciate the test. we also have what we think is a very good relationship with the regional safety coordinator whose job is to kind of understand the concerns and issues that we have at csx. but finally i think of relationship with the surface transportation inspectors, given that the report up through a director focus more on aviation security, we find that communication and coronation probably is lowest of the three groups we deal with regularly at tsa. >> i may have missed the but any suggestion on what should be at the top of the command chain? >> i think that perhaps in my point of view it's meant to should be at the top but they should all be together. >> and with a focus on service has petitioned as opposed to aviation, at least for this group is? >> correct.
i would tell you that a rail yard, a freight train is entirely different than airport. and air passenger security. >> mr. byrd? >> thank you congress and. i would agree with my colleagues to the right that the relationship between the trucking industry and tsa is good on one hand, and on the other hand can be improved. and i think that is in basic terms a partnership. and a trusted partnership, and one that needs to be expanded on. and the trucking industry has been dealing with what is known as the transportation worker identification card for approximately five years. that program has been an economic burden to our industry. and returns very little results in terms of antiterrorism or securing our seaports and other venues. its purpose was to be a single biometric credential that the trucking industry could use to
gain access into sensitives and secure areas. it has yet to fulfill that requirement. we still don't have readers in the field, and yet we are looking upon a situation where these cards that were first issued a going to expire shortly. and we will have to go through that economic burden again, and we still don't have readers. so that's a problem for us. in terms of the vipr situation that i'm a comic you in the testimony, in georgia and tennessee, you know, as a taxpayer, is it a good investment to have a second level of inspectors go out just simply to hand out materials to the commercial drivers about how they can communicate what they see, when we already have effective programs, both in our private businesses and as an industry at large? so i think the key from the trucking industry would be to expand on the trusted partnership program, work
in the field is working well? >> i believe there is probably too much inconsistency with the current tsa organizational structure that has a group of individuals who are responsible for coming out in preventing security inspection not in any way, shape or form connected with the headquarters organization that really is responsible for formulating policy and regulations. what happens is that we see this tremendous and can do simply with the application of regulations and interpretations. we spent an inordinate amount of time and resources to minor and trivial administrative issues. that didn't quite come up rocks like two weeks ago we received notification from our regional security liaison about what they consider to be a series violation breach in jacksonville and they asked for a meeting.
so i brought my security team and myself to my representatives in the tsa inspection. they laid out the issue as they saw it, only to find that it is a misinterpretation of the red brick elation and the regional security liaison actually had to call back after he called the headquarters group in washington to get the interpretation and find out what to damas a significant violation of the their vacation wasn't a violation at all. we spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the way they have done wrong only to find out it was an inappropriate for an accurate act duration by the inspectors who are supposed to know those things. >> you touched on a point i want to try to hammer home. barbara will speak at the security inspectors, the rsis with service transportation security inspect yours, what actions are rsis's available to
take? >> probably very, very little if any actions, but i do give our regional security direct or good marks for his consistent communications with us and try to act as an intermediary to solve some of our concerns. assure correct, he has the capability to solve problems independently. >> be much because of the chain of command as i understand it. the problem is as tsi do not report to the tsa did not report to the frail branch or to the tsa headquarters? >> that's correct. >> rather the stsi report to security directors in the fields primarily focused on aviation? >> it is. >> that's what i thought. >> although they appointed the regional security inspectors to be liaisons to the river, on
service transportation issues, the rsis are not in the chain of command, is that correct? >> or the tsa rail branch. so therefore, daylight really any authority to resolve any issues or ability to provide meaningful subject matter can send free real security issues. is that correct? >> yes. >> so it's a pretty messed up system, which you agree? >> it could be better. >> you could run for politics. >> i just wanted to show the inadequacy of the system and how it's working. you brought up the point -- your example was right on on just how ineffective and inefficient the system as when there is an issue and you have to go to great length to explain yourself to
someone who may not understand which are talking about. the thank you very much. i appreciate your time and i will go back, mr. chair. >> now mr. davis for any questions he may have. >> thank you rematch, mr. chairman and let me thank the witnesses. by tonight we can and ask each one of you if you would respond and will begin with ms. morris. the department has been championing a see some things say something campaign for the last couple of years. how does your membership report or collect data on the reporting of incidents? >> thank you, congressman. see something come to say something is a slogan, an ad campaign. we're involved in a first observer program. the program has a call center. we have a 160,000 program members.
last year we received, since the inception salina area 4000 calls per year for hundred of the calls have been referred for further action to transportation of operations center or investigation. so they see something can say something campaign is basically inept campaign. the first observer has training involved and tells people what to look for. >> mr. blankenship. >> we train our entire workforce to report any and said in an the for seven operations and a man take those calls. based on the level of incidents, there's a call down a tree or notification treat for the most serious can be sent instantly. it gets distributed to the entire corporations as appropriate. >> mr. byrd. >> thank you for the question. to see something faith in the program has been constructive in the industry. in my written testimony submitted, you will note that
remake mention of an incident that occurred by one of our carrier members where a very alert and we have a tracking come any saw suspicious chemicals coming through and going to a suspicious residents made commented that, taken at the chain of command if he'd been trained internally and through her association in the end result is that i see something come to see scenario was a terrorist attack that was prodded and apprehended. another such incident, the american trucking association ran the program highway watch and i'm sure all of if you remember the washington sniper. it is because of that program and effect of nasa's communicating to see something unsafe and added that individual is at rescinded by the recognition of seeing something and say something bastrop trigger.
