tv Capital News Today CSPAN June 3, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
against the three centrists on the court. ityéí4 along political lines the same way that g ore v bush was split along political lines. host: next call, robert, a republican line. caller: good morning. how is everybody this morning? i had two issues, but i want to comment on the previous comment. with respect to the two -- the three truitt centrists, i would be interested to know who he considers the three centrist but the court is not split beten centsts and rightists. it is split between rightists and progressives, and want centrist -- one centers to seems
toogo one way or the other. with respect to the oil is bill kampai -- the oil skill, on th issue tha i central as compensation for the losses, creating the losses, is not the federal government bearing a certain amou of culpability as well, since they had in place a plan to print the oil and they had no boots availle -- burn the oil andhey had no boons available. it is not best for the environment, but it i better than the dpersants. with respect to the government takeover of the industry, how can they do that under the constitution? can you talk about of the rising to fedal government as opposed to the state government -- auorizing the federal government as opposed to the state government to do anything? we don't need more government jobs. we need less government jobs
and more in the private sector. we taxpayers are furnishing all this money for nothing to the banking industry's who are not doing their job, just as the f or government is not doing their job at the borders -- just as the federal government is not doing their job at the borders. host: we are moving beyond the oil spill. burning the oil? guest: you cannot burn that much oil. booms -- there arnot enough in the world for a spill this size. with regard to the split on the supreme court, it is very interesting. the caller made an interesting point. however, in this case, roberts and scalia and the conservatives were the ones who changed the law. they were the judicial activists who came in and changed to water
to a year's worth of anglo-saxon law to bail out an oil, -- changed 250 years worth of anglo-saxon law to bailout and oil company. federalizing the spill does not mean federalizing bp. means pushing bp aside and going in and trying to fix the problems. the issue there, though, is that the government has no expertise at all with regard to stopping this rupture on the skin of the planet, and it appears bp doesn't either. host: would you hope to be involved in any litation against bp? guest: i don't know whether'm going to be involved yet. it would depend on who asks me d what the scope of the deployment is. having spent 21 years representing fishermen and natives, i might find it to
harbor to get back into that business. with regard to -- might find it to heartbreaking to get back into that business. with regard to ate or federal agency, might be interested. host: would do expand why you might find it too hard braking? -- would you expand on why you might find it too hard braking? guest: the fishing busess is t like a guy sitting on the end of the dock. the entire family often works in the business, and friends work in the business. when you undertake a representation, you are assuming responsibility for fixing their problems. a lot of lawyers say you are not, but you are. for 21 years, we work on it, and my friends and i worked on this thing, and we tried the case for
half a year, we go to the appeals court time after time after time, only to have it snatched away by the political supreme court. you go back to the clients and say, "i'm sorry, i did not fix your problem, i did not bring you the justice that i thought i could bring you." that is one aspect of it. now, the other aspect -- host: bill ahead, please. guest: it is hard to work on one thing for 21 years. host: just for your own professional concentrationnd development. guest: yes, it is. how would you like to cover one story for 21 years? it would drive you nuts. host: with the cyclical nature of washington, we do come back to things regularly. it is interesting.
our next caller for brian o'neill, who is with us for 21 minutes. caller: there is no reason why folks in our government who were criminally negligent, who knew what they were doing, should not be in prison. in fact, they should be awaiting trial. i might also add that members of congress were being lobbied by big oil to make sure that there was not a relief well built at the same time. in canada, when they build one of the wells, they have to build a relief well at the same time. the congress people knew very well what is happening, and if there is any monetary ties, they should be held civiy responsible. what finally might solve this is the horrible prospect of this oil driftg to soh and central america and them is suing us because we owned the leases, we are the landlords.
if they could sue us, that might put annd to ts. these folks should be in prison right now and not just fixing attention to go to prison -- not just fixing henchmen to go to prison. guest: i agree with the sentiment of everything the caller said. i don't see anybody goingo jail, becauset is just the nature of things that they want. they should, but they won't. the oil is going to impact other countries. it is going to hit cuba, hit mexico, the st coast of florida, and there will be lawsts. how the loss of mexico and cuba will be resolved under international -- the lawsuits of mexico and cuba will be resolved under international law is going to have some impact on bp, but our enough to weahere
dependence on oil is impacted in any way. exxon and bp have a special relationship with all the governments of the world because they provide oil and o runs the world. host: the caller mentioned canada. "the globe and mail," which calls itself canada's nacional newspaper, as a story on offshore drilling. drilling will continue off newfoundland at recd that spirit as the bp disaster grows, canada's - at record depths. as the disaster grows, canada's oil drilling faces scrutiny. independent line. good morning, caller
are you there? caller: yes, i am. it has taken this fine gentleman 21 years to figure out roof of what we l knew -- proof of what we all knew would be the result of the major oil spill. the damage caused by it will never be redressed. we will live with it forever. two, there will be no justice served by this fascist government of ours. our only salvation right now is to stop the spill. this still could be stopped and it could be stopped by our military. it is a nine-inch diameter hole in it solid rocket that hole could be included -- nine-inch- diameter hole in solid bed rock.
that hole to be imploded and plucked. they are waiting to bring in another rig 15,000 feeds into bedrock so that they can cap the well at the bottom of the dead rock. the military is our only hope. if this country ever needed a military coup right now, and now is the time for its. the people would ck them up. they need to take back his fascist government and turned this country back to the people. host: any comments for that caller? guest: yes, i do have a comment, and it is that it did not take me 21 years to learn that the court system would not provide justice. i thought it would when i started, i thought it would when i went to law school, when i graduated from law school, when
i started this in 1989. i thought in the end that the court system would give alaskans the full measure of justice, and it did not. with regard to the militarand its ability t, i just don't kno. host: fal call is from san dio. republican line. caller:r. o'neill, thank you for your service. well, the caller basically took my question. can the military plug the hole? i heard a couple of days into this that the military had the possibility of imploding it and capping it, and that bp would not have the opportunity to rein drill, and they would lose billions of dollars. you can see from the appearance of the ceo that it just goes to prov-- the ignoran of the ceo tt it just goes to prove
that this was just about money. they d notllow any outside, independent contractors in, because they wanted to save the well. do you think this will back up to be be? -- do you think this will bankrupt bp? i heard they went back over $1 a share yesterday. how is that? guest: two good questions. i don't think it will bankrupt bp. bp, in an average year, their net profits would be $5 billion or $6 billion a year. e other thing youave tt remember is how oil companies report their pfits is different. they make an awful lot of money countries and in th united states they get oil depletion allowances. i don't think it is going to bankrupt them. i don't think the federal
government, unfortunately, would allow it to back up tohem, because they provide oil, and oil bonds our universe -- oil ns out universe. the second question -- iave forgotten the second question. host: it was related to how their stock at gone up yesterday. guest: in 1994, when we started the exxon vaadez trial, the exxon stock was down. on september 16 of 1994, when we got a $5 billion verdict against exxon, the stock went up, and the stock has gone up since then, because $5 billion, despite what the supreme court says, was nothing to exxon. the stock is not pretty consistently since then. i should have bought -- the stock has gone up pretty consistently since then. i should of bought stock that
day of th trial. i cannot bring myself to do it. host did you change your consumption habits? guest: yes. i used to be a guy with a lot of cylinders, and i don't anymore. i think the only long-term relution of thisroblem is tucked cut down on -- is to cut down on our energy consumption. we can all do that. host: brian o'neill has been joining us from minneapolis this morning. sharia talking about his role as the lead attorney -- we have been talking about his role as lead attorney in the case of exxon valdez,z, the alaskan [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, the
national governors' association report on the fiscal condition of states. in a little more than an hour, the secretary of state and her counterpart in india on relations between the two nations. then information about afghanistan operations. then cyber strategy. a couple of live events to tell you about on our companion network c-span 2. in arizona state university forum on the american education system. attorney general eric holder speaks on the earth -- at the 30th anniversary of the american-arab anti- discrimination committee. >> we have three new c-span books for you "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court," and "who's buried in grants tomb?"
to order, go to c- span.org/books. each one a great gift idea for father's day. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on you can connect with us onine. twitter, facebook and youtube. signup for our scheduled alerts e-mails @ c-span.org. >> our report by the national governors' association and the national association of state budget officers a says state budget deficits will continue for two years. the briefing on the fiscal condition of the states is just over half an hour. >> we will conductta question and answer quotsession. i will turn it over to raymond scheppach. >> i will call on scott pattison
n to lead off. i will cover the various numbers and try to provide a little perspective on it. >> i am with the national association of state budget officers. dr. raymond scheppach is here, and we are releasing our joint survey of the fiscal situation of the states. we will give you the results today. our report finds that states, unfortunately, are still suffering significantly from this great recession. the fiscal situation in the states is going to be for 2011, this next fiscal year, is going to be such that we will not have recovered from pre- recession times. again, i think that is really significant that the fiscal situation for states going into 2011 will still be worse than before the recession.
for example, state general fund tax collections will have declined 7.8% between fiscal years 2008-2011. another example -- spending will have declined 7.6% between fiscal 2008 and the upcoming fiscal year 2011 which begins at this july 1. the current record we are releasing indicates that states will see some increases in tax collections, as we go into fiscal year 2011. we are projecting a 3.9% increase in tax collections compared to 2010. and a 3.6% increase in spending. keep in mind that these levels do not get us back to pre- recession times. we would have to have a growth rate of over 8%, even in fiscal year 2012, to get this back to pre-recession levels. a good analogy is a neighbor of
mine who got laid off, she lost a high paid marketing job. now she has taken on of consulting position. like the states, she had a huge decline in your income. now that she has got some consulting positions, she has a growth and your income but she is still not back to pre- recession levels. that is what the states are facing now. the recovery act funds have allowed us to spread out cuts over a longer period of time. return -- the coming cuts that otherwise would have occurred had been avoided to some extent by the recovery fund. what is critical to remember is we are looking at a cliff. the recovery act funds will end. according to the data in this report, we cannot predict that revenue will come in to make up for the loss and recovery act funds. there will be further cuts.
