Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20141202

The president and thank him for what hes doing and a i pray we get a fair hearing on h. R. 5407. God bless you, brother, and i hope you continue to do what youre doing on the floor of the house. Mr. Jeffries thank you. Its now my honor and privilege to yield time, mr. Chair, how much time do we have remaining . The speaker pro tempore approximately 14 minutes are remaining. Mr. Jeffries let me now yield to my good friend, the distinguished congresswoman who represents the neighboring district at home in brooklyn, shes a fighter for justice, a voice for the voiceless, and its now my privilege to yield to congresswoman yvette clarke. Ms. Clarke hands up, dont shoot. I thank my colleague and friend, mr. Jeffries of brooklyn new yorker for his tremendous leadership both from brooklyn, new york, for his tremendous leadership both here in washington, d. C. , and in new york. I rise to join my colleagues in the congressional a black caucus to discuss being black in america and what the injustice in ferguson, missouri, says about where we are and where we need to go as a civil society. I first want to once again offer my condolences to the family of Michael Brown whose efforts to secure justice on behalf of their son were undermined by the decision of the grand jury. The killing of Michael Brown and aa tacks by the ferguson and attacks by the Ferguson Police department on protesters demonstrate an assumption that young women and men who are africanamerican are inherently suspicious, a false assumption with deadly consequences. So where do we go from here . We must not allow this false assumption to prevail in our nation in our society. We cannot and will not accept the deval situation of africanamerican deval situation of after a can devaluation of after a can american lives. In my hometown in brooklyn, new york, where we are still reeling from the recent killing an unarm aed young man shot by a probation unarmed young man shot by a probation ary city Police Officer, this killing on the heels of the homicide by a chokehold of eric garner on statin island, again in new york city. Mr. Speaker, its deeply disappointing that as we observe the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we are still trying to fulfill the promise of the 14th amendment, of equal protection under the law, while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 transformed our nation by prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex and National Origin at work, in schools and in other public facilities, we still must transform the perceptions, vices and a prejudices biases and prejudices that some people still carry with them like luggage from generations past. The incidents in ferguson and cities across this nation reminds us that communities that have been disproportionately and unjustly targeted by Police Departments demand recognition of their humanity. Young people of color refuse to live in a democratic society, in a state of fear, and we have an obligation as a nation to rid ourselves of the scourge of racially biased statesanctioned terrorism. I fully support the steps announced today by the Obama Administration to strengthen Community Policing and fortify the trust that must exist between Law Enforcement officers and the communities they serve. Ive been a vocal advocate for better relations between the community and Law Enforcement community. Given the Police Officers sole mission is to serve and protect the people with dignity, integrity and respect, we must focus on achieving that mission. I pledge to work with my constituents, the Obama Administration, my colleagues and officials across this country, especially in new york city, to restore public trust and to establish a more enlightened policing strategy and to prevent surge incidents in the future. So again id like to thank mr. Jeffries for his leadership. I want to thank the c. B. C. , the conscience of the congress, for holding this timely special order. To all americans who are disturbed by the demonstrations that are taking place across this nation, i want you to remember these four words. No justice, no peace. And i yield back. Mr. Jeffries thank you, congresswoman clarke. Mr. Speaker, the man in brooklyn did not deserve to die. Tamir rice in cleveland did not deserve to die. Michael brown in ferguson did not deserve to die. The Congressional Black Caucus is determined to make sure that these and many other deaths at the hands of Law Enforcement resulting from the use of Excessive Force will not be in vain. Its now my honor and my privilege to yield to one of the mighty voices of the hiphop generation here in the United States, who powerfully represents his midwestern district, the distinguished gentleman from the great state of indiana, congressman andre carson. Mr. Carson thank you very much. I have to acknowledge my colleague, my friend, my rother and leader not only nationwide and internationally, but especially of brooklyn for his boldness, his tenacity, mr. Speaker, his intestinal fortitude and his ability as a city member of congress to still speak truth to power, congressman jeff rills. Mr. Speaker, i rise tonight jeffries. Mr. Speaker, i rise today to tonight to express my deepest con domences to the brown if condolences to the brown family who lost their son far too soon. As a parent, i can only imagine their pain and grief, mr. Speaker. No parent should have to go through such an ordeal. As a young an africanamerican man, i can relate to the frustration being felt on the streets of ferguson and streets across our country. The history of this great nation, mr. Speaker, past and with t is plagued incidents of bigotry and discrimination in our Justice System. Racial injustice continues to afflict our communities and with each incident like this ne, old wounds are reopened. He feeling felt in ferguson is real and cannot, should not be discounted. Mr. Speaker, many right now feel abandoned by our justice singled out irly for suspicion. These are very legitimate concerns that cannot be ignored or overshadowed by those who have turned to violence. As a former Police Officer, mr. Speaker, i want to say i do respect our system of justice, but i also recognize its shortcomings. We certainly have a long way to go to guarantee our countrys children of color are protected equally under the law. Every instance, every neighborhood all across this great nation, mr. Speaker, no community should have to doubt whether justice has prevailed when a decision like this one has been handed down. We must not let Michael Browns death be in vain. That would be a disgrace. That would be a tragedy. Is still our nation struggling to heal. But this cannot truly happen until we honestly assess how justice is provided across our country. This process starts with peaceful protests, yes. But it ends with lasting reforms that protect all americans equally, mr. Speaker. This will not be easy or quick. But what is clear is that this march toward a better, more equitable country must begin with a unified front. Through this tragedy we should bring about lasting change and so tonight on that note i want to ask, mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues, my fellow americans, to stand with the Congressional Black Caucus to make this dream a reality. Mr. Speaker, i yield back. Mr. Jeffries i thank the distinguished gentleman for his eloquent remarks. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the great aline of scrimmagea Cummings Elijah cummings. Mr. Cummings thank you very much. I want to thank mr. Jeffries for calling this special order tonight. And let me say to america, whenever Law Enforcement officers a Law Enforcement officer shoots and kills an unarmed citizen in this great country, america has a problem. And i want us to be very careful that we dont become distracted and not address the issues. And i know that we in the Congressional Black Caucus make sure that we dont get involved in motion, commotion, emotion and no results. And thats what this is all about. Because the things that were talking about is trying to bring about change, not just for our young people today, but for generations yet unborn. And so let me just briefly state that im very pleased with what the president did today. I think its a step this the right direction a step in the right direction. The effort to get body cameras, 50,000 of them, to establish a task force. Ight i along with 100 other leaders wrote to the president and we just asked for certain things and ill yame them and then yield back to the gentleman. We asked d. O. J. Develop the training for Law Enforcement officers to counteract racial bias. And retention among Law Enforcement professionals. Grants to support youth in the communities that these officers serve. Reduction of excessive republicry among community Police Departments. Call for d. O. J. Oversight of Law Enforcement practices. And increase accountability through National Standards through investigation into cases of inappropriate behavior. We will continue this fight. And you know, to the brown mily, you have our condolences, but we know you want to make sure that change is brought about. And we promise you that we are going to do everything in our power to do that. And i yield back. Mr. Jeffries let me now yield to one of my colleagues in the freshman class, soon to be a dynamic sophomore, the gentlelady from the great state of ohio, congresswoman joyce beatty. Mrs. Beatty mr. Speaker, thank you. It is my honor to stand here not only with the congressional members of the black caucus. Today, i have a heavy heart. If we stand here ases members of the congressional plaque caucus on the topic, being black in america, what ferguson says where we are and where we need to go. Mr. Speaker, i would like to express my condolences to the family of Michael Brown. The gentle giant will not be forgotten nor will what his loss represents. Michael brown had a promising future before his life was cut short that saturday afternoon in august. And i realize my time is probably up. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Jeffries thank you, mr. Speaker. We have come a long way and we look forward to marching toward a more Perfect Union and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert, is recognize dollars r 60 minutes as the designee f the majority leader. Mr. Gohmert mr. Speaker, there are some people that wanted to be heard and didnt have a chance and i would be glad to ield such time as they need. Be glad to yield. Yield to my friend. Mr. Jeffries i thank my good friend for yielding a few moments for us to close this very important special order. And let me just yield to congresswoman joyce beatty to finish her remarks as we prepare to conclude this c. B. C. Special order. And let me thank congressman gohmert for yielding a few moments of his time. Mrs. Beatty thank you to my colleague. Let me continue and be very brief with saying, Michael Brown had a promising future before his life was cut short before his life was cut short. He was supposed to start technical college, planning to be a heating and cooling engineer one day, hoped to start his own business. Strove to set a an example, teaching them to stay in school. Instead, another loss. Michael brown fell victim to a criminal just tim system that too often fails people of color. Unfortunately, he is another black male, whose full promise and potential will never be realized because his life was taken too early by the very department created to protect and serve his community, the Ferguson Police department. Mr. Speaker, i think it is appropriate that the Congressional Black Caucus us is on the floor today discussing being plaque in america. And in many circumstances, the conscience of america on issues of race relations, struggles and inequityies. E are or are our brothers keepers. And today, december 1, we are celebrating the 59th anniversary of rosa parks giving up her seat on a bus in month gentlewoman erie, alabama. Her civil disobedience on this day should be celebrated. We see in the majority, a peaceful protest in refusing to give up her seat, she sparked a Civil Rights Movement, a movement highlighted by incremental progress such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights act of 1965. About where a nation came together with eliminating discrimination against blacks and providing equal rights under law. The Civil Rights Movement is ongoing. A great distrust between local residents and Law Enforcement remains today. Too many young black men are left behind and are seen as objects of fear and we have a pipeline that tears our communities of color apart, leaving them forever incomplete, but as dr. King said, Human Progress is neither automatic or inevitable. Every step towards the goal of justice requires suffering and struggle. The tireless ex ergses and compassionate concerns of dedicated individuals. Lastly, mr. Speaker, im hopeful that initiatives like the president s my brothers keeper, which is implementing cradle to college and programs will allow us to continue the rosa progress that shell sparked 59 years ago. Should we work harder to get people registered to vote . Yes. But it takes more than that. This congress should work with the president. And i fully support his request to some 263 million in part equip Police Officers were cameras. Mr. Jeffries, mr. Speaker. Thank you. And i yield back. Mr. Jeffries let me thank congressman gohmert for this act of bipartisan. Et me yield two minutes to congresswoman robin kelly. Mr. Kelly as we re i offer my prayers to the family of Michael Brown and the entire ferguson community. We stand before the house as representatives of our communities and as concerned citizens. We stand here to say we mourn Michael Brown. We mourn his loss and what it represents. He very real fear. We are here to speak for those who are weary of another young black man killed by police. Ferguson speaks to the broader challenges we face, race relations, but the fraught relationship between the black community and the police. Members of my family have and do serve in Law Enforcement. And im fortunate that for most of my life, i have been able to have many positive experiences with that community. My grandparents, a Grocery Store in harlem had officers checking in. Those who put their lives on the line are good, but doesnt negate the fact that in america today, we