>> congressmen, we have for a number of years a program that we call rick at highest, record and report, basically training employees to identify any suspicious or unusual activities to the equivalent of our 9-1-1 location for public safety coordination center. or if it's a bona fide concern to local police e-911. will gather that information and we typically then will report that further up to our trade association can association of america and are the network enabled then move the where two other federal security agencies. often times to make individual contacts to tsa at their operations center in herndon and even to the federal d.o.t. security center in washington. >> chief o'connor. >> yes, sir. we have trained 19 dozen employees and they see something, say something program as well as the general public.
we've developed a program called past safety. any and all reports can international communications center. they are investigated at the local level and those that have a sensitive passed on to representatives of the joint terrorism task force. it's been a very successful program for us. >> thank you drainage, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i think you can tell from my opening statement i am of the impression this inspector program is too heavy and personnel in based on its earlier history was able to get by pretty efficiently and effectively with about 100 inspect tears come and there's certainly no more than 200 is necessary based on what i have heard prior to this area and and from the law. i would like to start with mr. morris. is that your view? which you agree or disagree with that observation, yes or no?
>> i agree. >> mr. blankenship? >> yes, sir. i agree. >> i agree the observation, sir. >> agreed. >> chief? >> i'll give you more qualified answer. >> i thought everyone is going to be -- >> the numbers -- i don't turn away any hope, but it's got to be the right kind of hope. and if they're not doing the right thing, then it creates numbers and a dozen home. but whatever the number turns out to be coming is to do the right thing. >> you basically have her with the four gentlemen when you say you don't need that many people. >> i'm getting to this. if it were a two-year low and we could reallocate the money being spent on 300 of those 400 inspect gears and put them into a grant program, several of you
have talked about grand to pay for canine assets. it could be some other security asset. would you think that would be higher and better use of the money. start with mr. morris. >> yes, sir. we wholeheartedly support that. >> mr. blankenship. >> yes, i refer to how effective the program has been. >> mr. byr >> would agree. >> congressman, i think we would like them or risk-based approaches and technology solutions and not just growing manpower that may not be wholly affected. >> would grant the commish that? >> yes, it could. >> i'm a proponent of the expansion of canine without qualification. >> great. i'm glad we'll hope to get on the record because i'm going to try to bring that commendably proceed to the floor with this. i do think that this money could be used better in the various grant programs. mr. blankenship, you mentioned earlier and this is my last
question, that tsa would work with you on putting canine assets in your systems have very modest expense. what was the problem? >> they just couldn't coordinate activities and in no case is commit downtown locations for a couple bucks away. so when i come by the ground kernel country and terminal into a quick run through the terminal as preventive and we were able to break the filer down. so we would has to have a reconsidered. we think that could be valuable and middle-income class. >> are joined of a person. >> thank you very much. >> mr. davis committee of another question? >> sure. thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. o'connor, you indicate to you would not turn away the extra supportive hope. how can tsa do a better job or what kind of support you need or
could you use? >> well, they have been very helpful in doing baggage screening, multiplying four saves. they've been very helpful in the canine. those other cities have been this field is what i'm looking for. >> also come in each one of you if you could just respond. in the june 2008 dhs oig report entitled tsa administration and coordination of mass transit security programs, several concerns are based by transit security officials indicating that tsa's risk management did not account for certain needs of cities and their transit systems in developing at 52012 transit security grant program by oregon
named value administrations, have you think they can improve on its transparency and evaluation and selection of transit security projects? cheese, why don't we just start with you. >> well, it's a pretty long question and coming in now, i'll say this, that with limited resources, again, the satirist than enhance frontline operational after it's are the ones that in my opinion are best, best again. does that encourage partnerships. for instance, we work very closely with the secret service in the city chicago police department during the nato conference.
and in fact, our canines were used by the secret service in helping attack the whole event. so, does after it's been a help in the development of partnerships, that helped the front-line efforts are what i support. >> and if you read the chicago papers, you will note that everybody felt that the entire team did an excellent job, an outstanding job and we commend you for that. mr. elliott. >> congressman davis, at first lasch, most folks they not think that a free press transportation network has much to do but passenger rail security, but that's really not the case. as csx, we have over 89 bill messier and operations on our network. we're very, very fortunate to have a great working relationship with colleagues and track and some of the other passenger transportation
networks. one of the things we drew through our pearly's department and we as canine i happy to announce we assign a new canine unit to a community-based policing after we have in washington. but one of the things we do recognize the men have the traveling public to try and train other agencies will be the first to respond. but again, we understand the importance of the transit security side and do our best to help our colleagues to do with that do it on a more frequent basis. >> mr. byrd. >> obviously were not involved in the mass transit of people in that, but just respond in general as a citizen, i can come it just the fact and from what my colleague, chief o'connor mentioned. communication, working together,
partnerships are invaluable to making a successful program work. that is the only comment i would have. >> mr. blankenship. >> by, it is more geared towards greyhound and most of the security cost bizarre burden, that congress did include the inner security best grant in fiscal 2012, the dhs chose not to fund it. we would like to see that we visited. we think that is a pickup with very little dollars and goes a long way. >> mr. morris. >> representative for drivers, we applaud any efforts in surface transportation in the security realm transit wherever. you know, our drivers, and the fact that they need to have the bridge there, the road they are. their wheelers are rolling their not making any money. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the chair if you have any.
thank you. i will close a precipitation. next week allowed administrator pistol before a committee. if there's anything you would like me to ask him, tee it up. mr. morris. >> is kind like to ask him to make feature transept they are for homeland security affairs, service transportation. what to do to give our money to surface transportation. >> excellent. i will do that. >> mr. blankenship. >> out of the same response being revitalized or some type of grant. into the greyhound terminals, coordination and time again so forth. we don't need them coming and we don't have passengers. >> excellent. i'll do that as well. >> the trucking industry would like to know when i tweet readers will be available to last. >> i'll get you an answer.