we have 43 states do that in 09. or he stated that in 10. in 08, by comparison, only 14 states did midyear budget cuts. these are record unprecedented numbers. we thought during the post 9/11 recession, when we had 37 states in each of those years cut mid year, that was the worst we could say. now we are up to 43 last year. let me talk briefly about the findings. the number of states with revenue shortfalls increased as revenues from all sources at the state level -- sales, personal income, corporate income, all other taxes and fees -- are below original projections in an unprecedented 46 states. only two states have their tax projections met and only two states had taxes come in above
projections. very unprecedented numbers in this particular report. recommended budgets for 2011 forecast a 3.9% increase in tax collections. however, general revenue tax collections are still below where we were pre-recession by about $53 billion over 2008. a very significant an unprecedented situation. let me talk briefly about tax increases. based on the governor's proposed budget, we projected tax increases of $3.10 billion in the aggregate for states for this next fiscal year. if you take taxes and fees together, it is about $5 billion. in contrast, for 2010 we had a considerably higher amount of tax increases. tax and fee increases were about $30 billion for 2010. quite a significant drop-off
between 10 and 11 in terms of proposed tax increases. now we will talk about the balance levels. these are the rainy day funds and end of your balances that states experience. there are a good indicator of fiscal health. total balances are estimated to be 6.2% expenditures in fiscal year 10. based on 11, the recommended budget is about 5.8%. our concern is they overstate the fiscal health of states simply by the fact that texas and alaska have such huge balances they overstate the actual aggregate numbers. but we are releasing if you take those two states out -- texas and alaska, you are down to 2.2% balances for 2010, which is very low, and 2.9% for 11. anything below 3%, we considered exceptionally low for state balances. 13 states have rainy day funds
under $10 billion -- $10 million. for us, we would estimate and we would say that is about zero. we have about 13 states with no balances when $10 million is a low number for a minimum balance. let me make a few points, finishing up with their findings on medicaid and the budget gaps. as far as medicaid is concerned, we would expect, and this has occurred as expected, medicaid spending and enrollment did increase. you expect both of those to increase during a downturn and that is the case. total medicaid spending is estimated to have increased 10.5% this fiscal year. when you look at governors' proposed budgets, we estimate that in 2011 medicaid spending growth will be about 1%. the state fund a portion of the
medicaid cost increases is 7%, while federal funds are expected to decrease 1.7%. enrollment is xpected to have increased from the fiscal year 9. through 11 by 21%. all expected during a tough recession. you would have increased spending by states on medicaid and you would have increased enrollment. that is exactly what we have seen. i will finish up with a couple of comments about the budget gaps. again, the shortfalls are an indicator of what we were looking at. there are significant. budget gaps total nearly $300 billion for the fiscal year 9 through 12. . we believe that to be a conservative estimate. we very cautiously and conservatively estimate what is being defined as a budget gap or shortfall. of this nearly $300 billion, states have closed $170 billion of the gap based on either
federal funds, tax increases, or budget cuts. there are $127 billion in unresolved budget gaps. 32 states reported budget gaps totaling $62 billion for 2011. 24 states reported $53.40 billion in budget gaps for 2012, with four additional states reporting a gap but unsure of the exact amount of what that gap could be. fairly significant. we believe that for years with a $300 billion gap is a conservative estimate. in conclusion, as expected, the report we are releasing today shows that states are still in fiscal peril. their recovery lagged the the economic incremental recovery that you see in the overall economy. that makes sense for a number of reasons. revenue should begin to grow.
we are estimating revenue growth to take place, although below average, in fiscal year 2011. it continues to be a situation where we are pre recession levels on all majors, as far as the state fiscal situation. spending pressures and a dramatic decline in federal funds, with the ending of recovery act funds, will make for tough choices for states as we go forward. they do have to balance their budgets, so we expect fiscal years 11 and fiscal years 12 to be very difficult. with that very sunny news, i am going to turn it over to the executive director of the national governors' association. >> thanks, scott. we have been saying for some time that the depth and breadth of this so-called great recession was going to send repercussions throughout state government for pretty much a total decade, a tenure.
. -- a 10 year period. you can break it into three individual components. the first is the huge growth of revenue -- the huge growth of medicaid when revenues fall off the cliff. we have been through that. we have a little ways to go. the second problem was going to be the jobless recovery. the third is the so-called payback period. in other words, you have to put back into trust funds or health care for retirees and for pensions. you have to upgrade your infrastructure. you have to do maintenance and so on -- build rainy day funds. unfortunately, i think it is playing out to some extent how we laid it out here a year or so ago. again, i stress that the budget numbers of $300 billion over the
2009 to 2012 years -- we have closed about $170 billion of that. the bad news is we still have about $127 billion to go. we have closed it partly on the tax side by about $24 billion in new revenues, but most of the rest of that has been on the spending side. i do believe that this fiscal year that we are heading into, which starts july 1, which is 2011, is going to be the worst year. the reason i say that is to fold. states raised taxes and fees by 24 billion. what you're seeing for this next year is only $3 billion. there is a sense that people have maxed out on tax increases. but we're also going into a
political year. so i do not see very much movement in terms of additional taxes. most of the rest of this is going to come out of the spending side. it is going to be real tough because states have already gotten the low hanging fruit, the medium hanging fruit, and the difficult for it. what is essentially left is a budget officer saying "you do not want me to go there again, do you?" from here on, these are going to be very difficult. a couple of other statistics i want to just reiterate. if you trace it historically in spending and look back over the last 33 years, there was only one year, 1983, where we saw spending go negative. at that particular time, it was only seven tenths of a percent
-- it was only 0.7%. that was probably the worst recession at that particular time. if you look over the last two years, we have seen spending cut about 11%, to give you some perspective on how bad it has been relative to that particular period. the question is now where do states go in terms of the rest of these cuts. i would argue we are already seeing they are going to go to places. -- they're going to go two places. they're going to go to reimbursement rates at medicaid. they are 22% of medicare rates. because of maintenance efforts, you cannot cut eligibility. they are beginning to cut reimbursement rates. that will eventually prove difficult in terms of access for health care. the only place -- the other place i think thhy're going to
increasingly go is employees. we've already seen in 2010 that 26 states did layoffs. 22 did furloughs. another 12 did salary reductions. but i think unfortunately they're going to continue to go there. i would speculate you're going to find more layoffs. one of the things they have found is you do not save much money on furloughs because you continue to pay benefits. i think increasingly they're probably going to go to jobs. what has happened from 2008 to now -- states have cut back jobs by about 48,000. as the economy continues to rebound, you are getting private sector job creation but state and local government is going to be in restriction. it is going to be a drag on that, going forward. finally, we still have the so- called medicaid pending in the
senate side. we would like to call on the senate to pass that over the next couple of weeks. it is about $23 billion. we look at it as the bridge money. as i said, i think that 2011 is going to be the worst year. this would be two additional quarters, the last two quarters of fiscal year 2011. it would be essentially a bridge to get to 2012, where believe we will begin to get some revenue growth. so it is about here, going forward. if we do not receive this money, you are going to see additional cuts in reimbursement rates and more layoffs going forward. one is going to hurt access to health care and the other obviously is going to be a drag on the ability of the economy to respond. we have a 47 governor letter up
their, so i think we have had wide support for the two quarter expansion. with that, why don't we go to questions? we will go in the room first and then to the telephone. >> do you have any figures that show state spending as a share of gdp or income or whatever to show how that has been affected over the last seven or eight years? >> we could certainly -- i do not have that in front of me, but that is something we could secure. >> is it your impression that we are now below historical levels or that there was a run up in the early part of this century and that we are kind of reverting to a historic trend? >> i believe we are below historic levels.
>> there are a lot of measurement differences between the gnp and scott's number, so it is hard to say. we are still well below the 2008 level. even from a revenue and spending -- you would have to have spending increase by about 8%. that would get you back to the 2008 level. we do not think we will have revenues to do that until 2013 or 2014. so that is a good five or six year period with no revenue growth. therefore, there is little spending growth. >> there is a lot of difference in the way they handle pensions and everything. >> i should mention a lot of the figures when they compare gdp and other economics -- the compare it to other economic figures. they tend to put state and local together, just fyi. sometimes they are all together.
>> could you talk about the impact on capital spending and the infrastructure side, the list of cuts? maybe factor in the disappearance. >> we are already seeing -- it is no surprise. you're having to cut everywhere. that includes infrastructure. historically, in other downturns, the ability to go to the debt markets has ameliorated some of the lack capital funding. this has been such a long and deep recession and the cuts have been so significant that infrastructure has been hit. there are recovery act funds. those have helped. the long term is what states are worried about. they do not see sufficient revenues making up for the recovery act ending. there are very concerned, particularly about maintenance but also the ability to have the funds going forward for large
infrastructure projects. >> do you think congress needs to do more than the $23 billion of assistance for states? >> at this time we are just supporting that fmap. if we get moderate growth in revenues, it will be the bridge money that gets us to 2012. if we don't have a double dip. other questions in the room? >> your figures have total job cuts of 48,000. what percent is that of the total? >> i think the total is around 2.2 million.
>> your projections going forward assume no new infusion of direct federal aid, as in the stimulus, to pay for state, police, all of that. >> the figures in the report do not. >> do the figures just reflect general funds? if so, there is a fair amount of state spending covered by other tax sources or whatever. can you give us some estimate as to how much of the total spending the general fund represents and whether there have been cutbacks in the other kinds of spending? >> it is interesting. the way that breaks down is general fund spending tens to be about 43% of total state spending. the problem is that the general funds are those funds that go
for k-12 education, higher education, medicaid, and so forth. the rest tends to be earmarked funds based on revenue earmarks. the best example is the gas tax that is earmarked for transportation. there are federal funds and grants that are specifically earmarked for a particular purpose, whether it is public safety or whatever the case may be. when we talk about the shortfalls and focus on the general fund, that is because those are the funds that are discretionary four states. they go for the big areas like education and health care for the most part. >> the other money includes the federal money. so that ratio that scott mentioned may not hold for this particular period, because there was an additional $135 million of education and medicaid money. that would change the ratio for that. >> just fyi, this focuses on
general funds but we do a report later on the year that focuses on the total. >> is there some conjecture as to how the overall situation has become so acute? you talk about the cliff we're going to come upon. is there any conjecture as to how things have become so acute nationally? >> i will very quickly say at a state level one of the things that is important to remember -- i think everyone in the room knows this. we are not national governments. we do not have the same tools. we are very much at the mercy of economic trends and conditions. we do not have control of the currency or certain types of debt and so forth. it does make it difficult. you have to in some way balance your budget. it is a more 0 some game at the state level than it is for a national government. i would add that the problem is
normally, when you come on a recession, you get a v shape. you get pent up demand. when you come out it is not unusual to have revenue increases of 8, 9, and 10%. as you look around the economy now, you have a lot of components. there is a wealth effect. consumers have lost a lot of money. housing is still a disaster. you're not getting any construction. the only places that you're getting strength are, to some extent, investment in capital in the private sector and the federal government. exports have been kind of neutral. until you get one or two of those other sectors moving and get that job creation, and a guest tomorrow they will have another jobs report and everybody is talking about being optimistic. i hear the numbers. we will see. you need to add to 300,000 just
to keep -- you need 200,000 to 300,000 just to keep it steady. until we start getting 700,000 in job creation, this is not going to change dramatically. >> i think it is important to note that financial management flexibility of states is difficult. there are a lot of constraints on states. we tend to complain about the federal level requiring us to do certain things like medicaid, but it is more than that. the western states have the initiative process which locks in certain funding. a lot of states have court cases that have offered certain k-12 equalization and formulas. it is really hard when you have a zero sum game and have to balance your budget and you have enormous restrictions and constraints on your ability to be flexible with the funding. >> let us go to questions on the telephone. >> thank you.