still have too many in the plaque community who fear the police or feel disrespected by the Police Including my son and his friends. And we have too many Police Officers who fear the black community. This is a dynamic that colors every encounter and paves the way for tragic outcomes. Regardless of your perspectives of the events in ferguson we can agree that no community should live in fear. We must hold our Law Enforcement officials to the highest professional standards and provide them with the training they need to police diverse communities. This training must address the stereotypes and create obstacles to mutual understanding. And we can and must strive twars a just system that treats all americans fairly and values american lives equally. Im encouraged by the peaceful protests calling for change in the way our country views and values young black men, but this is the beginning and not enough. A mother and wife and a member of congress, this change must begin today. We must look for ways they can prevent a similar tragedy from happening in your community. Dont let this issue fade. Get involved with your local government. Go to your meetings, know who represents you and who is policing your streets. Be a part of the change and lend your voice to the discussion of your community. Vote. Exercise your right. Demand, expect accountability. Thats how we Work Together community. Kind of thank you. Mr. Jeffries we are here today to begin a conversation about a fair and equitable and colorblind criminal Justice System. That should be something all americans embrace and thats what we are going to walk toward as we move towards the next congress in 2015. To close. I yield one minute to the distinguished congresswoman from texas. Ms. Jackson lee i thank mr. Jeffries and might i thank the speaker. Im sorry we were racing across the floor. And we thank you for your clarification and to my good friend on the Judiciary Committee, judge gohmert, who has engaged in the criminal Justice System. I want to leave two points behind as we clarify how we can move forward and recognize crises but not yet be overcome by such. Might i thank theormer mayor of new york. I disagree with some of the interpretation of why officers are in the africanamerican community. A statistic does say in fact hat over 2005 and 2012 a white Police Officer used deadly force two times a week. There are broader ways of addressing these questions. Let me say to you why there is such ire as what happened to Michael Brown. The grand jury system raises the fact question. Why was his hands up and why was he shot these many times. It is a criminal Justice System o matter what, a body by the constitution, you can say a question has been raised and Justice Needs to answer that question. That is what we are asking for, a simple justice that allows everyone to stand at the table of opportunity, equality and rightness. I would make the argument tonight, we have laid out a road map, whether it is cameras, supporting the president s request for moneys, whether it is legislation dealing with the utilization of tickets and citations and stopping people from moving, whether or not it is my brothers keeper, the Judiciary Committee along with my colleagues, can raise the constitution and no matter who we are, we can look at those men, st. Louis rams, applaud them for their work and Law Enforcement and make a purposeful commit mountain that we will follow in the pathway and use the tools to make our criminal Justice System work for all of us, whether we are poor, whether we are rich, in unique communities. We are going to say to mr. Brown and say to mikes mother that justice is going to come not respecting whether or not we stand on one side or another. We are one ray or another. I have faith in the constitution and have faith in this congress and the very reason that judge gohmert yielded us, i know we will be engaged in a pathway forward to make america rise to hire angels and the constitution we love. I thank you, mr. Jeffries, and i yield critics of president obama announced a series of commissions to make recommendations for improving relations between local Law Enforcement agencies and the communities they serve in his remarks followed a meeting with Community Leaders a lawenforcement including some from ferguson, missouri. This is 10 minutes. Ferguson laid bare, a problem thats not unique to st. Louis and not unique to our times. That is a simmering distrust that exists between Police Departments and too many communities of color. The sense that in a country where one of our basic principles, perhaps the most important principle is equality under the law. That too many individuals, particularly young people of color do not feel as if they are being treated fairly. And as i said last week, when any part of the American Family does not feel like it is being treated fairly, that is a problem for all of us. Not just a problem for some. Not just a problem for a particular community or demographic. It means that we are not as strong as a country as we can be. And when applied to the criminal Justice System, we are not as effective at fighting crime as we could be. , what i havence been able to do today thanks to excellent work by eric holder, our attorney general who had to fly to atlanta and start a conversation about their issues as well as the outstanding leaders around this table is to process in which we are able to surface an honest conversation between Law Enforcement, Community Community activists, academics, it elected officials, the faith community, try to determine what the problems are and most importantly tried to come up with a concrete solution that can move the ball forward. One of the most powerful things that happened today was to meet with some young people, including a couple of outstanding leaders from the ferguson community, britney and rasheed, who served on the have beenommittee and hearing from a lot of young people in the area. Waswhat made me concerned the degree to which they feel as if they are not heard or the reality of what they experience has been denied. What may be greatly encouraged was how clearly their verses were when they were heard now constructive they are in wanting to solve these problems. Anybody will set the chance to listen to them here today felt the same way. We also heard from Law Enforcement and were reminded what a tough job it is to be an Law Enforcement whether a big city or in a small community. As eric holder put it, Police Officers have the right to come home. There are dangerous circumstances, we have to understand and be able to put ourselves in their shoes it recognize they have a tough job. I do not think those realities are irreconcilable. If we work hard, that we can make sure that Police Officers and the communities they serve our partners. Our partners in battling crime and make sure everybody. And we can build confidence and build trust but it will not happen overnight. Not going to result just from a conversation around a table in washington, it is got to result in concrete steps that andre able to lift up communities all around the country and institutionalize. In order to advance that goal, here are a couple of specific steps we are