>> mr. elliott. >> mr. chairman, it has to do with better coordination, perhaps consolidation of the concert to tsa especially as it focuses on peripheral security. they should all be one single focus aspirate that focuses on service transportation. >> why does she do this for me. but she fashioned a question question you tendered in writing and i will read it verbatim for you. chief o'connor, short timer. >> short timer. i've addressed the administrator if he would take a look at within the organization to surface security inspectors, looking to partner with industry as they do win on their areas of tsa. take a hard look at that. >> grey. for those folks should get a short-term remark, chief o'connor's about to retire and i'm proud for him. a little jealous, but it's been a great asset to come before us
and i wish you well in your retirement and hope we see you around here and a more relaxed attire in the future. >> could i just ask -- >> you discuss the first observer program as an important layer of security. could you amplify that a little bit? >> first program is that pose together people know would ever abound the days with her training modules together geared towards their expertise, professional area of expertise and they in turn when they see something of value, whether a suspicious or out of the air glory, you generally would not get any for you call 9-1-1 and the cause of go to the wayside. those calls are then taken to be
analyzed by the security of professionals and operations centers and there's actual items taken as a result of those calls and analysis. >> can you think there is perhaps any additional training opportunities that exist or if there were training opportunities, as they said the effective to the extent of really being useful burning perhaps more effective techniques and approaches and what to look for and how to. >> yes, sir, congressman. the original program is just for security that evolved into 12 modules now but different venues. the gaps that people saw. tsa came inside to put together more modules quakes we did it. no extra money. we just did it because he thought he was the right thing to do and we did it. this additional money or
training, but to put everybody in surface transportation. >> well, thank you very much. i thank you, mr. chairman. i see that the ranking member has returned and i am pretty certain that i probably didn't ask any questions. >> the chair recognizes for any rank team member you may have. >> i think all of the witnesses. to give me some reprieve in excuse, i was dealing with the intelligence bill on the floor of the house another job and relied a lot on intelligence and we need to coordinate together. like me, because a lot of you are from the areas in which we are attempting to work with tsa, i would like to just add the
question, chief o'connor, and mr. morris, the importance of making sure that we continue the transportation security grants that have been indicated. my amendment within $400 million. we will always hear from sun for every story says don't always answer the question. but i have been on the ground and i know the vastness of the work that law enforcement has asked a cover, particularly the local structure and infrastructure. chief o'connor, as many other americans have written on amtrak, and track i say, relatively without documentation as a safety track record that is
more than respect to vote based upon how will today's. and track him if you ride it rights to neighborhoods in urban centers. it therefore can be enormously good to someone who wants to do us harm. the both of you can answer with those resources, particularly those $400 million keeping those findings cycles open and flowing to be constructively, efficiently, effectively and with the tax payers dollars and nine others continues to help secure the homeland. chief o'connor. >> yes, ranking member jackson lee, the amtrak operation and more than 500 communities and 46 states in the interact with about a dozen communities across the country. so it's not just protect dean america's railroad, but it's
also protect teen communities and major urban areas are major commuter centers around the country. the transit security grants go a long way towards helping us in our canine programs, towards helping us in gathering the proper intelligence, towards buying some vulnerability and at lowering the risk. it is a daunting task just to protect the public on a day-to-day basis the new overlay that with the threat of terrorist and comedy assistance that the federal government gives to us in the transit agencies across the country is vital and it would be serious breaches and increases without it. >> yes, ma'am, thank you am a member. as you are aware, i'm a no-cost
extensions since 2012, over 160 program members as we have our volunteers and a lot of different venues for school bus, tracking, told different venues. in her district district of columbia 200 school bus and truck drivers. these are volunteers who came for the training to help out homeland security mission. if tsa walked away from us, it sends a message to fans saying they don't care about service transportation. >> and just to get mr. elliott, let me focus the questioning of quite a different way. and part of the work that she do a major work that you do. the idea that was transported makes for vulnerability for those who might wish to do us harm. how important it is to partnership the federal government on securing the
homeland, particularly with the inspectors to service transportation. >> as i mentioned earlier, we realize there's many valuable programs between tsa and the freight rail industry with regards to the surface transportation fares, you know, we have concerns we wish they had their knowledge and understanding of the freight rail system. free rabbits can be in safe places and we prefer that the folks that are entrusted by the government to basically come out and provide the commensurate training and understanding of the railroad. we would also like to see it to be as holy effective as the current group at surface transportation inspectors can be but again there's better coronation between the entities that we deal with an tsa, surface transportation inspectors report to one entity. we also assign a regional va
assigned to try and help as the tissues that we have been then of course retail at the headquarters branch that deals a lot with regulations and policy and there is no consistency between those three. you know, we would really ask that tsa does a better job of bringing those groups together to provide better service to us in the freight rail security side. >> so your comments are not the lacquer recognition of the value of inspectors. what your instruction and inside is that we need to improve our training and outreach so that we have inspectors who are sufficiently trained for each discipline, each industry. am i hearing you correctly? and and a finite,, any coordination within tsa. >> ranking member jackson lee, i think currently and i have to
say what absurd and bad as we do not see the current cadre of service transportation inspectors focusing on freeville transportation are as effective as they possibly could be. we are dependent upon our network of employees, police department, security professionals to provide most of the security to our freight rail network. i think it is some of the lack of ordination between entities that focus on freight rail security that perhaps make sakura group not nearly as if that is probably they should be. >> what i would say it's i close, mr. chairman, is that there is no doubt the transportation security inspectors are a valuable asset. i think if i look at the river at industry for a long time, you have been under the u.s. department of transportation pre-9/11. now there is an overlapping jurisdiction. and what i hear you crying out for is what i hear is a bipartisan cry, at least it is mine. no, i cannot go to the
[inaudible conversations] >> the jury in the federal campaign finance trial of former u.s. presidential candidate john edwards reached a verdict on one of six counts after almost two weeks of deliberations. the u.s. judge ordered the panel to keep trying and continue deliberations on the remaining charges without disclosing its decision on the one count. edwards is charged with
illegally using campaign contributions to conceal an extramarital affair. earlier this year, ben bernanke taught a series of questions at george washington university school of business. each day this week at 6:45 p.m. eastern on c-span2, we've been showing you one of the four lectures. coming up later today, chairman bernanke's third in the series in which he talks about the role of the federal reeverybody in the 2008 -- reserve in the 2008 financial crisis. with the senate on break this week, we're featuring booktv in prime time on c-span2. tonight, a look at politics and corporations. beginning at 8 p.m. eastern, pulitzer prize-winning author steve coll goes inside one of the largest corporations in the u.s., exxonmobil. at 9, bryce hoffman examines ford's ceo alan mulally and his plan to save the auto manufacturer. and at 9:45, harriet washington discusses what she calls the commodification of the human body by big pharmaceutical
companies in "deadly monopolies." booktv in prime time all week on c-span2. spend the weekend in wichita, kansas, with booktv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, literary life with booktv on c-span2. robert weems on american presidents and black entrepreneurs from "business in black and white." and dennis farny on the founding of beach craft in "the barnstormer and the lady." also browse the rare book collection. and sunday at 5 p.m. eastern on american history tv experience early plains life at the old cowtown museum, the early days of flight at the kansas aviatio museum. also two participants from the kansas civil rights movement. in 1958 they sat down for service at the dockham drugstore. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explayer the history and literary life ofty cities across america.