if you have a question crestar and then one on your touch-tone phone. -- press star and then one on your touch-tone phone. we have a question. please go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. could you explain where the job growth has been coming from? what the uc going forward? are we cutting librarians? even though you're saying fiscal year 2011 will be worse than 2010 and the states are still declining, would you say they are hitting the bottom of the u at this point and stabilizing somewhat because revenues are starting to go up? the think it is still a precipitous fall? >> i think we are hitting
bottom. from here on to the next year is going to be the bottom. my hope is within two quarters we begin to start to see some very small revenue growth. i do think it is the worst year. the good news is that it is the bottom. the job cuts -- the number i gave you is 48,000. that did not include teachers. some of those are state employees and some of those are not. we have had to go back and get those numbers. as far as i know it is across the board. a lot of the cuts are freezes or not replacing employees when they leave. there are some layoffs. i think it is more across the board. i think that going forward -- i think that component is going to accelerate. it is hard to say. governors have tried to protect elementary and secondary
education, nearly they are not able to do that anymore. there will be some additional teachers as well. >> i just want to make one point, which is that the first responders and teachers are local government employees. the layoffs are determined by local governments, which can be impacted by the degree of state funds that are receiving are not receiving. >> thank you. >> other questions on the phone? >> the next question is from allen klein. >> thanks for taking my call. i am wondering if nga thinks the $23 billion that the state represent -- that representatives have proposed will help you with another bridge? i wondered if you could talk a little bit about the impact of
the funding of k-12. >> let me say on the education money that senator harkin had been pushing -- we did not support it as an organization. we supported fmap. governors were concerned about -- at some point, they get concerned about the deficit. i think they were reluctant to support growth. there were some concerns about making some efforts around the education funding. we continue to support the fmap, but we have not supported the education funding. do you have any sense? >> it is hard to say.
i think the bottom line -- this is more global than the issue regarding teachers. as ray has talked about, but we are looking at is this being a difficult year with tough choices. i always say you have to go where the money is. they have disproportionately cut a lot of areas of state government while attempting to keep health care and education harmless or have disproportionately less painful cuts. i am not sure that continue. you are looking at having to make some really tough choices, cuts or tax increases to get to this next fiscal year. >> other questions on the telephone? >> this question is from mary. >> i wondered if you could comment on state debt levels and the extent to which states entered into more debt as they
dealt with these deficits and what the process is. you mentioned cuts in medicaid reimbursement rates and layoffs and increasing -- are increasing debt levels another option for dealing with budget shortfalls? my own sense is clearly there has been somewhat of a shift. a lot of times, the state has the option of paying for capital straight out or bonding it. i think there has been somewhat of a shift to do more bonding. that is up somewhat. i do not think it is up dramatically. the other area we worry about is the pensions, because over the last several years they have not been putting a lot of money into the pension trust funds. those liabilities have been growing. if we do not get some revenue growth in the next several
years, that would get to be an increasing problem. that is what i call the payback period. if we get the growth in revenues we will be ok. otherwise it will continue to be a problem. i do not want to say -- i do not see any states that are going to default or have that magnitude of problem. >> i want to underline that. a few localities are having issues and possibly defaulting. it is important to emphasize that states are not looking at that. i think the states are perfectly fine on the debt side. they have been responsible, particularly when you compare the way they utilize debt versus the private sector. they are all rated pretty high. there may be a few localities with debt issues. there will get a lot of publicity. it is the exception that proves the rule. for most -- for the most part,
investors are going to be paid. that is an exceptionally high priority for states, usually by constitution or law. on the debt side, i see absolutely no problems as far as defaults or anything like that, particularly at the state level. >> any final questions on the telephone? >> if you do have a question, press star and then one on your touch-tone phone. >> ok. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. >> this concludes today's comments. thank you for participating. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> coming up, secretary of state clinton and her indian counterpart on relations between our two countries. in about 40 minutes, a pentagon briefing on afghanistan operations. after that, the new head of the cyber command on u.s. cyber security strategy. later, arab -- arizona governor jan brewer on her meeting with president obama to talk about immigration. >> on washington journal, more about oil drilling technology with the editor of "the oil and gas journal." sarah marie of "the wall street journal" will take phone calls on unemployment. and we will be joined by the director of the office of violence against women. "washington journal "is live on
c-span every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this person is going to be impeached. this is about eight weeks after the break. woodward said we could never use the word impeachment around the newsroom lest anybody think we have some kind of an agenda. but the all of that moment stays with me. >> the search for watergate with c-span is a video library. what woodward and bernstein from earlier this year and see what other key players have said about the break-in and cover-up. the c-span video library -- free, on-line. we have three new c-span books. "abraham lincoln", "the supreme court," and "who's buried in grant's tomb?" to order, go to a c-span.org
/books. each is a great gift idea for father's day. >> secretary of state hillary clinton and her indian counterpart spoke with reporters thursday about relations between the united states and india. from the state department, this is about 40 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. let me warmly welcome our indian guests, particularly minister krishna. it is indeed an honor to host this inaugural strategic dialogue between india and the united states. this makes good on plans that minister krishna and i announced in india last summer. it advances the vision of
partnership articulated by president obama and prime minister singh. i know president obama is looking forward to joining us later today and underscoring his personal commitment to strengthening the u.s.-indian relationship. india is an indispensable partner and a trusted friend. we believe that a rising india is good for the united states and good for the world. our two nations, great democracies with dynamic and interconnected economies and into progress understand that our fortunes in this new century are increasingly linked. our people are more connected today than ever before and weak face complex local challenges that will be difficult to solve without the united states and india working together. we also face opportunities that can only be seized by tapping the talents and innovation of both the indian and american
peoples. today we have had a series of very productive discussions about a wide range of our common concerns, touching on bilateral, regional, and global issues. we have seen our cities and our citizens targeted by global terrorism. we share concerns about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. for our peoples, security is more than a priority. it is an imperative. it was a prime topic of discussion today. the minister and i discussed the importance of india's leadership in promoting security, stability, and prosperity across asia and beyond. we are collaborating on a counter-terrorism initiatives to improve information sharing and capacity building. we agreed to expand cooperation
in cyber security. we are deepening our already extensive military to military partnership. i think minister krishna up for india's generous contributions in afghanistan. i was delighted to learn at lunch how deep the ties between india and afghanistan go back. it is clear that what india has been doing in development projects are very significant. we look forward to finding ways to ollaborate. charting an energy future that is secure and sustainable is a crucial challenge for both of us. i am pleased that we've completed a nuclear reprocessing agreement nearly six months ahead of schedule, underlying our commitment to the civil nuclear accord of 2008. we're building on the partnership to advance clean energy established by president obama and minister singh, including by expanding our work
on energy efficiency, smart grid management, and so much else. we are committed to working on an action plan on shale gas cooperation prior to president obama as a trip to india. we have launched a new dialogue on climate change, discussing how to continue the progress made in copenhagen and work more closely together. on the economy, we discussed the importance of capitalizing on the doubling of our trade over the last five years, bringing together experts from across our governments to focus on macroeconomic policy, financial sector reform, and infrastructure financing. u.s. and indian cabinet secretaries and ministers will meet on june 22 in washington with the members of the u.s.- india ceo forum to hear recommendations on specific steps our governments can take to expand trade and investment. we know that innovation is a
source of growth and dynamism. we discussed critical leverage and on technology, including exchanging delegations of high- tech leaders this year and developing new partnerships and solutions. passage of legislation allowing foreign universities to open campuses in india would be a significant step forward and i am pleased that a number of u.s. institutions have already expressed an interest. one of the areas where we intend to a closer collaboration is food security, boosting the productivity of our farmers and giving more people in more places the tools they need to feed themselves and their communities. our new memorandum of understanding on agricultural cooperation and food security is part of this important effort. we agreed to establish working groups to develop concrete proposals for the u.s. and india to enhance food security, strengthen farm to market links
and food processing in india, and develop an initiative to expand whether and -- to expand weather and crop forecasting. we are focused on how to deliver results that will make a difference in people's lives. that is what this is supposed to be about. we want to help people in india and the united states feel more secure, more prosperous, and more able to fulfil their own god-given potential. we will meet again next year in delhi to resume this high level discussion. between now and then we will work every day to translate our shared goals into concrete actions. the dialogue must extend beyond these official channels to our homes, our businesses, our communities, our universities, and every aspect of our respective societies to build mutual understanding and respect between our peoples.
i am very proud to be part of this process and to join with minister krishna and other leaders and experts we have convened from both sides to help deepen this defining partnership. thank you so much for this time. >> thank you, secretary clinton. . . >> i want to thank her for her cooperation and the splendid
cooperation that has gone into the preparations for this dialogue. this dialogue as secretary clinton said, is a unique forum that really brings together the different threads of an extraordinarily wide agenda and allows us to look at the entire relationship in a different strategy fashion. i would like to emphasize the importance that the prime minister attaches to india-u.s. strategic dialogue and to the indo-u.s. and relationships. he and president obama reaffirmed when they last met their commitments to taking this
relationship to the new level of coordination and cooperation, a global strategic partnership for the 20th century -- 21st century between india and the united states. we consider our stage in partnership with the united states as one of our key foreign policy priorities. the united states is the largest economy in the world, and ending it is emerging as one of the largest -- india is emerging as one of the largest and fastest- growing economies. the relationship rests on a solid bedrock of shared values. there are few relationships in the world that have so much potential as india-u.s. relations.
therefore, i believe that our cooperation is not only for great mutual benefit, but we can work together to make a significant contribution to global peace, prosperity, and stability in the 21st century. secretary clinton and i, joined by senior colleagues, have had a very comprehensive and productive discussion today. our discussions covered a broad range of global economic and security issues. we agreed to continue the practice of clothes and regular consultation and to remain sensitive -- close and regular consultation and remain sensitive to each other's concerns. we expressed the hope that the g-20 meeting in canada later this month will stimulate
further support and international efforts for economic recovery. and to safeguard our goal of balanced and sustainable development. we had a very good exchange of views and reforms necessary not only in the international economic architectures, but also in the global and political and security architecture, including the un security council, so as to deflect global realities. as obama's national secretary of strategy, we shared concern over developments in asia.