taking. First of all, i want to thank chuck ramsey, commissioner of the philadelphia Police Department and laurie roberts, was refers of criminology at george mason user Word University and former attorney general. They are going to cochair a task is not only going to reach out and listen to Law Enforcement, community activist, and other stakeholders, but report to me specifically in 90 days with concrete recommendations. Practices for communities were Law Enforcement and neighborhoods are working well together, how do they create accountability and transparency, trust, at the federal level work with state and local communities to make sure some of those best practices get institutionalized. This is not going to be an endless report that ends up collecting dust on a shelf. My expectation is concrete recommendations that we can begin to operationalize both at the federal, state, and local level. The good news is we have two folks were respected by activists and Law Enforcement and i am confident they will do an outstanding job. I wanted them to help us make sure crime continues to go down while Community Trust in the police goes up. Second, one of the issues that response tong the the ferguson back in august was the issue of military equipment being utilized in the face of protests taking place. A broader issue as to whether we are militarizing domestic Law Enforcement unnecessarily. Is the federal government facilitating that . I have not received a view i ordered from all the ages involved in the program. Signing an executive order that specifies how were going to make sure that program is accountable, how put in a howt is transparent are going to make sure it is transparent and not building a militarized culture and side local Law Enforcement. I am going to be proposing policing initiatives that will significantly expand funding and training for local Law Enforcement, including up to 50,000 additional by the cameras for agencies. I look forward to working with congress to make sure in addition to what i can do administratively and with the resources we already have that we are having a conversation with Law Enforcement that wants to write things to make sure they are adequately resourced technologyg and the to enhance trust. And finally as i mentioned, eric holder is going to be working in parallel with the task forces to convene a series of these meetings all across the country. It is not a problem simply of ferguson, missouri. It is a problem that is national. It is a solvable problem. It is one that unfortunately spikes after one event. Then fades into the background until another happens. We need to sustain a in eachtion in which region of the country, people forwarding and can move in a constructive fashion. Let me close by saying this. There was a cautionary note from everybody here that thereve been commissions before and conversations and task force and nothing happens. What i tried to describe to people is why this time will be different. As part of the reason this time will be different is because the president of the United States is deeply invested in making sure. When i hear the young people around this table talk about it violatesences, my believe in what america can be. To hear young people feeling marginalized and distrustful even after they have done everything right. That is not who we are. That is who think be overwhelming majority of americans want. And i think there may be a convergence were well outstanding Law Enforcement officials who recognize that times have changed and want to be responsible. Richard berry, the International Association of chiefs of police spoke how he was there to work with us. On the we have activists ground who does not always get the attention because people who are not been constructed getting attention. There are folks working really hard. I think theres a maturity of a conversation right now that can lead us to get concrete results. And in the two years i have remaining as president , i am going to make sure that we follow through. Not to solve every problem, not every barrier of mistrust that may exist, but to make things better. That is how progress is always made in this great country of ours. All right. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, jonathan. Ending immigration and taxes will dominate those lame that session. Lameduck joining us is billy house. Thank you for being with us. Let me begin with this spending bill. The socalled omnibus measure which is such a washington term, but exactly what does Congress Need to do and when . Well, december 11th, is a deadline for what has been a temporary continuing spending bill since october, the technical start of the new fiscal year to keep agencies operating. Thats because congress, once again did not do any of the 12 annual spending bills, and could not agree on them. So weve been relying on a temporary spending bill again, but that runs out on december 11th, and so lawmakers are faced with where to go from there. There is talk of a shorter continuing resolution as being bus as a to as a cromni strategy which would keep the government operating until midfebruary, the reason obviously because republicans will have control of the house and the senate next year. There is talk of that, though kind of in varying degrees. The basic premise is any of the republicans, some of the republicans in congress realizing they will control both chambers starting on january 3rd, the start of the new session, are wondering why democratic majority leaders, soon to be minority leader harry reid should have such a say on a bill that would last until next october. That notion is lets do another temporary one and then the new republicandominated senate and house could come up with a spending bill after that. But, Republican Leaders kind of want to wipe the slate clean and are preferring a a measure that could be done now in the lame duck that could get congress through to the whole entire next fiscal year without having to readdress it in the spring. But whether they can win over some of their harder lined members on that issue is uncertain. And the other possibility is kind of a mixture of what theyre calling a cr which would in fact continue spending through next october for most of the government agencies, but not Homeland Security. And in that way, some members believe they could address an early spring some of the executive backs anticipated by president obama on immigration through defunding and other mechanisms in the Homeland Security bill. That will likely come up tomorrow before the committee when Homeland Security secretary secretary jeh johnson testifies, what can we expect . I think youll see from that republicandominated committee, because it is a house committee, a focus on what exactly president obamas administrative action might do to what subfill would be less secure border practices. Whether or not thats secure or not, im sure itll spill into the executive orders are planned by the president are just simply overreach and how they might be combatted specifically through perhaps the Homeland Security bill on a spending bill and defunding mechanisms. How angry are Congressional Republicans over the president s action on immigration and how