this weekend from wichita, kansas, on c-span2 and 3. >> writing is a transactional process. writing assumes reading. it goes back to that question about, you know, a tree falling in the forest if there's no one there to hear it. you know, if you've written a really wonderful novel, then one of the parts of the process is that you want readers to be enlarged and enriched by it, and you have to, you have to pull on everything at your disposal to do that. >> author and pulitzer prize-winning columnist anna quindlen will talk about her perspectives on writing and life, plus her guide to social policy and the politics that make it happen, life sunday on "in depth." "lots of candles, plenty of cake," and she'll be ready for your calls, tweets and e-mails on booktv's "in depth" on c-span2. now, a discussion about international proposals to transfer control of the internet over to the united nations'
international telecommunication union. among some of the new regulatory proposals, the u.n. would take control over cybersecurity, data privacy and the web's address system. >> in just one minute now. okay. well, that was very nice. i appreciate the cooperation. i'm randy may, president of the free state foundation, and i want to welcome all of you to today's event. as most of you know, the free state foundation is a free market-oriented think tank specializing primarily in communications, internet and high-tech policy issues. i'm always pleased to see so many old friends at our events. today i'm especially pleased to see so many new friends and new
faces. i confess that we've got a large turnout. there must be several of you or quite a few of you that didn't even sign up, but we welcome you too. [laughter] we're glad you're, glad you're here. and i especially want to extend a warm welcome to our c-span audience today and thank c-span for covering this event. we appreciate i. -- it. today's program is titled "the multistakeholder privatized internet governance model: can it survive threats from the u.n.?" now, i understand that the potential threats to the internet that we're going to be discussing today are going to arise, if at all in the international telecommunications union or itu, but the itu
operates under the u.n. auspices, and it's one of the u.n.'s specialized treaty organizations. that's why sometimes today we may be referring to the itu or the u.n. which is a parent body of the itu. now, more specifically the issues we're going to be discussing today will likely arise in the context of a particular itu-sponsored conference called wicket 2012 which will take place this december in dubai. no, i didn't say wicked as in wicked witch, but wict which stands for the world conference on international communications. so there have been concerns expressed, and fcc commissioner mcdowell here was one of the
early expressers of concerns, that some countries might try to use the wict conference to amend the international telecommunications regulations in ways that fundamentally alter the current multistakeholder, bottoms-up privatized internet governance model that many of us would say has worked really well. the concern is that a new regime would be adopted that would confer more intergovernmental control over aspects of the internet and the way that it functions today. i'm not going to say any more about the particulars of the potential changes because i don't want to steal any thunder from the distinguished group of panelists that we have here today. i'll only say this: apart from the economic and social benefits that we're all familiar with that the internet has given rise
to, the internet has been a wonderful medium for facilitating free speech when governments have kept their hands off the net. so aside from the technical standards or whatever else that might effect the internet that will be discussed at the wict conference, i don't think any of us want to see movement toward intergovernmental control and new rules that would give the governments more control over the content of the speech. that's why many of you have heard me say this before, i often opt for the first amendment lounge where we're sitting here today because a lot of what we do at the free state foundation is intended to promote free speech. so i particularly requested and had to bump off someone from the
first amendment lounge to be here today. now i'm going to introduce our speakers and, hopefully, all of you got bios or most of the bios, and i'm going to, number one, i'm going to introduce them in the order that they are going to speak. so you guys pay attention. and i'm just going to give you the short version of their bio in a couple sentences about each. if we did the long version, we would be here, we would take too much, too much time on that. and while i'm thinking of it, i want to remind you we've got a special twitter hash tag for those of you that are tweeters in the audience. the hash tag, and i think there are some fliers on the table, but the hash tag is sf net
governance. the last conference we did a few months ago we found out we were quickly trending now, so maybe we'll be able to trend down on twitter for this conference. okay. now i'm going to introduce our speakers and also while i'm thinking about it we're going to have time for q&a after we get through with their initial presentations. so as they're speaking, you can think of questions that you, that you might have. and i'm going to give the panelists an opportunity if they have questions for their fellow panelists to ask those as well. okay. now, first off we're going to hear from robert mcdowell. rob, as most of you know, maybe everyone in this room may know that robert mcdowell is a commissioner at the fcc. he was first appointed to his
fcc seat by president bush, george w. bush, in 2006. and and reappointed to the commission in 2009, becoming the first republican to be appointed to an independent agency by president barack obama. now, prior to becoming an fcc commissioner, commissioner mcdowell served as senior vice president for the competitive telecommunications association. where he had responsibilities involving a advocacy efforts before congress, the white house and executive agencies. now, i'm not going to, in light of what i said, i'm not going to tell you where all these guys went to school and all of that, but, you know, as commissioner mcdowell knows, i'll make an exception for him each time i have him because we are both duke graduates. [laughter] so i'm going to do that, and i'm not even going to mention the
fact that dick beaird, who i'm going to introduce next, has a ph.d. which he holds from colorado, but that's it. [laughter] now, okay, now richard c. beaird is senior deputy united states coordinator for international communications and international policy at the department of state. in that position dick manages the state department's activities across a broad range of international telecommunications and information policy issues including those arising in the international telecommunications union, the itu, as well as other international organizations. one thing i just want to say about dick, and it's true of all the speakers we have that serve in government, serve the public
and a lot of times we don't appreciate the sacrifices they make in the job, but someone like dick to do his job and to do what he does, he's on the road more days each year than any of us would want to even think about, or myself, and we appreciate that, dick. okay. next up is jacquelynn ruff. jackie is vice president for international public policy and regulatory affairs at verizon. in that capacity jackie leads the group it is a responsible for global public policy development, advocacy and guidance, and she directs verizon's activities in international forums including the itu, the oecd, apec and the international -- excuse me, the