we have a common interest in advancing security and stability this year. we shared our perspective on south and central asia and the middle east and the indian ocean region. india and the united states have a shared, convergent goal of a stable, peaceful, pluralistic, and democratic afghanistan which protect the rights and dignity of all sections of afghan society. india and the united states have partners -- our partners in achieving these goals. these goals can be best advanced through sustained international commitment in afghanistan, up by building
capacities for governments and security through initiatives. we agreed on the importance of what choices -- wide choices and the importance of knowledge in the gains and progress that have been made since then with regard to the position and rights of women in afghanistan. terrorism threatens both of our societies. we agree that terrorism, terrorist groups operate in a cynic isyndicate and are increay
converging together in motivation and targets. hence, a segmented approach towards terrorism, especially in our neighborhoods, will not succeed. we are pleased with the way i work counter-terrorism cooperation has progressed, and today we have agreed to intensify its further. we discussed the steps that we should take to further deepen our growing defense and security cooperation, including the been straining and cooperation which is grown rapidly in recent years. we had a very good discussion on economic cooperation, high technology exports to india,
cooperation higher education in science and technology, agriculture, climate change, and energy. in each of these areas, there is immense opportunities that are mutually beneficial, cooperation that will make a significant contribution towards creating jobs and prosperity in both countries. i am pleased that there is a strong balance and momentum in trade and vestment in both directions. secretary clinton and i agree that we have to go beyond multiplying our trade and investments. we are two innovated societies with a proven record of
partnerships and innovation. india is making a modest but meaningful contribution, based on its expedients and expertise to development in other countries. this is an area where we have a lot to learn from each other, and we had a very useful discussion on the issues today. in short, our dialogue was wide- ranging. we have identified the areas of strategic priority and a road map for cooperation in each of these areas. secretary clinton and i have agreed to monitor the progress and began in 2011 -- and meet again in 2011. we look forward to warmly welcoming president obama and
his family in india later this year. i would like to thank the distinguished colleagues, including the minister of science and technology and other senior officers who ably assisted us here in washington. after having held a series of meetings with their u.s. counterparts for the strategic dialogue today. madam secretary, thank you again. >> thank you, madame secretary. i have a question on the flotilla class. what can you tell us about the
turkish american who was killed in the clash? does his death make it more likely that an american will participate in any investigation, and also, prime minister and netanyahu is now saying he is willing to evaluate new ideas on the blockade of gaza. visit the u.s. have any new ideas in this regard -- does the u.s. have any new ideas in this regard? >> we can confirm that a u.s.- jewisturkish was killed on the flotilla. our ambassador has been in contact with the family. we have offered our heertfelt condolences and any kind of counselor assistance that the family might need this time. we are still gathering information about what happened. we know that there was another
american citizen injured on one of the ships. there is also a third american who was injured during a subsequent protests and remains hospitalized. protecting the welfare of american citizens is a fundamental responsibility of our government, and one that we take very seriously. we are in constant contact with the israeli government, attempting to obtain more information about our citizens. we have made of -- no decisions at this point on any additional specific actions that our government should take with respect to our own citizens, but as we have stated continuously, we expect the israeli government to conduct a prompt, impartial, credible, and transparent investigation that conforms to international standards and gets to all the facts surrounding this tragic event. we are open to different ways of
assuring that is a credible investigation, including urging appropriate international participation. with respect to gaza, we are pvaluating ways of expanding the flow of humanitarian assistance to the people of gaza, while protecting israel's legitimate security interests. there is a great deal of consultation going on, as well as work in our own government to determine ideas that we would share with the israelis and other international partners, because as i have said before, we have to deal with the situation in gaza in away that both protect israel's legitimate security interests and fulfills the needs of the people of gaza. that is what we are seeking. >> when you talk about
international participation in the investigation, do you believe that an american should be part of that investigation? >> we are not made any decision on that. that was part of a presidential statement that came out of the united nations security council on monday night. we are engaged in broadbased discussions with the israelis and others. >> mr. minister, as you conclude your first strategic dialogue, which went beyond -- can you give us a sense of the u.s.- india relationship now, and what do you take away from india for this meeting? madam secretary, he spokeeabout india being an indispensable partner and trusted friend, so what is holding the u.s. from
endorsing india is a member of the united nations security council? >> this is a uniquely structured strategic dialogue which has taken place. the idea of secretary clayton -- we have been working toward this all important strategic dialogue. the united states and india share so many commonalities. we are nations which truly believe in democracy and democratic values.
we both our pluralistic societies. we both respect human rights, and we both believe that together, we can play a very constructive role in shaping the global events, in stabilizing peace and tranquillity, and perhaps this relationship between our two countries will go along way in sending out a message clear and loud that these are to democracies which believe in equality, which believe in equal respect, and each also believes that we have a bigger role to play in shaping
the destinies of humankind. this strategic dialogue is moving in that direction. >> i would just thank the minister for that very elegant and eloquent description of the overarching framework of the dialogues. that is exactly how seriously we take the importance of this interaction. and of course, there are many specific actions that are being worked on by our respective governments. we will be making a report, i to president obama and minister krishna to the prime minister, detailing all of the work that has been accomplished. i hope that our press on both sides will focus on it, because we really are committed to trying to reinvigorate the
actions that will demonstrate exactly what minister krishna talked about, our commitment to advancing human kind. so i know that it will not necessarily get headlines from either one of our media, but working to expand access to higher education is a huge deal. working to better coordinate on science, technology, and innovation, exchanging sciences, supporting centers of excellence, who knows what benefits will flow from that? working to improve the productivity of agriculture, exchanging views on how best we can deal with health issues that are going to overwhelm our respective health systems -- there is just so much, so much richness, so much of a commitment. i am very much looking forward to this continuing work. as to your specific question, i said in my opening remarks that
we don't have any way forward yet on security council reform, but we are obviously very committed to considering india. at this point, as you probably know, there is no consensus in the world. that is the challenge of dealing with multilateral organizations. as mr. krishnas said earlier today, once you get to multilateral negotiations, it slows down considerably. we are definitely considered recommitted to the consideration of india. >> afghanistan is obviously a big focus for both countries, and president karzai' has beguna proposal to reach out to the taliban to try to bring them into peace talks. how to both of you see the end
game moving forward in afghanistan? had india and pakistan balance their interests in the country, and what we see for the taliban as a potential future partner there? >> i will begin. i don't think that the complicated piece jurga has concluded. as i am understand it, there have been more than 50 discussion groups that are under way, and reports are being made at the end of each day. then the leaders of the jurga will be reporting to president karzai, and all that will be taken into account. we have been very clear in our approach that we think that there is basis for reintegrating taliban fighters back into society, but we do not believe anyone should be either
reintegrated or reconciled on a political basis without renouncing al qaeda, renouncing violence, committing to live by the laws and constitution of the nation of afghanistan. there is no military solution to most conflicts. this is not unique in that regard. there has to be political decisions that go along with military actions. we have told president karzai, most recently on his visit, that we understand that, and we support his efforts, but of course we want to be kept fully informed and we want to be able to work with him. it is clear that there are some people who call themselves taliban who already are coming off the battlefield. they want to return home.
they have no ideological commitment, and then there are others to try to blow up the peace jurga. this is not something that you can have a blanket statement about. this is painstaking work to try to identify those with whom there may be the opportunity for some political reconciliation, and others for whom there is no prospect, and they have to be defeated and deterred from their continuing violence against the people of afghanistan and against our troops. they have to be rooted out of their safe havens in pakistan where they are a very grave threat to the government of pakistan now. so this is a matter that crosses borders, poses a transnational threat as we have seen on numerous occasions, and must be undertaken with full awareness of that.
>> we made our position very convened by gordon brown on afghanistan. i would like to ask anyone, not any group of persons to associate themselves from these terrorist outfit and who are willing to go along accepting the afghan constitution ann the afghan led government by president karzai. we should not have any problems in dealing with them and then bringing them to the mainstream of our society. india and afghanistaa have a very close relationship.
in the morning session, there was mention that those who reside in kabul -- there were mentioning of about the movie that was centered around kabul. the vanity that we have with afghanistan makes us -- the affinity that we have with afghanistan. i know how deeply secretary clinton feels about -- the last time i had the opportunity, she was so happy mentioning to me the number of children who are back in school.
that is the kind of afghanistan we all would like to think about and look forward to. anything india can do in trying to lift up afghanistan towards the frontier of children going back to school, mothers being able to freely communicate with their relatives and friends without fear, i think that is the kind of society for which we are working. our contribution in afghanistan is a very constructive nature. it is development driven, and we are concentrating, in spite of the price we of had to pay. there have been a series of attacks. i visited kabul twice, and i
conveyed to those working under such difficult circumstances that india has been the target of attack. knowing the reason, knowing the motives, we are going to stay in afghanistan to defeat these terrorist mechanize asianations. >> mr. minister, last week, the white house released a national security strategy in which the obama administration identified india along with russia and china as emerging powers with which it wanted to deepen and strengthen its relationship.
where does india placed the united states in this context with regard to its strategic and national interests? madam secretary, this is called a strategic dialogue. to what extent does it represent any change in strategy at a macro level, and if it does, could you just give us some details on what that change is? >> president obama's strategy statement is a very welcome development from india's point of view. we have always felt comforted with our association with the united states.
our partnership has gone through various vicissitudes, but one thing stands out very clearly, that it is an enduring partnership, and we would like to continue that partnership. while doing so, we do appreciate the enormous responsibilities that partnership means not only to india but to the united states as well. india is ready to discharge its part of the responsibility, and we are thankful to president obama for the kind of strategy statements that have been made on his behalf. it is needless for me to say that millions of indians are
looking forward president obama's visit later this year. >> i believe that our current partnership represents both continuity and change. as minister krishna said, we have a long, enduring relationship with india, going back to independence. we have had many partnerships that have proven beneficial to both our countries, going back to that time. certainly the green revolution, which was an american indian project, stands as one of the great achievements of the 20th- century, or perhaps all of human history. so the continuity that was evidenced by my husband's efforts to reach out to india, evidenced by president bush's
continuing efforts, and a commitment to a tangible demonstration of the modern state of our relationship with the nuclear deal, has not come to a point where we wish to both continue and deep in the enduring relationship, but we want to broaden the base of that relationship. so the comprehensive agenda that is encompassed by this strategic dialogue goes far beyond one project or one visit, or any single aspect. instead, we are committed to not only working government to government, as we have been today and as we have for the last year, but also building on the very strong foundation that exists between the indian and
american peoples. this is an affair of the heart, not just of the head. the relationship between india and the united states and between our peoples is rooted in common values, shared aspirations. we know we have different historical experiences and different cultural perspectives. we understand that. but underneaah it, in addition to our common humanity, there is this convenient to democracy and diversity, to the rule of law, to the empowerment of people, that sets the united states and india apart. we often talk about india is the largest democracy. we are the oldest democracy, the largest economy. in the is moving up and making rapid progress with economic growth. -- india is moving at.