much is politics, and public posturing . I think, i think there is legitimate anger because its the latest step in a series of executive actions that even led them to sue the president. So its another step in that direction thats already irritated them. Specifically, its angering a good number of more conservative republicans over the simple fact that lessening the deportation rules and conscripts in congress right now without congressional approval. Its kind of rubbing their faces in the fact that although theyve dominated the november 4th elections, this president is kind of sidestepping, or trying to anyway. Two other issues, first rand paul, a potential president ial candidate promising legislation dealing with the abuse of the military force against isil. What can we expect on that front . The senators within the current authorization instead of an expiration date. But in the notion that congress agreed to, this sort of bill and the large idea in the final days of the lame duck session is farfetched one. Still have to sign off and this will add to the dialogue on that. Whether or not rand paul goes, again its unlikely. This will add further fire to the debate over where exactly the pentagon training and equipment of Syrian Rebels and how much money should be involved in all of that. Where is the Defense Authorization act at this moment. Will Congress Move on it before the end of the year . The house passed a version of it and the Senate Armed Services committee is yet to bring the bill to the floor. It will know addressed. I believe before the end of the year. I think there is no dispute about that. The question is how quickly can they get it to the floor in the next two weeks . Will look for reporting on line. Billy house. We appreciate you being with us. Aris up next on cspan, center of pennsylvania discuss a senator up something you discuss u. S. Health Emergency Preparedness. They talk about National Security issues. Later, i had of saturdays runoff, a debate between Mary Landrieu republican congressman bill cassidy. On the next washington aboutl, steve king talks his attempts to stop in the president s executive orders on immigration and then we hear from congressman on negotiations to fund the federal government amid tensions over immigration. Atshington journal is live 7 00 on cspan. You can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. On november 20, president obama announced his immigration executive order. Johnson testifies tuesday on president obamas actions on immigration policy and border security. Live coverage of the home and Security Committee at 9 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan 3. Ann compton who retired as the White House Correspondent on her over 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford through barack obama. Chris we listen to a group of second graders go through. Whisper to him and i was stunned and i wrote it down. President errupts the even efforts of second graders. The president said that he had to go and he went into a side room. Planesovered it was two down. The pool. O there are live cameras and a cafeteria. He did not want to scare the children. He went into the cafeteria has said there is an apparent terrorist attack and i must return to washington. The door slammed and then the pentagon was hit. Sunday night on cspan. A look at u. S. Preparedness for emergences in the wake of ebola. Bob casey of pennsylvania and richard burr spoke at an event hosted by politico. This is 45 minutes. [applause] thank you. We have scheduling problems it would no lameduck is going to be rather busy. We are really glad to have you. Guess, we were talking ourselves and one of the questions we had is, was sort of look back in 10 or 15 years ago we had a complacency in the country that we got Public Health was old and we do not have to deal with it anymore. Public health hadnt kept up. And then we had 9 11, anthrax. And then you came along and filled in some gaps with bipartisan legislation. Originally 2006, its got a very long name which i wrote down. The pandemic all hazards, preparation act. And it has two different acronyms. One was probably the democrat acronym, you call it papa and reauthorized it. Id like to talk a little bit about its a shared, it was bipartisan from the beginning, youve worked together, theres funding issues going forward. We just had something that was a crisis that the public fear was disproportionate to what actually happened. But things did not go perfectly. Theres things great, things did wrong, some luck, right . I mean, could have been better, could have been worse. Where you know, as you watch things unfold, what do you think has to be done next . Let me just back up on something you said thats the Public Health change. It did change. We wrote a new definition for Public Health. I would tell you postkatrina, and you had a lot of events that went up, but katrina was the thing that i think acknowledged for everybody, somebody has to be in charge. You cant have a bunch of people pointing fingers. You cant have folks sitting around waiting for somebody they thought was going to do something to actually do it. And so, we resolved that as it related to, at least those threats they were material threats listed by the department of Homeland Security relative to the blueprint bob and i were working off of. I think that when you look at the current threat of ebola, and you ask what shook the trust of the American People. It was a total lack of communication. And i think when you look back at every event that weve had in the past nine or 12 years, communication break down has been the number one contributor to, i think the lack of confidence of the American People that we had a successful agenda to try to work through this. And i think the administration to their credit, though sometimes into this, realize they had to revamp totally and weve seen a totally different approach of the communication side. Can congress fix communication . I mean we had communication, those of us who were in washington during 9 11, and the aftermath, and later the anthrax, communication was disastrous. And there was all these efforts to identify what you just said, you know, communication, people have to various Police Forces have to be able to talk Public Health. Have to talk public security. Weve had legislation, and weve had conversations communication, and it was as the senator said, it was not, it didnt work very well. In september, what can congress do to fix that . Or to address that at least . Well, im not sure theres a legislative remedy there. Obviously what we can do, richard was here in 2006 when the first pandemic all hazardous bill was passed. So the evolution of the policies here, proven so the policies mostly what our job is, and im certain itll be open to ideas about how we can legislate better communication, but part of it is, for any administration, there has to be, not simply in the context of an ebola outbreak, but any kind of crisis, even if we think that the crisis was, was accelerated by the, maybe by the election or by the attention to the issue. That has to have one person speaking for the administration. It has to be someone with a deep understanding. And