internet governance conference. internet governance forum. so welcome, jackie. next up is my friend gigi sohn. gigi is president of public knowledge. she's also co-founder of public knowledge which is a nonprofit organization that addresses the public stake in the convergence of communications policy and intellectual property be law. prior to joining, founding public knowledge, gigi was with the ford foundation, and prior to the ford foundation gigi served as executive director of the media access project. so welcome, gigi. and then last but, of course, not least as we say in this case, that's certainly true, we have richard s. whitt. rick is director and managing
come for public policy at google. and he is responsible for overseeing all of google's strategic thinking in the d.c. office with a focus on, get this, listen carefully: privacy, cybersecurity, internet governance, competition, free expression, international trade and telecom and media policy. rick, why don't you just list the things that you are not responsible for. [laughter] over there at google. so he, rick is, obviously, has important responsibilities in the area that we're going to be talking about today as well as others. now, i might say about rick that when i was practicing law, i hired rick right out of law school for his first job as a
lawyer. i think that was 1988, wasn't it, rick? >> yeah. >> 1988. >> the wict was actually first looked at. >> i knew there was a connection there. someplace. now, of course, as you can tell from my recitation of his responsibilities, he's far surpassed his initial hire in terms of what he's, what he's done. but i think i had a sense of what might be to come when i, when i hired rick for that first job. so with that, as you can see, we've got a very distinguished panel that's knowledgeable on this subject, and we're going to jump in. now, i've asked commissioner mcdowell and dick bieard are the lead speakers, and i've asked them to speak for about 6 or 8 minutes each, and then we're going to go down the row for the commenters who are going
to initially speak for about 4 minutes, and then we'll have an opportunity to mix it up and ask questions. commissioner mcdowell. >> thank you very much, randy. and this room is packed, and you probably can't see it all on c-span, but it's standing room only. this is a testament to everything the free state foundation has been able to do in the past few years in terms of building itself up and building your good work. but it's so crowded that i noticed the c-span technician, his little operation center is actually in the bar over there -- [laughter] so i think that was a good placement on his part. [laughter] um, but thank you for also importing, highlighting this very important issue. i think we could all agree that mobile internet connectivity is improving the human condition more rapidly and more fundamentally than any other technology, disruptive technology, in history.
in the united states, a lightly-regulated and competitive require wireless market has sparked a sustained cycle of investment, innovation and job growth not to mention lower prices and increased functionality for consumers. sophisticated devices and complex mobile applications, however, are taxing our nation's spectrum capacity. recognizing the need for additional spectrum to satisfy this demand, in february congress passed legislation that some estimate could place up to an additional 80 megahertz of broadcast tv spectrum into american consumers' hands. i think it might be a little bit less in reality, but let's aim high. the good news is that america's future is bright when it comes to placing the power of new communications technologies into the hands of consumers. america has always, always led the world when it comes to wireless innovation, and if we choose the correct policies, we
will further strengthen america's global leadershipment as -- leadership. as my colleagues at the the fcc and i tackle the challenges of what will be the most complicated spectrum auctions in history, i intend to insure that our nation's auction rules are minimal and future-proof allowing for flexible uses in the years to come as technologies and markets change. and getting it right means implementing the new spectrum law with humility and regulatory restraint. and this brings me to the matter we are here to discuss today, the theme, humility and regulatory restraint. it holds true for internet governance. as we head towards the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai this coming december, i urge regulators around the world to avoid the temptation to tamper with the internet.
since its privatization in the early 1990s, the internet has flourished within a deregulatory regime not only within our country, but internationally as well. in fact, the longstanding international consensus has been to keep governments from regulating core functions of the internet's ecosystem. yet some nations such as china, russia, india, iran, saudi arabia and many, many more have been pushing to reverse this course by giving the international telecommunication, the itu, regulatory jurisdiction over internet governance and other aspects affecting the internet. some of the arguments in support of such actions may stem from frustrations with the internet corporation for assigned names and numbers, icann, but any concerns regarding icann should not be used as a pretext to end
the multistakeholder model that has served all nations and the developing world now more than ever so well for all these years. constructive reform of the international telecommunications regulations, the itrs, the rules, may indeed be needed. if so, the scope should be limited to tradition alltel communications -- traditional telecommunications services. modifications of the current multistakeholder governance model may be necessary as well, but we should all work together to insure no introgovernmental -- intergovernmental regulatory overlays are placed into this sphere. not only would nations surrender some of their national sovereignty in such a pursuit, they would suffocate their own economies as well while politically paralyzing engineering and business decisions within a global regulatory body.
every day we hear about industrialized and developing nations that are awash in debt facing flat growth curves or worse, shrinking gdp. not only must governments including our own tighten their fiscal belts, but they must also spur economic expansion. an unfettered mobile internet offers the brightest ray of hope for growth during this dark time of economic uncertainty. not more regulation. indeed, we are at a crossroads for the internet's future. one path holds great promise while the other path is fraught with peril. the promise, of course, lies with keeping with what works; namely, maintaining a prix and open inter-- a free and open internet while insulating it from legacy regulations. the peril lies with changes that
would ultimately sweep up internet services into decades-old itu paradigms. if successful, these efforts would merely imprison the future in the regulatory dungeon of the past. even more counterproductive would be the creation of a new international body to oversee bear net governance. -- internet governance. now, shortly after the internet was privatized in the mid 1990s, a mere 16 million people were online worldwide in 1995. as of earlier this year, more than 2.3 billion people were using the net worldwide. internet connectivity quickly evolved from being a novelty in industrialized countries to becoming an essential tool for commerce and sometimes even basic survival in all nations, but especially in the developing world.