this is a relationship that is so rooted in our values, and that is why it stands the test of time, despite the vicissitudes that come between any two great countries are any two peoples, for that matter. persisting in understanding and working through on the basis of mutual respect is how we intend to build an even stronger relationship for the mechanism of this strategic dialogue in the years ahead. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> pulitzer prize winners, friday on "book tv." tte final decade of the cold war. and look at the life and times of corneous mandeville --
cornelius vander builbilt. this weekend, it noted feminist author and legal n legal nussbaum. she has written or contributed to more than 20 books on ethics, sexism, and legal justice. join our three-hour discussion come alive sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. now, pentagon briefing on operations in eastern afghanistan. this is half an hour. >> the general assumed his duties back in june of last year. he was previously with us in
august in this format. he is at his headquarters today where he is speaking to us. unfortunately for us, this is going to be his last opportunity in this position, because on june 14, it will transfer authority to major general john campbell. you'll notice that he is also joined today by a senior civilian representative for cjts-82. they are going to make some opening remarks and then take your questions. thank you for taking the time to do this. >> hello, everyone. thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. i am with the senior civilian representative for joint task force a.
we like to buy an overview of where we have been in the past 12 months. a team of civilian experts have brought a tremendous amount of expertise to our task forces. i have asked her to join me here today. basically we co-lead regional command ease. combined joint task force has worked to advance essential partnerships with the government of the islamic republic of afghanistan officials and the afghan national security forces within the 14 provinces. our main priority has remained unchanged since our arrival, build and reinforce the afghan
government's confidence and credibility, connect the people to their government, and enable them to sustain development to improve the lives of the afghan people. the protection and security of the afghan people are at the center of our efforts. we will achieve these parties through parting with afghan government officials and the afghan national security forces. through our combined action initiative, we have built confidence and capacity. staff are working and living together side by side at corps headquarters of the afghan national army. the partnership is reflected all the way down to the lowest levels. this listing ensures that we are truly working together in a synchronized manner to achieve a common goal. we have brought our unified
action initiative to the next level as well. we all recognize that the solution to afghanistan's challenges is not only a military solution but a combination of security, governors, and development that requires both military and civilian professionals to have effect. our civilians are true patriots, answering the call to serve. although we are transitioning, the mission and pace of operations continue. insurgents continued to intentionally wage a war of fear and propaganda against the afghan people. in contrast, the afghan national security forces continue to demonstrate increasing capability to protect the afghan people. we realize that afghanistan and regional command east are a critical moment and we are
honored to do our part for the afghan people. it has been a privilege to serve here this year. i will turn it over now to miss liberi. >> thank you very much, and hello from eastern afghanistan. let me just say it is a privilege to be reviewed today. as president obama frame did when he was here on march 28 visiting us, our purpose here is to help afghans forge a hard-won peace while realizing the extraordinary potential of the afghan people. afghan sons and daughters, from the soldiers to the police to the farmers and the young students. i would like to begin my remarks by highlighting just how far we have come since i arrived here about a year ago. it was -- within a short time we increase the civilian presence to where we now have about 170
civilians. these are from the u.s. agency for international development. but ended the year, we are projecting to have about 2857 exports. while this is a great development, and i would really like to thank publicly our senior leadership for working very hard to get these much needed, highly qualified civilians out to us quickly. i think the more impressive accomplishment, in my view, has been the integration that we achieved with our military partners. in fact, i would go so far as to say that this has really been historic in terms of the level of integration we have. by the same way that combined action, the joint u.s. and afghan military actions, have transformed the way we do business in afghanistan on the military side, i would have to say that unified action has transformed the way that the whole government model is in a
minute in afghanistan. as the general said earlier, he and i are equals. we have jointly signed the orders and the plans for all the activities that are here in the regional command. every organizational level at the provinces and districts in afghanistan, we have partnered our u.s. civilians and military experts and leaders from across the spectrum of the u.s. government agencies, as well as our nato allies, and most importantly, the afghan government representatives. of course the focus of all these experts is to help strengthen and empower the afghan government, particularly at the provincial and local levels. we are really striving to help make the district government more effective -- efficient, particularly in providing services. all our efforts, civilian and military, are designed to assist
the afghan government. the district of liver program is a great sample of how u.s. aid and other agencies are working to support the afghan program, which is in the field. this is something that is providing afghans with the essential services they need. targeted districts, that been selected by the afghans, will be receiving a comprehensive package that is focused on service delivery and development. in particular, in areas of governance. in this next critical year, our success will be predicate it on our ability to partner or civilian expertise with afghan leadership. i would welcome a question is now about our civilian increase, and any other governments or development programs rated -- related to stabilization. >> thank you for that overview,
and i am sure we have a few questions. >> in recent weeks we have seen some pretty brazen attacks by the taliban. what is your latest assessment of the taliban strength and you have any predictions for the months to come? >> i think that in terms of strength within rc east, i don't believe there any stronger now than they were a year ago. initiatives with respect to the enemies that we did a year ago. that is not mean -- there are areas we still need to clear, but there are areas where we are now working -- working in developing governments. i think the enemy is self -- itself was attempting to gain
the information operation that they get from that. while it was an attack, it had three groups. it included a vehicle bomb as well as personnel in suicide vests. it was really not one that nothing could have achieved success in terms of penetrating the base itself, but it did gain them that message and carrying the news. what we are seeing is that they have conducted less direct fire attacks from the winter into this spring. they are using more ied's's, suicide best, and potentially car bombs.
we have had one that went off and a couple that we have found here recently. >> you said you were at a critical moment now. can you tell us what you meant by that? about turning over territory to the afghan government controlled by year's end, d.c. portion . rc east that you could turn over to afghan controlled by year's end? >> first of all, i see it as a critical moment. we are into this, and we are at a point where the new forces are coming into areas in afghanistan, predominantly in the south and east. we have gained considerable
number of civilian expertise, and i have begun to get some of the forces that are requested as part of this search, and we will get the remainder as we go in the summer. i think those forces give us the structure that we needed to have the success in security, government and development that we need to begin to turn it over to the afghans. there are areas in rc east across the north that are very secure today by their own forces. we is an mp platoon to continue to develop their police skills, and a reconstruction team and groups of civilians that help develop governments in their infrastructure. by and large, their governments are in charge there. at think is that develops, they have the potential for turnover.
. rc east itself, we are working with the main area. there is potential with the development that we just discussed and the vote is there to make some good progress in the next year. >> a couple of points that i would add, for example, we now have civilian experts that are literally working with the governors. they go every day to the governor's office. they have space in the governors' offices. they work in health, education, agriculture, and are also working to help expand some of the infrastructure that is there. it is in this way that i think we can help assist the afghan government to really take over the essential services
provisions that the population would expect the government to do. this allied with security is the main way that the afghans can and will begin to really take over management and governance of their structure. >> held culpable of the two of you with a level of secured -- how comfortable are you with the level of security for the american and international civilians that you are sending out into these areas? can you point to specific examples or any sort of magic that you used to measure the sort of progress you were just talking about? particularly, to measure whether you are actually breaking the cycle of some of the problems that plague afghanistan for generations, including corruption, including the level of competence and
integrity of the officials, and so on. >> i am very comfortable with the ability of our civilians to get out into the district's in a secure means. the military provides them that security, and obviously there are areas that are more dangerous than others. we have probably both extremes. we have areas where it is quite safe for them to travel, and then in other areas where obviously they go in with our troops to secure them and take them to the district center and other areas where they need to go. i think you have a mix theire. >> every week, we actually
survey of our civilians and ask him how often they have gotten out that we. i have to say is on an average of four to five times a week that each civilian is getting out, which to me indicates that they are getting out, on the ground. they are having the kind of impact that we would like to see them have. for a specific example, [unintelligible] 1 belly was extremely kinetic a year ago. -- one valley was extremely kinetic a year ago. wisdom -- essentially established a civilian corridor. significant acts have decreased by about 80%. the population has turned in a number of itt's. they have actually identified
where they are, and as result of that, security has remained. about $2 million worth of government, and this area that had been one of the most kinetic and all eastern afghanistan, is now one of the secure areas that is making daily gains. we had started out with an agriculture expert that was doing some extension work. 50 former showed up the first week that the person was there. now there are about 800 farmers a week that show up for these kind of services. that is the kind of difference we are making there. >> there was a second work your question about some of the issues that have played afghanistan over the years. one that i would mention to you is that we still have a
significant issue with corruption in our own government in some of the security forces. we started our first day working very hard. we have a program that we worked on identifying those who were corrupt, and then developing the evidence in order to help their own government removed him from office. and prosecute them, if that is what was necessary. i will be frank, i was somewhat frustrated at about the 9.5 or 10 month mark, because we had put a lot of work into it. the people who helped us the most part law enforcement professionals. we had a couple who were experts in looking at organized and working to bring down organized-crime networks. there were very helpful to us.
as i said, i was somewhat frustrated because we did not seem to be making much progress. in the last two months of our tour, we have begun to make progress. we have had one police chief removed, one has been arrested and arraigned, we have had several sub governors that have been removed from office. while that is only a few, it is the beginning, and it demonstrates to me now that the afghan government has arrested some of their more senior officials, and it appears they are going to take them to court. additionally, just in the last month and a half, we have had our first public trials. there were public trials. they had defense attorneys and
prosecutors, and the people actually packed the courthouse. there were standing in the window sills to watch the proceedings. one of those was a corruption case. the others, one was that, one was a murder case. those are small numbers, but to me is emerging. >> i am curious, with president karzai's peace summit, what tangible came out that that will determine how you operate? >> i think that when they traditionally have a jurga like that, it is a way to find peace for afghanistan. hopefully to begin a process to
reconcile or reintegrate those who were fighters. i think if that were to proceed, then of course we have an impact here. this is an afghan-led solution. it is a government initiative. we have had -- we have seen in the last six months or so and increased interest within the provinces to virtually all of them, to have fighters that have made contact and want to come back here to we have had examples where small unit commanders have brought eight or 10 fighters back again, and they generally do that through a districts of governor or governor and it includes a
guarantee that they will not return to the fight and that there pledging their allegiance to the afghan government. we have seen some of that already in the past five months. >> you said earlier that the taliban has not gotten stronger in the past year. would you go so far to said that their powers drink has actually degraded in the past year since you have been -- their power and strength have actually degraded in the past year since you have been there? >> in rc east i would say it has degraded. we have also had a good impact on the accounting networke, attempting to increase their influence in the area south of
kabal. we, all in de special operations forces, have had great affect against the network. we can see that we have stressed their leadership, the facilitation, the movement of their expertise and resupply. within the taliban, we have seen the same effects. we saw that more than a few of their senior leaders went to pakistan as well, early in the fall, as a result of the pressure we had put on their networks. so i think we have made good progress in that regard. i would say that these networks are good enough and resilient enough, but we have to maintain that pressure. a network we do not maintain pressure on, it generally 6 are seven weeks and they can begin
to rebuild that. >> can you give us an idea of exactly how many of the three dozen troops you are going to get in the east and what they are role will be? >> i will get a brigade element, some engineers and an aviation task force here. those are predominantly combat groups. what their real mission is when they come into rc east is to build competency and capacity of the afghan national security forces. all of my forces including the polish and french brigades are embedded with their afghan national security force partners, with their first
priority to bill their capacity and competency. as a result of what we call combined action, we have seen an improvement in proficiency of the afghan forces here. they are operational and their tempo has increased. at the same time, there casualties have gone down. moving our forces to align with them, live, train, and fight with them, has made a difference this year. >> 3 going to need four thousand are 5000 extra troops? >> i cannot hear what you said. >> i am just trying to put a number on your brigade and engineers. are we talking about 3000, 4000, or slightly more? >> my point of this increase is a brigade of combat power.