this is a difficult, a difficult combination to achieve deep Public Health experience as well as someone that can actually communicate well. Having said all that, even if we achieved a measure of perfection on communication, a lot of this is going to have to be communication strategy at the local level. And thats a whole other, its a longer conversation, but, im afraid that unless you have, because most of the responses at the local level just like it is often on Homeland Security, so unless you have respected figures in hundreds and hundreds of communities standing up saying, these are the facts, ladies and gentlemen, this is what were going to do about whats happening, its very different. And lastly, i say that about local communication because whether we like it or not, washingtons not all that popular today. And it goes back, i think its several administrations where people dont have a lot of confidence or several congresses. So the best that we can do i think is get the policy right and figure out a way to make sure that the local level, you have what some people are calling validaters to give people some assurance that their Community Knows what its doing. Their communitys responding and they can articulate that. Did the cdc have too much faith in local hospitals . Well, i would say no, but in some ways we were tested substantially. But in some ways the testing didnt go to a lot of different communities in the sense that there are only a handful of communities that really had to wrestle with this. And ill tell you, im sure that richard saw this in North Carolina and pennsylvania. Wow, did the hospitals start drilling and practicing and really focussing because they figured if were next, we have to be ready. In that sense, theyre probably at a heightened state of alert and probably in a better preparedness posture than they were three, four months ago. Which in large measure was the reason we did p. A. P. A. We thought we handled the Communications Problem when we designated who was in charge, statute statutorily. That person has not been the point person of ebola. I think the administration has to do afteraction review as to did they recreate the wheel or take the blueprint that was there . And i think on any given news cycle, you saw a different person in the administration, now theres a spokesperson. Thats not the way you get through a crisis like this. And in some cases, two people said two Different Things. But, concentrated in that secretary, assistant secretary of Emergency Preparedness are the responsibilities for the actual training that goes on continuingly at hospitals. And i think that what weve got to do is look back and say what was the training we were taking them through. We know that cdc had at least bad regulars as it related to personal protective equipment. And that was transitioned very quickly. Did we communicate to the states and to the hospitals heres the degree of training we want you to go through. Heres the threshold we want you to hit, depending on the size of the hospital that the capabilities will be different. We would have thought that major hospitals across the board would have gotten to a level, and i think we did have a break down. And you have to wonder i mean you wonder what would have happened if mr. Duncan walked into a different hospital. You can have had one that was worse prepared or one that was a lot better prepared, there were false alarm cases that was not the first, there were about a dozen cases that turned out not to be ebola, but the hospital recognized the warning signs and got the person in isolation. I mean what we sort of when they got on tv and said we werent expecting ebola. We looked in the office and said, well we were. That the cdc had done a lot of drilling and had talked people through. There was you might remember early in the days of the ebola outbreak, we actually had officials at 17, its not going to come here. We actually brought it here from a standpoint of the doctors that were infected that we chose, but officials say, you dont have to worry, its not going to come here. They said not an outbreak here. Well, an outbreak says to our Health Care Infrastructure we dont have to prepare. And i think that once you had one case that all of the sudden showed up, you had a totally different tempo at every Major Medical facility in the country as well as the public directions that were coming out of cdc and hhs. So the mistakes get amplified, people Pay Attention when things Pay Attention, and when things go right, people dont. You dont legislate, that was good, lets move on. Because you know sars could have been way worse than it was. The Public Health protections did kick in. There is always some luck, things could be worse or better. Things beyond your control because its a disease. The sars epidemic was a test, it was an international test, it didnt get out of control. And then the flu in 2009, the luck there as it turned out not to be quite as it didnt kill as many people. But there was still, they were able to ramp up vaccinations. It wont as fatal or potent a virus, they did a lot of good Public Health to control it. So when you sort of make policy, can you say what are the Lessons Learned that worked that we need to go back to and are their steps Congress Needs to take to say how do we do it right again . Well, first thing id say is we have, we dont have a lot of time for, for an afteraction report right now, but i think were going need one going forward. Short term, id say short term, longterm, short term is lets use a supplemental as a way to make greater investment. For example, the preparedness, hospital preparedness program, theres a gap of about 120 million up to the authorized level. I think we ought to at least bring up the funding to the authorized level. Can that happen in the next week or two . No, that would be next year. Next year. Intermediate term. Short term, i think we should have a good debate about, and legislate or try to pass legislation as quickly as we can on the supplemental. Richards point is well taken. This isnt going to be well, we need more knowledge here or there. We have to take a step back and see what, what went right, what went wrong, and possibly do more legislating. But there may not be a lot of legislating thats necessary. It may be a lot of what richard pointed to follow the blueprint. The blueprint, there was a tremendous amount of thought that went into it. And here we are, 12 years eight years since p. A. P. A. And that. We didnt have a vaccine or counterebola. And sort of go through the litany of the 14 material threats that we had. And i think when, when we wrote the legislation, we envision that that would be just a constant focus of research and development. This isnt a breakdown of any strurl thing, its really a break down of whether there was a will to stay focussed on that or whether we got distracted by sars or whether we got distracted by h1n1, and we didnt leverage the tools that you found in p. A. P. A. Has successfully as we should have. B. A. R. T. A. , it was a government tool to propel development of vaccines and therapies. Public capitol venture. It was there to be a Financial Partner to promising discoveries. To get