in fact, developing nations stand to gain the most from the rapid pace of deployment and adoption of internet technologies. by way of illustration, a mckenzie report released in january examines the net's effect on the developing world or aspiring countries as the report called it. in 30 specific aspiring countries studied including malaysia, mexico, morocco, nigeria, turkey and vietnam and others, internet penetration has grown 25% per your for the past five years -- per year for the past five years compared to only 5% per year in developed nations. obviously, broadband penetration is lower in aspiring countries than in the developed world, but that is quickly changing thanks to mobile technologies. mobile subscriptions in developing countries have risen from 53% of the global market in 2005 to 73% in 2010. in fact, cisco estimates that
the number of mobile connected devices will exceed the world's population sometime this year. increasingly, internet users in aspiring countries use only mobile devices for internet access. the effect that rapidly-growing connecttivity is having on aspiring countries' economies is nothing short of breathtaking. the net is an economic growth accelerator. it contributed an average 1.9% of gdp growth in aspiring countries for a total of $366 billion u.s. up to 13% of growth over the past five years. in just six aspiring countries alone, 1.9 million jobs are associated with the internet. these positive trends must
continue. granting the itu authority over internet governance could result in a partitioned internet. in particular, fault lines could be drawn between countries that choose to opt out of the current highly successful multistakeholder model and live under an intergovernmental regulatory regime, and those member states who decide to stick with what has worked. a balkanized internet would not increase living standards. it would also render an engineering morass. venturing into the uncertainty of a new regulatory quagmire will only undermine developing nations the most. as evidenced by today's panel, attempts to regulate internet governance have rallied opposition on a bipartisan basis. i'm grateful that the distinguished dr. beaird is here
with me today, a recent indication of the administration will name a head of the u.s. delegation to the wict soon here, in june. i also note my friend and colleague fcc chairman julius genachowski has been working also to raise awareness as have key members of the obama administration. i just saw danny weitzer in in the lobby for a different event, apparently. he had to go. i'm further buoyed by the role played by the private sector publicly and abroad as well. there are many entities including public interest groups, telecommunications companies, content providers, think tanks, internet service providers, nonprofit internet governance groups and network manufacturers and equipment manufacturers, network operators standing together to help spread the message and educate policymakers across the globe. i'm also delighted that jackie, rick and gigi are here today.
i know their insights are going to be incredibly valuable. we have a solid coalition of coalitions in place which will help the soon-to-be-named leader of our delegation to begin on a strong and positive note. finally, even if this current effort is unsuccessful in december, we must continue to be vigilant. given the high profile, not to mention the dedicated efforts by some countries involved with this, i cannot imagine that this issue will merely fade away. similarly, we should avoid supporting the minor tweak or the light touch. as we all know, every regulatory action has consequences, and as i saw adam here earlier, there you are, as he says, regulation only seems to grow.
put another way, when tended with care and patience, even a tiny mustard seed of regulation can quickly grow into be jack's beanstalk to mix my metaphors and fairy tales. [laughter] thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and ask i look forward to your questions and the powerful insight of this panel. thank you. thank you, randy. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, randy, for this invitation. and to the free state foundation, it's a great pleasure to be here today and to be with this panel which as commissioner mcdowell has indicated is a distinguished one, and we will all benefit, of
course, from listening to their comments and to reflect upon their questions as we will upon your questions. before i begin, though, i would like to acknowledge commissioner mcdowell. commissioner mcdowell has been a leading voice in reminding us of the importance of internet freedom and how vital the internet is to innovation and economic growth and once again in his opening, excellent opening remarks, he has done that again. for that, we are very much appreciative. and it has had a very positive impact, we believe, as we go forward in our preparations for the world conference on international telecommunications. at the outset let me make one point perfectly clear. the administration and, of course, the department of state firmly supports the position the united nations is not the place for the day-to-day technical
operations of the internet. we have made this point repeatedly, and we will continue to make it. the united nations and the itu can do many things, and they can do those things effectively and importantly. in the areas of development, in the areas of training, as a forum for discussion of international policy matters, in the case of the itu, of course, preeminently in the area of spectrum allocation and management on an international basis. but managing the internet is certainly not one of the u.n.'s roles. the internet -- and this seems to have increasingly gained public support at meetings that i attend and that you have attended -- the internet is best left to a multistakeholder structure where decisions are
made on a bottom-up basis and in which, of course, all stakeholders can participate in their respective roles. this is the environment that has proven the test of time and has left the internet to innovate, and for that we have gained extraordinary benefits socially and economically. let me focus my remarks on the itrs themselves. i've noted to friends that the itrs seem to be a subject that has gained a tremendous amount of comment and interest, but those who have actually read the itrs are still a decided minority. [laughter] but let me try to put them into some context. what are they? trawl, they are high-level principles. they are not detailed.