>> could you put a number on it? >> it is about 4000, sir. >> you say you are making good progress. the question is, are you making progress fast enough? july 2011 is the date set for the beginning of the withdrawal. >> as i said, i am making progress, and i would tell you that there will be an assessment done here. as you know, in the fall, and we will continue to look at our progress. it will determine what the rate
one. the army, the army forces here is developing quite well. the officer leadership is pretty good. the nco leadership is grating -- gaining strength. i am impressed with the nco leadership and its development. one of the corps has begun running their own and co academy, about 450 personnel going through the academy, completely taught by their nco's. that is an initiative that is helping them quite a bit. the police have improved in strength. they have not improved as much with efficiency. we have a lot of work to do with police leadership, particularly
the mid-level, to make them much more effective. the border police, i am pretty impressed with. we have added a battalion to the border police in zone one. the 101st will add a second one next year, and the zoning leaders in general officers are both very competent and very good. of course, across the force, we need to focus on improving the leadership through nco academy and officer course. -- officer corps. >> we have reached the end of our time and i want to be respectful of your time. we thank you again for sharing your perspective with us back here. but before i bring it to a final close, i will turn it back to you for any thoughts you may have.
>> ok, thank you very much. >> first, thank you for the opportunity to join you here, and once again, while military options play an important role in afghanistan, it is also critical would continue to discuss the enormous strides that we have made, both in increasing the civilian side and also the focused support witt afghan partners. it just in terms of capacity building, there is a plan to train about 12,000 afghan civil servants this year, with a plan to support the government structure and the government policy, which is on to allocate about 25% of the budget to the provinces and districts. that is the area at the civilians will be focused on. we have experts in agriculture, rule of law, justice, etcetera, and these experts have the capacity to train and mentor the
government development on the civil servants' side. so, working closely with our afghan partners, i think will see the kind of gains we are looking for for the future said the afghan people can be tied to their government and seek a better future for their children. and i will turn over to the general. >> thank you for this opportunity. we have a great team with the partners, coalition partners, and civilian experts. working together, we're making progress, as i have said. we fully expect to be busy up to the day of our transition with a hundred first airborne division, and we are working with dark truck parts to insure it is effective. for our fallen heroes and goldstar families, you will not be forgotten. iyou have paid the ultimate sacrifice and will be forever remembered in our hearts. our troops can continue to get the job done, and i would be
remiss if i did not take the opportunity to thank our family and friends who have supported us while we have been deployed and took care of each other at home while deployed. with the court to join our families here sen. thank you again for your time today. -- we look board to join our families again here soon. thank you again for your time today. >> general, thank you, and a safe and speedy redeployment. thank you. >> thank you very much. i [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and a moment, cyber security, and a meeting today
with president obama on emigration. after that, thad allen's briefing on the gulf oil spill. later, a look at the legal aspects of the oil spill. a couple of live events tomorrow on the companion networks, c- span2. arizona state university forum on education at 9:00 a.m. eastern from the national press corps in washington. on c-span at 12:45 p.m. eastern, attorney-general eric holder speaks at the 50th annual convention of the anti- discrimination committee. >> i said, this president is going to be impeached, about eight weeks after the break-in. woodward said would never use that word impeachment around the press room, somebody thinks we have some kind of agenda. but the awe of that moment stays with me. >> search for watergate with c-
span pause video library. watch woodward and bernstein from earlier this year about the break-in and cover-up. explore washington your way, the c-span video library, free online. we have three new c-span books for you. abraham lincoln, the supreme court, and who is buried in grant's tomb, each with a unique contemporary perspective and perhaps something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and american presidents. to order, go to c- span.org/books. each one is also a great idea for father's >> the head of the national soccer security agency keith alexander said the government is seeing hints that adversaries are targeting military networks. he spoke about one hour at the strategic for international studies.
>> good morning, everybody. welcome. we are glad that you are here. general alexander had to endorse the travails of washington traffic, and he said as he walked up, he said it and must have a been a distributor denial of service attack all lights in washington. i think that he had every red light that he could find, but we're so glad he could come. this is a session that i have been bugging general alexander to come here for, about seven months, when i first became clear he was going to be the head of the new cyber command.
this is gonna be for more traumatic for an essay to have a cyber command. nsa, no such agency, it used to stand for, and this is an agency that does so many crucial things for the country. but it has to, by necessity, be in a reserve role in terms of public acknowledgment. now to be thrust into the limelight on what is probably the largest and most public security issue we face is going to be a very wrenching thing for the agency. no small measure because we don't have the kind of consensus, the national consensus that we need at this crucial lauer. for the last several years,,we
have had a great debate in this country that has not resolved itself and the right way. we have two competing priorities. we want the government to protect us and americans want to be protected from the government. these are two things that have been with us 250 years. we have worked that out. we had a working formula that resolved that, but the consensus broke down badly in the last decade. so we have general alexander walking into probably the most crucial job at a tiie when we don't have, we the policy leaders, don't have consensus on how to manage this. this will be the great challenge. fortunately, we have a man of his talent and his experience that is going to help us. heat not only has to build a new organization but has to help build confidence and consensus in the united states that we need this role.
it is a crucial role for the country. i am very grateful, general alexander, that you would join us. this has been long in coming. you see the depth of interest in this topic. rather than me delaying it, we look forward to your words, i hope that you will give us the benefit of taking questions and field those. thank you for coming. [applause] >> he must have been standing on something, because this is way up there. thank you, for your service and also at the strategic and international studies center. you helped spark this under the clinton administration and with experts continue to show leadership in the field. indeed, the csis report serves
as a key thread of continuity across to administration's and really set the foundation for crafting this administration's strategy for cyber and security. thank you as well for the opportunity to speak here today. this is my first public engagements since i've been promoted, assuming the commander of u.s. cyber command. i am pleased to be with all of you here today and can't think of no better place to talk about cyberspace and u.s. cyber com than at csis. before i talk about that and focus on the defense department, let me say up front that cyber security is a team sport. i see a lot of the team out here in the audience. we cannot do this alone. within the government, howard schmidt has the lead for
coordinating departments and agencies and our approach to cyber security. he has done a superb job and has been great to work with. for the team that dhs, we have had great partners want a set of very complex issues. all of us in government recognize that government cannot do this without the help of industry, academia, and allies. securing cyberspace is a team sport, and we are proud to be a member of that team. we look forward to growing the partnership as we collectively address how we should secure our networks. amid talk about our portion of the team and our roles and responsibilities. two weeks ago, i was privileged to participate in the activation of u.s. cyber command. a task on in the making and longer overdue. i think it was a brief
confirmation process that we went through. that is a joke, i am sorry. no more jokes. in 2005, the director of nsa was added as the rector of dhs and net warfare. there were dole added as the commander of the joint task force global operations. in late 2008, as a result of a serious intrusion, and were classified networks, the secretary of defense decided to place this underbuy operational control. it recognizing but the imperative for better synchronization, synchronizing our offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, as well as the need to leverage nsa's
capabilities understanding the threat and the ability to respond to it. last june, the secretary of defense directed the standup of u.s. cyber command to further strengthen this model and streamlined the command and control of our military's cyber capabilities. since that time, we have been leaning forward and building an organization and mission that that is more integrated, synchronized, and effective in the support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coast guardsmen, and civilians. on may 21, that came together in the activation of u.s. cyber command. we at cyber command are responsible day-to-day for directing the operations and defense of the department of defense information networks and at the systemic and adaptive planning the integration and synchronization of cyber activities and, when directed under the authority of the
president, secretary of defense, and the commander of u.s. stra- com, for connecting full spectrum cyberspace operations to ensure u.s. and allied freedom of action on cyberspace. that is quite a mouthful. i have difficulty saying it and i am an army officer. reading it is difficult. partly, it will centralized command of the military cyberspace operations, strengthen dod cyberspace communities, and a degree and bolster dod cyber expertise. deputy secretary of defense william lind explained the mission concisely last week. "we will lead the day to day defense of all military networks, support military and counter-terrorism missions, and, under the leadership of the department of homeland security, assist other government, civil authorities, and industry partners." as he put it, the key part of
cyber command is the liking of intelligence, offense, and defense, under one roof. it is that simple, right? well, actually, no, it is not so simple at all and it will not be easy. the easy and simple stuff was done long ago. we got the rest. we have an enormous challenge ahead of us as a nation, department, and command. if i may, i would like to sketch out some of our thinking on the intra-related set of issues we call a cyberspace and how we hope to sort these issues, and resolve some of the more urgent demand issues. cyberspace consists of that singly complex systems to shift in store unimaginably vast amounts of data. by 2015, the number of network coast is expected to exceed the human population. i am doing my part to compete
against that with 12 grandchildren. but it will work. social networking and instant messaging accounts are exploding. by the end of 2010, there is a projection there will be 2.2 billion social networking accounts worldwide and currently 2.4 billion instant messaging accounts. by 2014, they project there will be over 3.7 billion at social let working accounts and over 3.5 billion instant messaging accounts. in 1996, there were 16 million internet users worldwide. today, there are approximately 1.8 billion. across the globe. in 2009, there were a total of 90 trillion emails cent. and 2010, 247 billion emails sent every day.