them through what i call the valley of death. The period where they needed external funding. You would have basic research that went through a certain level at nih. When it got to a certain level, then it was the responsibility of b. A. R. T. A. To come in and say promise, invest in it, get across the goal line and at the process 50 gets involved with it. We did not have an ebola vaccine that was to the point of the hand off to b. A. R. T. A. And i think that h1n1 became more of the jurisdiction of the nih versus b. A. R. T. A. , and we keep that distinction today. For the current threat, its right. Stay focussed on how we get a vaccine, how we get a countermeasure. I dont think youre going to be get a burn out in africa. Its absolutely crucial we learn from this. We have to stay on the Research Side because this could be this next year, it could be something the year after and the private sector could never invest the amount of money it takes to market. We have to be a partner in it. What the initial, his initial reaction and looking at what was unfolding in dallas and he said communication, do you share that . Is that the first thing that went into your mind, senator casey . Certainly one of them, i also thought what we were hearing from hospitals were they didnt have the resources they needed. Pp, the personal protective equipment, but theres no question, this is a communications challenge on a scale that you rarely encounter. Part of that i think was because of when it happened. When the juxtapose what happened with ebola, with an election which was pretty heated, and people were just reacting to everything, as well as some other governmental failures throughout the year, the website, concerns about the va, you go down the list of issues. And by the time people arrived at the point where into august and september, and the Media Attention was i think unprecedented. And that was all, the predicate for that i think in some ways was already set by what had happened over the last year. Frankly, you could go back further, whats happened over the last, you know, 25 or 30 years. Theres been a government thats taken some hits over the last generation, starting with watergate and moving forward. To be able to say for any government, democrat or republican to stand up and say, we have this under control, dont worry, not that they said that, but if thats where you start from, i think youre going to run into anybody im sure bobs been through, ive been through many tabletop exercises where youre presented with either radioactive contamination or youre affected by one of the 14 natural or intentional Infectious Diseases, as soon as you lose the trust of the population, youre in a spiral. And i think we got to a point in ebola, it was not a massive spiral, but we got to where we lost the trust and i think well have to go back and pinpoint exactly when that was and exactly what was said, but then it becomes a struggle. And you know, in this case, thank goodness weve been able to contain outbreak and in the United States and there could be another case that comes. I think the public, we would hope now knows its not part of were the movies about ebola that you have no Administration Official out saying were not going to have anymore. You actually have them out saying you can expect that the there will be some. That is a totally different point that theyve now set for the American People. So let me just add something, this goes back to an earlier question. I think if you look at the supplemental requests whether its for Hospital Program or whether its for cdc, writ large or nih. Theres a lot in that proposal that reflects learning and less sons in Ebola Treatment Center in every state if thats achievable with new funding. What richard talked about, trying to move this process forward so when b. A. R. T. A. Is in the midst of trying to get a countermeasure to commercialization that that is stimulated or kicked forward. So i think theres a list of things in the supplemental which indicates the administration learned a lot, theyre trying to identify how they can do better. And i also think something i wasnt as aware of without having seen it play out publicly was the interconnectedness or the relationship between cdc, state health departments, local Public Health infrastructures. I think a lot of that was tested, and i think just learning from that. I think a lot of americans were surprised to learn that cdc cant, doesnt rule by eddic, hospitals you should do the following, they can provide defines, resources, they can provide a lot of science, but a lot of this gets down to what happens at the state level and at the local level. And thats where i, i go back to the, you know, they have to be able to communicate very well. Even as were trying to help washington communicate better. And do you agree that more money needs to go you have an authorization law, hasnt been appropriated, do you support, was it 120 puppeted . I mean is that something that theres going to be bipartisan . There will be bipartisan support. If you look at the 6 million of emergency request. If you just take the cdc portion, 600 and some billion dollars to go to the initiative which is a build out of Public Health and countries. I would suggest strongly, and i think bob would agree with me, consider under the regular preparations, thats a good thing. The emergency appropriations has members of the house and the senate going what else is in there . Now theres a requirement of level of specificity on what theyre asking for and how its going to be used that didnt exist. They didnt have to be that greedy. They should have defined emergency more narrowly. Well emergency is something that actually has to be used now to end the threat. All the sudden need this will thing down, its probably a contingency fund. These are things were going to work out with the administration. They shouldnt have gone through number one. Are you talking to them . I think were in conversations and i think that this can be worked out, trying to sort through what should be in the regular appropriations versus an emergency bill is going to be crucial more so on the house side than the senate side. One thing weve learned is we have to have better diagnostic. The fact that were waiting 48 hours to have a confirmation of whether somebody got ebola and were testing it at one place and cdc and testing it again. This is ridiculous. The fact were building labs in western africa and by canoe theyre taking blood work up a river to get to a lab, technology is such that we can if we want to, we can develop a test facility, test capabilities that could be done on site. Im convinced of that. And if you look at the request for emergency money, we have 2 million for diagnostic. This is just crazy, and i think thats where we have a leverage of the private sector. The other thing that gets back to what bob said about a hospital in every state that has the capabilities. What we did was we looked at the number of beds we had in the country. The number of beds were sufficient. Which we apply what the capabilities of to discard the waste, you found that where we had ten beds, the waste of two patients. We have to redesign the whole thing based upon