the radio regulations of the itu go to four volumes, and we just recently had a world radio communication conference where those regulations were revised, and we appreciate commissioner mcdowell's presence at that conference. this is not the case of the itrs. they are nine pages long. they are nine pages of treaty text. in those nine pages, they refer to three appendices. those three appendices which are an integral part of the treaty are about four and a half pages long. this treaty text then is followed by resolutions, decisions and opinions which run about eight pages long. those resolutions, decisions and opinions are not treaty text. the united states has always
been very firm on that position that they do not go to the senate for advice and concept. con sent. second, they have had a long history. their origin is found in the 1875 paris convention which was one of the first international conventions that brought about member states for the purpose of agreement on how to manage and, indeed, regulate if you will, a communications medium, and that was the telegraph. from that point until 1988 they have had periodic review and revision. they were typically, however, integrated into radio treaties as a supplement, not as a stand-alone document. and it was not until 1973 that the united states signed the international telecommunications regulations. you ask, well, why was that the
case? that was the case because they were only focused on europe, and they were integrated into the radio regulations and the opening preambulatory language said that these treaty documents or this treaty is focused on europe, and those of you who wish to participate in that, countries participate in this treaty may do so by your own volition. so it was not until 1973 that they were globalized, and at that point the unite which attended the -- the united states which attended the conference agreed to sign them. they've had one subsequent revision in this modern era, and that is in 1988. they have been, as i indicated, reviewed periodically, and in most instances at long intervals
between their review and their revision. thirdly, they have been remarkably stable. from 1875 to the present, they have essentially done four or five things. first, they have affirmed that the transmission in the case of telegraph or telecommunications should be open to the public. that there should be a privacy attached to those communication communications. that governments should agree to provide sufficient infrastructure globally to maintain global connectivity, a pledge to do that, a commitment to do that. and they were designed and by agreement of the member states to agree upon a basis for sharing revenue as
communications was between parties, how was revenue to be shared. and lastly and, i think, significantly notwithstanding everything i have just said or that they have found in the treaty, there was always a provision that said notwithstanding what we've agreed to, member states may agree to enter into special arrangements unique to those particular circumstances. from 1875 to the present, those essentially have been the elements of what's now known as the international telecommunications regulations. i have mentioned member states. it is terribly important to understand that the itrs are agreements among member states. sovereign countries come together for purposes of agreement on international communications. as a result, i think, going back then to the point nine pages of
section practically all the member states could agree to in any place. [laughter] why? because no member state is stats going to sacrifice their sovereignty. no member state goes to a cirches with the intention of agreeing to compromise sovereign right to regulate otherwise manage its communications as it seems appropriate. i think this is a very important point to keep in mind so that member states agree among themselves. as a result, as i everyone emphasize, the subjects that can be agreed to are minimal and of a high-level principle. now, having said that and understanding, of course, that the itrs have this tradition and that they last revised in 1988, it is inevitable that the situation we face tay in 2012
is not the world of 1988 which was, essentially, a narrow band world, a world emerging into privatization of telecommunications infrastructure, a world with a distinctively different network architecture, and a world in which there could be an agreement among member states on how revenues would be shared. that was a different world in 988 than the -- in 1988 than the world we enjoy today. so if we say that as a firm position that the united nations and the itu should not be engaged in the day-to-day operations of the internet, we also say that the world of broadband, of internet, of the world of toddled be
counterproductive -- today it would counterproductive to try to impoem the context of the past, the practices of the past. nothing should be done at the conference in dubai to slow innovation or to attempt to bring about a top-down and centralized control over the internet. those are fundamental principles that the u.s. delegation will take with it to dubai and will seek, of course, all of our energy to support. now, in terms of what we've seen so far in terms of proposals coming in to the international telecommunications regulations, um, let me put into context those proposals and then explain a little bit about the process. there has been an itu council of 48 countries that manage and govern the itu.
that council worked a council working group. they've been preparing for this conference over about two years and about eight meetings. that council working group will send to the conference a report. the report will contain all of the possible options that have been discussed during this period as to how they could, how there could be revisions of the itrs. so nine pages of actual text today has grown to 70 pages, and if you include all the options that will go forward to the conference. and then as a first date, august 3rd, governments are expected to send in their first tranche of proposals for the conference itself. we will begin to see, i think,
in very real terms what will be the parameters of the conference once these proposals come in from member states after august 3rd and start -- and we'll will continue approximately two weeks before the conference. but we already have, i think, an indication of what we'll see with the counsel sill working groups report itself. and at this stage i can say that we've seen a proposal to bring the operations of the internet under u.n. control. there are -- these proposals seem to reflect, and i need to be cautious because, of course, it's still an unfolding story, but they seem to reflect a distinctive regulatory issue arriving from the different world visions.
for example, fraud seems to be a preoccupation in the middle east. in our hemisphere roaming is a preoccupation. and also, i should say, europe. network security seems to be a preoccupation coming out of eastern europe. various forms of revenue sharing seems to be a preoccupation coming out of africa. but these are some of the outlines of proposals coming in. but none of them to date propose moving from icann to the united nations the day-to-day operations of the internet. so i have indicated that we've had this council working group, this council working group has, will come forward with proposals. a compilation of the proposals that that group has developed and then the member states will themselves come forward with
natural contributions. from the united states' point of view, we're very much on that track. we've been participating actively in the council working group, and we will now begin to prepare for the conference itself. we have formed a core delegation of the leading agencies of the government who are most interested in this subject and have equities. and secondly, we await the white house delegation, and that person will come forward shortly, i understand, and, of course, we await that leadership. once that person is onboard, we will start an aggressive schedule of bilaterals internationally. we'll meet with all the principle players to sell the u.s. positions which, as i say, in its first tranche will come
forward august 3rd and be continue through the fall. we will form a delegation in september, and that delegation, of course, is as is traditional would be composed of private sector and government representatives, and i would encourage you to take that onboard as something that may be of interest to you. my last point is, and i see friends and colleagues in the room with whom i have had the great pleasure of working over many conferences, and i know because of their either having been in government, ambassador hik key gardener, of course, ambassador david gross, and i'm sure there are others in the room, and i hope i haven't missed another ambassador. if i have, i may not be able to go back to my department. [laughter] but all of you have either been in government who have been in government or then transition to the private sector or know one fundamental truth?
and that is that this kind of process relies heavily upon a partnership between the government and the private sector. and that partnership will continue as we have an aboutive consultation through our advisory committee structure so we will look forward to form the delegation composed of the private sector and government. i look forward to your questions. again, randy, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, dick, very much. it's great having two of the senior officials of the government here that are involved in this issue. now, as i said, what we're going to do is we're going to move down the line with our commenters, and i've got to ask them to speak for only four minutes or so. i'm going to -- i couldn't cut off these distinguishes gentlemen, but i may feel more comfortable with the commenters.