of those, 247 billion emails, 200 billion were spam. you might ask how i know that. i got all the spam in my home account. i think we share them. geographically speaking, those email users are probably not or you think they are. at 47% are in asia. 23% are in europe. only 14% are from north america. 16% are from other locations around the globe. in a sense, we are tying together all of the libraries on our planet and making them accessible from everywhere instantly. the data it and the common library of humanity increasingly formed the basis of our economic wealth and contributes to our quality of life. tremendous opportunities for the future, tremendous
vulnerabilities. our data must be protected. nobody here or anywhere else would consent to having all of their personal and family information stored in a place where any random strainer. eastridge could it rummage through it. no enterprise or nation could afford to leave its trade secrets, donor lists, or diplomatic bordering positions line around exposed. and yet, that is what in essence is happening more and more as the ways we used to protect our personal enterprise and national security data are compromised by carelessness, portis signed, and subterfuge. we now live and a world where national security defense and security awareness and practices of our agencies, firms, suppliers, schools, friends, neighbors, relatives, and well, all of us.
cyberspace has become a critical in a blur for all elements national and military power. as president obama's national security strategy states, are digital infrastructure there for is a strategic national asset, and protecting it while safeguarding privacy and civil liberties is a national security priority. the comprehensive national cyber initiative, which has been forged and implemented under two administrations, is our guide for doing this. today, our nation's interests are in jeopardy. the technological convergence of automated data processing and telecommunications has boosted productivity and opportunity, but has also introduced a tremendous vulnerabilities and created new challenges. it is not alarmist to say the weakest link in our security can seriously impact our ability to operate securely and with
confidence in cyberspace. america's very wealth and strength to make it a target in cyberspace and one of the pillars of that strength, our military, is at risk, perhaps to an even greater degree. our military depends on its networks for command and control, communications, intelligence, operations, and logistics. we in the department of defense have more than 7 million machines to protect, not winking at 15,000 works with 21 satellite gateways and 20,000 commercial circuits composed of countless devices and components. national and military information infrastructures moreover are increasingly intertwined. they include the internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers and critical industries. that infrastructure is a
sophisticated and robust -- is as sophisticated and robust, but also has weak points. dod systems are probe by on authorized users approximately 250,000 times per hour. over 6 million times per day. while our front-line defenses are up to the challenge, we still have to devote too much of our time and resources to dealing with relatively mundane problems such as poorly engineered software, missing patches, and pour configuration. you are all familiar with the general outline of threats to network security from a growing array of foreign actors, terrorists, criminal groups, and individual hackers. these allies are no secret to analysts inside and outside governments and are being treated and studied by industry efforts by our business risk team. in the data bridges of rise and
investigated last year, and these were only reported cases, not all bridges, verizon found that criminal organizations often using custom build malware are able to reach virtually every single organization they choose. a relative handful of such attacks accounted for the vast preponderance of the 285 million records that the verizon investigators determined to be compromised. the main limitations on the abilities of these criminal organizations were time and resources. it is simply do not have the time and wherrwithal to reach all the high-value targets they could have, and thus apparently concentrated on what they deemed the most profitable. those are just the criminal organizations. we should assume that foreign government actors in cyberspace have considerably more resources
and even more worrisome motivation and cyber criminals. in short, we face a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities, strong adversary capabilities, and week situational awareness. the trends seem to be evolving in other ways that should also give us concern. one decade ago, network penetration seem to targeted mostly at exploding data. in the last few years, was all the bar of conduct lord for computer network attacks. in estonia and 2007 and enjoyed it into a desolate, distributed denial of service attacks impede government functions. as i told the doctor, i think it also delayed me getting here. now there are hints some penetrations are targeting systems for remote sabotage. let me explain. estonia and georgia were distributed to the isle of
service attacks. once the attacks stopped, the information services were able to continue with their jobs, but the potential for sabotages and destruction is not possible and something we must treat very seriously. these threats are serious. to do with them will require common vision, unity of effort, and a commitment of dedicated resources. our department of defense must be able to operate freely and defend its resources in cyberspace. we will do this as we do it and the traditional military domain of land, sea, air, and space. but cyberspace is unique. it is man-made and it is also increasingly contested. that makes everything even tougher. our job in u.s. cyber command is to ensure the right information gets to the right user at the right time at the right level of protection. u.s. cyber command in naples the
defense department to better operate and protect our dod information networks and remains the focal point for military cyberspace operations and collaboration with other components of the u.s. government. its contribution represents a substantial share of what the department offers as part of a whole government approach to deter, detect, and defend against emerging threats to our nation in cyberspace. how will we do our job? as i mentioned, we consolidated two already existing staffs, the joint component of that work in the joint task force of global operations. it recently, we established a single coherent cyber joint operations center, bringing together capabilities of these two staffs, and we're currently executing command and control of our information networks from fort meade. u.s. cyber command is co-located
with the national security agency, which is also my privilege to be to print their capabilities and more importantly it's people in the intelligence and information assurance fields are this intellectual and technological capital is critical to the success of the entire u.s. government's efforts in cyberspace. it u.s. cyber command is a military command that falls under title 10, but its business relies on the success of that speed intelligence, which is why located the command with nsa was not only wise but imperative. i know that some have concerns about the intelligence community involvement in securing the nation's cyber infrastructure. those concerns are valid, which is why the professionals at the national security agency have robust and rigorous procedures to minimize the effects of intelligence activities upon u.s. persons. nsa has an experienced and
energetic oversight both internally and from the department of justice, the fisa court, and congress. this explains why co-location of cyber command with the same professionals is perhaps the best way to ensure the transparency of operations that could affect u.s. persons data and protection of privacy and civil lowercase as our military operations in cyberspace. as of may 21, u.s. soccer command also gained service elements on the ground in support of its mission. these include the army forces cyber command, the marine forces cyber command, the 24th air force, and the navy's 10th lead cyber command under vice admiral barry mcculloch, who spoke to a few months ago. while technology as part of the solution, of course, the key is people. and we have superb people, both at nsa and u.s. cyber command.
one of our greatest challenges will be successfully recruiting, training, and retaining our cyber cautery to ensure we sustain our ability to operate effectively in cyberspace for the long term. this is one of the key focus areas identified in the recent quadrennial defense review. the need to develop greater cyber expertise identified three other key imperatives for operating effectively in cyberspace. one, we must develop a comprehensive approach to dod operations in cyberspace. two, we must centralized command of cyber operations, and three, finally, we must and has partnerships with other agencies in the government. this last point merits particular collaboration. our mission at cyber command includes not only the defense but of our military networks --
the defense of our military force but our industrial base. more than 90% of our military energy is generated and distributed by the private sector. more than 80% of our logistics are transported by private companies. mission critical systems are designed, built, and often maintained by defense contractors. the military's networks are not legally bound by those. we rely on private set out their networks and capabilities -- on private sector networks and capabilities. insuring they are secure is a key concern because the flow of information crossing these networks is significant and sensitive. our adversaries will find our weakest link and exploit it, whether it is public or privately-owned and operated. that said, any efforts to secure dod mission critical networks will be carefully designed to avoid providing preferential treatment to any particular
private sector company. perhaps most important, this is an action we need to do it in partnership with dhs. at u.s. cyber command, we approach these tasks by ensuring the right balance of integrating cyber and technical capabilities. we will pull together existing cyberspace resources to create better synergy and synchronization of were fighting a fax to defend the dod information networks. we're a great defense, offense, operations, and will leverage technical capabilities to provide a coherent a fax for strategic operational and tactical commanders. all of the steps support the armed services' ability to conduct high tempo, effective operations while protecting pommand and control systems and cyber infrastructure. in closing, i like to leave you with some thoughts on how we can translate these imperatives into
mission success to operate effectively in cyberspace and how we can achieve these effects that we want. we must first understand our networks and build an effective cyber such relational awareness and real-time through a shared operating picture. we must share indication and wore a threat that at net speed among and between the various operating the mains. we must synchronize command and control with integrated defense of an offensive capabilities also at that speed. we must leverage all tools of national power to ensure that american and other nations to ban the benefits -- can gain the benefits of cyberspace, conduct international engagement and diplomacy efforts to improve global governance of its domain, review military doctrine and action to ensure they are appropriate, and effective, and considerable economic policy
tools for the involvement of intelligence and law enforcement entities to dissuade those who seek to exploit cyberspace for illicit gain. to achieve these efforts, we must recruit, educate, train, and vest, and rick train -- and retain a cadre of experts who will operate seamlessly across a full spectrum of network operations. finally, will this be able to operate at that speed, and leveraging technology for automated autonomous decision making. together, nsa and u.s. cyber command will be the intersection of military intelligence and give permission assurance capabilities vital to the nation's comprehensive cyber security strategy. we will perform this mission with your trust and confidence, but we will only succeed by working as part of a coherent team. who will partner with all
departments and agencies. we will actively engage all branches of government. we will exercise our powers and responsibilities under laws and ways to ensure that we are truly protecting, and fringing, the privacy and civil liberties of our fellow citizens -- not infringing, the privacy and civil liberties of our fellow citizens. cyber security is among the most important current and future challenges dod and our nation faces. securing our networks is not just a duty issue. it is a national security issue with implications for all instruments of national power. the department of defense and u.s. southern command will do its part to protect our great nation from elements wishing to do less harm in cyberspace. as i said at the beginning, it is a privilege and honor to be a member of our cyber team. now it is time for me to listen to your questions and concerns, i hope to broaden the dialogue
that you at csis have promoted on cyberspace issues. i look forward to interchange and thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> thank you, general. when you ask your question, please identify yourself and keep the questions. so we can respect the generals schedule. with that, we have one in the front row? [inaudible] >> hold on. >> one of the questions, how the streamlined -- how do you
streamline obtaining permission for cyber attacks in times for it to be tactically relevant at home? >> that is a difficult issue. i think that your question, i think everybody heard it, how did you streamlined to counter attacks against attackers if they are stateless? i would in large it to say if he cannot attribute it, how do you do that? i think what we often established are clear rules of engagement that say what we can stop. there are things we can stop at the boundaries, like intrusion prevention systems. that is one part of the strategy. in the future, that may not be specific. what the department is looking at is the standing rules of engagements. to those comport with the laws, can we clearly articulate those so people know and expect what will happen? we have to look at two different venues, what we're doing in
peacetime and what we need to do in wartime to support those units in combat, and how do we ensure the combat commanders have the command and a patrol rigid command and control they need. the command and control system in the past was the push to talk radio and when somebody jammed it, you would work through. how do we do that in cyberspace? the answer i believe is working through a set of standard rules of engagement we will have and the forces will have, and that is something we have to take on. [inaudible] >> they may all be one set, but those of wartime will be different from peacetime. i had an opportunity in the hearing, and i say this with some level of humor, i was
asked this specific question by senator levin when we came up with three different venues. one, how would cyber command act when we are at war and another country is at a combatant and you to be attacked your adversary. now you would say i am going to do these under one set of rules of engagement. now what happens, that was case 1. case 2, what happens with the adversary uses a neutral country to bounce their attack through? that is a different threat, and is not unlike were fair where you have a conflict going in one state and somebody attacks from a neutral state. there are laws of neutral land and we have to look at in cyberspace. the third is what happens when it is the united states under attack. what are the rules for that and how we go through that to mitigate or defeat that threat?