[laughter] so i want to make sure that we have time for interaction with the audience especially and among ourselves. so i'm going to turn to jackie ruff first. jackie? you've got four minutes. >> great. thank you. thank you for organizing this. thanks to everybody for being here today because i think that this very full room is an illustration of the fact that this topic is very, is important in many different ways here. and i want to commend, of course, our first two speakers for their leadership, commissioner mcdowell and dick beaird in difference, but critical ways. three points which i'll try to do quickly; why isn't verizon engaged, what's at stake and how can we get a good outcome sneer so each pleased dick just set the stage with the notion to
have public/private collaboration here, and verizon is definitely a part of that. when you heard my bio, it listed all these different organizations in which we are engaged and, clearly, the itu is one of those, but so is the internet governance forum and the other multistakeholder organizations. why do we do that? three main reasons. our customers everywhere, u.s. and elsewhere, are all communicating the ip technologies, the internet protocol technologies. second, globally we carry a lot of this internet traffic on our global network which includes undersea cables and, of course, satellite capacity. we often seek of those as the digital trade routes to have 21st century, and, of course, they're also the channel for freedom of expression as was commented on earlier today. and, third, we provide
globalized enterprise solutions to large groups of people around the world. 150 countries at a minimum, probably more. these are a combination of what you'd think of i.t., telecom and media services. so as was mentioned earlier, services like ours and those of other companies like us, they're drivers for economic growth and innovation everywhere, and they will only succeed in accomplishing that if internet remains globally seamless. communications can flow unimpeded. so what's at stake, and in this regard i would agree wholeheartedly, i thought it was very interesting the way commissioner mcdowel started his remarks talking about wireless here, talking about requireless as the key friend globally over the next period. and cisco put out one of its
great studies on what's happening this morning, and they predict that if i've got it right by 2016 there'll be two and a half mobile connections per person, okay? so with the transformation of noble services to broadband, this clearly means that this is the path particularly for the developing world to participate in the benefits of the internet to leapfrog if right investments are made. and it's clear from the mckenzie studies, world bank studies that the effect on gdp growth is the greatest for developing countries. for each 10% increase in broadband, you yet a 1.4% increase in gdp in developing countries. so all this is happening, we've got this enormous potential to move to the internet on mobile. in the meantime, countries are trying to figure out what to do about internet policy. that's not that surprising.
and not that surprising, of course, that the i,tu is doing that. what is a concern, of course, and i'll drill a little bit deeper on some of the proposals than the opening speakers, it is a concern that some of those proposals will, in fact, constrain economic growth. a couple examples, legacy telecom style regulations are imposed on the internet, then that will create disincentive, the investment that's needed to grow the internet. if there are barrier at the border, then the noble connectivity and information exchange simply won't happen. and if there's government control over america design and management, many of the tools just won't be there. and in the proposals that are now on the table, there are elements of those three things put out there. so it may not be about icann's
functions, but it's about many of the functions of the internet per se. so my engineer colleagues would say, but those won't work over the long term. they won't accomplish the stated purpose. but for that to play out in the meantime it'll deprive economies of the benefits of things like cloud services which interestingly enough are most being taken up in latin america and asia. access to the digital trade youths, not forceed to go through gateways at the border, and it will eliminate the current handshake agreements that make the network of networks that is the internet. we'll e limb that it that as a way that the system funks. so how do we get there?
a couple themes that you'll hear that i think are important, that is the keep the treaty to high-level principles. second, to heighten the' coal around spectrum. training, standards development in some areas and, i hope this will be part of the rest of the conversation, i think it will be with gigi, to in the meantime preserve the mull today stake hadder models for different organizations and ways of doing things that are out there. we believe this is possible. challenging, and it's a multiyear process, but by working together with existing allies, developing otherral vies across that multistakeholder group, we need to do a lot of actually addressing of real concerns, talking about how the economic and vek call issues really work. and by applying ourselves -- and
that's one of the reasons i'm so pleased to see a full room -- ourselves here and globally that it will be possible to get a positive outcome. so i'm always an optimist. you have to think optimistically when you have challenges ahead. thank you. >> thank you, jackie, and aknow a lot of -- i know a lot of people in the room have heard me say before i'm always an optimist too. next we're going to hear from gigi. a lot of you in the room probably also know that we always agree with gigi on everything. we have different perspectives on a lot of different issues. she's opinion my friend -- she's been my friend for a long time. i think this is one, though, probably where i think our perspectives, you know, the free
state foundation and people at her organization, public knowledge and herself, probably share some of the same concerns. one thing that i'm hoping that gigi and/or rick together will do, we've referred -- i know i started out doing this, referring to the multistakeholder process. i think everyone else has done that. but i think for some of us in the room and for our c-span audience they may be wondering what more specifically is this multitake holder a contest. maybe one or both of you would just explain that a little bit while covering the points you want to make. >> sure. well, good afternoon, everybody. it's great to be here, it's great to see so many friends out here in the office and so much
interest in a topic that i agree with the others is really, really candidatal. i have to say some great thing about commissioner mcdowel. his leadership has been enormous, and it's one of those times where it took a few months or maybe a year or more for people to start listening, and now week are really listening s and you have a lot to do with all of that. and also to say about dick beaird, his knowledge of the ti is ensigh ro periodic. your phone's going to ring a lot more than maybe you want because everybody now in television land knows this as well. so as several people have alluded to, this is one of those rare "kumbaya" moments where everyone, government, industry, civil society, right, left, center agree wholeheartedly that
the itu's jurisdiction should not expand to encompass internet regulation or governments. and some of the proposals even though they're not fully baked, that we have heard about if they are to come to fruition do great damage to the open and decivilized internet, and that is check growth for all the great things that we love about et. now, among the many reasons why this jurisdiction shouldn't expand is that the itu is both highly politicized and grossly undemocratic. i'm not sure it was mentioned today, one of the things was that in the i.t. as in the u.n., it's one country, one vote, to tuvalu and pew mean and pew hand have the same vote, has the same quote as china, united states q