those were the three conditions. we talked about each in a different case. as you think about each one of those, we will have different standing rules of engagement what we don't have is the precision and the standing rules of engagement that we need. we're working through those with the u.s. policy and up through the deputy committees. >> i think we have harry and the gentleman and brown. -- in brown. >> good morning, sir. many of us in this room have worked on situational awareness for many years,, i brishell pictures. during your comments, you mentioned it situational awareness is an area that needs to be improved. i wonder if you could briefly describe some of where we are now with situational awareness and where it is you would like
to see improved in the future. >> in a nutshell, the harder part, and i can give an analogy, i will use the national training center. in the national training center, one of the things they teach the land forces is how to see the battlefield and how to react to different situations. getting the picture for the battalion and brigade commander is a very necessary part of how they conduct the campaign against the adversary. understanding where the adversaries come and go, where reconnaissance goes, where his leading forces goes and all that is some of the stuff we do at the national training center. now let's put it in cyberspace. we have no situational awareness. is very limited. oftentimes, are situational awareness is forensics, which
means something has happened, we are now responding to that, and we say, ok, something got through. how do you see the network? as you know, the former director of the information systems agency, as you look at that and try to look at all the networks, you did not have real- time situation awareness. for all the machines and networks. the consequence is it was almost policing after the fact, compared with mitigating in real time. so the requirement, from my perspective, we need it will time at situational awareness of the networks to see where something bad has happened and take action there at that time. that is both a coordination issue amongst the services and agencies and a situational awareness issue. we do not have a common operating picture for our networks.
we need to get that and build that. i think many in industry say we are working towards that, but we don't have that with the. that we need. -- with the breadth that we need. i would focus first on the were fighting elements, fix the second one. >> on the other side of the room? >> good morning. my name is scott matthews, department of commerce. the question i have, regarding russia's proposal with significant support in the u.n. general assembly for a cyber warfare arms limitation treaty. the question is whether you think something like that is possible? the other part of that proposal is to create basically
sovereignty on the net. do you think that can work? how will that impact your functions? >> let me take that in it to parts. yes, no. [laughter] let me elaborate. i think we have to establish the rules, and i think that is perhaps the starting point for international debate, not at my level but above me, that i think the secretary of defense and the secretary of state and the administration will take those and carefully consider those and say, what is the counter proposal from the united states, russia, china, the middle east, put that on the table, and i think we have to establish that. with respect to sovereignty, that is much more complicated. the reason is look at businesses as examples.
there multi natural -- multinational in nature. as a consequence, in the street working with government, we have opened up a set of factors that don't easily drop to geographic nation-state boundaries. i think the first may be a way to help. i think it is something that we should and probably will carefully consider. i think those are the kinds of things that need to be put on the table, talked through, and start out as version 1.0. >> in the second row. >> randy, thank you for the call. >> general, randy with raytheon. in your remarks, you talked with one of the things on your to do list discouraging bad behavior, deterrence. i was wondering, since that was
specified under the comprehensive naaional cyber security initiative articulated in the previous administration, and that issue has continued to receive attention, what are your thoughts for the potential of deterring the kinds of level of. you talked about. thank you. >> i cannot pronounce the word. i had to break it down. let's go back to the previous question, if nation states agree on what we're going to do to deter malicious actors in cyberspace, that will go a long way to this. in this case, it will be the joint cyber investigation and task force, the fbi, and it would actually help. they have a great capability. but it is not good enough for what we need.
i think there were some statistics last year that came out and said the amount of money made in cyberspace has eclipsed the drug trade. when you think about that, the good news is the drug trade is down, you would think, but i don't think that is true. i think it is the opposite. as a consequence, putting it from a nations perspective, what is on those networks that we have secured? it is intellectual property, the future of our country, the future of our industry. we have to protect it. i think establishing those rules of the road in cyberspace will be key. i think that is not a cyber com or defense department responsibility, per se. that will be state, justice, and
administration and we play a supporting techniccl role. i think laying out those rules and going after those cyber actors who could bounce through any place in the world and attack anyone with virtual impunity are the ones we have to police first. it is a huge issue. >> all the way in the back. go ahead. >> good morning, general, and congratulations on the fourth star. but some of the secretaries have been working on architecture attacks. since the united states runs on ipv-4, is their opportunity to switch over to ipv-6 worry hybrid system or is that something under way with
multiple agencies? >> there are a lot of folks looking at the transition from 4 to 6. \ it is something we will have to do at some point. it is interesting, when you asked, we were trying to explain why we are operating at for and why we have some on six. they said why not go to five? so i will not answer it that way. although on average that is probably where you want to be because it does not exist. i think it is something we will work through. technically, we have to make those moves. the number of addresses and things like that are key. we have to come up with that. i am not sure, and you probably are i was aware -- are as aware as i am, i think that is still open for discussion. clearly we have to take some of
the benefits of ipv-6, addressing and such. i admitted i have an ipad and when you think about the capabilities and tools, the iphone, all these things coming out, the computing on that edge is huge. we have to account for that and that will drive is down the road. i just don't know where it will end up. [inaudible] >> good morning, i have a question, and i think it is inherent, touched on a little bit. there is a vulnerability in cyber that i think we kind of ignore that comes with all the social engineering posed by allies, non-allies, the cutters in the world. nation states with little or no division between academia, industry, and the government, students promoted their
government's goals. there is little or no repercussion. it is looked at as perhaps a boon to their economic or industrial endeavors if they can show ways that either they get into or compromise or gain access into our networks, international works, whether government or industry. my concern is, is cyber command and the other agencies, along with industry in the united states, actually going to address this? i think if we look in the future, that is where the real threat lies. these are people brought all -- brought of learning to do what we're trying to do. the way to address that is by establishing the rules of the road. it will take all countries to get together and fix that. when all countries come up and agree, this will be the way we operate and offend and do this, and we all agree to it, that will go a long way toward getting there. the key will be, how do we
ensure we all enforce it equally? that will be the hard part. i think we will start walking down that road. that is not a u.s. cyber com lead. i think that will be state, administration, and others. i think it is an international issue that has to be addressed and put on the table. >> hello, wall street journal. i had a follow-up on the situational awareness question. i was wondering what your role is in developing better situational awareness inside the u.s.? in addition, what is the government's role, broadly, in terms of ensuring privacy protection for a better handle of the problem? >> let me handle first my role
with respect to the military networks and how we get situational awareness there. in a war zone, we gave three cases. it the commander has to have confidence in his command and control system. increasingly, our intelligence, weapons platforms, that is all brought together in cyberspace. we have to have confidence that space is secure and whoever is running that has to know that is secure. you cannot afford to lose it. tremendous vulnerabilities. my responsibility in that regard is to help articulate the requirements in a wartime effort. when you think about the defense department that works globally and the defense department's network. that is my role. you look at the rest of the government, that is where phil comes in and says, how will help the other government department agency see their networks so they could operate and defend those, just as the military will
defend its? our responsibility is to the system that asks for, request, technical assistance, we provide that. i think from a national perspective, if we come up with a situational awareness, we will we will"x", that we should have each department pay to have "x" developed for it, to. microsoft office or something like that. the third question, the third part of that, civil liberties and privacy. i think the key of this is oversight. this is a tough issue when you think about civil liberties and privacy when you are talking about classified information. the way we have set up the oversight on that is having a set of mechanisms and all branches of government. government, the court system,
and congress on the to play a part in that and know the actions we're taking comport with law and protect the civil liberties and privacy of our people. there are issues you get into, and you could take it from the domestic side. what does the fbi do when it's a war? what we do with foreign intelligence surveillance? both of those get into classified areas, with oversight. i think we do that very well. the hard part is we cannot go out and tell everybody exactly what we did or we give up capability. it may be extremely useful in protecting our country and our allies. that is the real, what i see, as the two things we balance. i spend a lot of time with the court and congress, explaining exactly what we're doing, where we have issues, where it there needs to be changed, what we can
and cannot do. we put that up to the court and we get things back from the court. i think it is growing and getting better. we spend a lot of time on that. the hard part? we cannot tell everybody what we're doing. it would be analogous to you explaining how you defended your system, your computer system. you said, i am defending my computer system using the following steps. one, two, 3, 4. adversary would say, thank you, now i know how to get around it. that is the problem we face. i think the real key to the issue, how we build the confidence we are doing it right with the american people, congress, and everything else. that is the hard part. you play a key role in that. how do we explain it without giving up things that would cause us to have an attack or
something go through, what currently protecting our civil liberties and privacy? i have four daughters and 12 grandchildren. my daughters are huge users of this. they like their civil liberties and privacy, too, and we want to ensure they have that. that is one of the key foundations this nation was built on, and that we take an oath to protect. and we take that very seriously. >> i am cognizant of the general's time, and he has been very generous. it may be two more questions? ok. and in house question? >> about 10 more minutes. >> about 15 years ago, a great deal was written about cyber warfare and cyber terrorism, degraff was produced. -- a graph was produced.
>> next question? >> i think part of that had to do what they had to teach me how to read along the way. that takes some time. that is a tough question. i think it is a combination of things. was the department ready to stand it up? how did we get there along the way? it is interesting to look at this, and i think it merits a more serious part of the answer. it is not like this was a step function getting to u.s. cyber command, on the 21st we said, boom, we are here. you go back to 2002, when you saw the department, how we do this, what we said is first, which command will have the responsibility? ww looked at that, went to u.s. strat-com.
they said, who has technical expertise? were you there at the time? the general was there. they gave him the gave himops. they said, who could help with the offense and looked at nsa. then the rest is as i explained. it takes time to resolve it. it is not something that we just jumped into. i think it is a well thought out approach, and we are one step further along and i think it is going pretty good. >> the lady in the center, is that kate? hi, kate. >> hi, kate martin for the center for strategic and international studies. i want to thank you for your commitment to protecting civil liberties and privacy in iraq makes an -- and your recognition by oversight of the courts and congress and the knowledge of theeproblem of