what the treatment course is for these patients. Which is not the number of beds, its what were able to handle physically and we didnt know what that was like in a developed hightech country, the personal gear and the treatment. We werent creative enough in our thinking to say what would be encompassed if this happened . Yeah. As you mentioned, there are 14 other, or 13 other identified, are those all diseases or including the nuclear and bioterror. Is that smallpox . Thats the whole basket. Intentional manmade or intentional. And i mean, ebola, i dont want to minimize ebola, i mean its, you know, its killing ten, thousands and thousands of people in africa, it is not contagious in a developed country as the public initially feared. And we treat it better when we have a handful of cases in a modern u. S. Hospital. In terms of how many people died outside of africa. It was not the worst case that people feared. Im not making light of it. Im just saying it could have been way worse. Its the dumbest infection disease in the basket because its the most difficult thing. They are airborne or could be airborne that its going to mutate and be Something Else tomorrow. How worried are you that ebola was just the, you know, the best case scenario. We didnt have a good test no, good treatment, we dont have a vaccine, we dont have, we didnt know how to treat it, we didnt have to take care of the waste. Do you wake up worried about the other 13 . Just as worried as i was the day after the anthrax when we wrote the legislation, we funded i dont know how much since then. And i think at some point we have to go back and look and see what did it buy us . What level of protection did it get us . How many with the private sector . How have we leveraged federal assets to provide a solution to those threats. I dont think the reports going to be too good. But i think its important that we realize that at least the b. A. R. T. A. Piece, we dont partner with somebody until it reaches the threshold what have we need. We dont, we dont do a partnership just to have one. So when you look at Infectious Disease right now what wed like is, a platform that were able to handle more than one strain of ebola and possibly more from versus countermeasure that only handles one strain of ebola. And the question is, where is the level of research for that . And have we put enough time and efforts into that. And the 14 dangers that have been identified, were some of them back burnered, were most worried about these three for what scientific or National Security reason were not going to worry about six or seven of them . Im not sure its that stark fortunately, but look, when you look at where we are now, after this ebola challenge, when you get to these other challenges, i think because of what happened, were probably in some ways better prepared. We got a real scare in the system was shaken very badly. Or i should say very substantially. So in terms of the sequencing, if, if we were faced with another challenge that was more, that could be carried in an airborne sense and would be more contagious absent this ebola chapter would have been in worse shape. In some shape, being tested on ebola has prepared us to be entered in the response by administration and it. The Lessons Learned solely be focussed on what do we do as opposed to what do we need to do to be agile . The question from twitter is were you part of im not sure if you were here yet for sars in washington. How much conversation on lawmakers about Lessons Learned and the role of the fravmt do you recall after sars . I cant remember what year it was. Im not sure if you were in the senate yet. It was i forget the year. I think you were. I was there. Youre not remembering it. 09 was the flu. I dont remember conversations that took place, there were some with the agencys post, but it was, you know, because it went right. I think when you look at it, everybody performed well, and i think there we were pretty lucky. The other question from twitter is that one of the tools that were spending a huge amount of money on. We have the whole movement on the country that people are, you know, terrified of vaccines is that something that youre seeing as an impediment or the new diseases . I think science has debunked some of the concerns. Theres always going to be a population that doesnt want to be vaccinated, and every vaccine is going to have unintended consequences based upon the makeup of an individual thats to be expected. Ly say this as it relates to the early testing for ebola vaccine. Couldnt be more positive. But weve got a lot of hurdles to overcome over the next several months to be to a point probably mid2015 or maybe slightly sooner that you could mass produce and begin to inoculate. Are you worried, and how much on a policy level are lawmakers talking about weve had you have to save someones life with whatever, or attempt to with whatever tool you have. So, you know, theyve done blood transfusions, this drug, the zmapp, only a few doses of, the other one the doctor in nebraska got, and we dont have, because its been an emergency, lets throw something at them, see if we can save them, the science murky. We dont really know anything about which of these drugs may have worked or what happened. Are their policy issues there that have to be thought through for making sure you have clean science when you also have were probably the wrong people to ask, but i can assure you that those same questions have been asked of the individuals that will make that decision. Fda if they have thought is through, understand exactly what their policys going to be, the statement that theyre going to make. Because, every decision like that has a precedent with it. And understand where why its difficult for the United States. Every day, in this country, somebody dies of cancer because the fda has not approved an experimental treatment that theyre denied. May not have had a choice in everything else. Basically a choice between nothing and nothing. So we come from a system that, that really puts a lot of stock, and you have to get to this bar before we let you take the public and make them guinea pigs. Different when it comes to an outbreak like this. And, i dont know what the thresholds going to be, but im sure that our normal process will be cut short as long as the test results show something positive at the end. Weve had this lack of Public Awareness about whavs going on in africa, right. People just didnt Pay Attention. Then we had complete mania, you know, where the Public Perception and the cable coverage was way more scared than the actual risk in the u. S. , and now people have sort of, you know, moved on. So how do you maintain how do you get lawmakers to keep a sense of urgency when the public has moved on . Because i mean, particularly when money is not flowing freely in all directions on capitol hill . Ill leave that up to bob. No, its, its very difficult. You know how washington is, the issue at moment on tuesday afternoon on a big vote and everyones talking about one vote or one issue, sometimes by wednesday afternoon, it seems like it was weeks ago instead of just 24 hours ago. So thats a challenge just because of the culture of the town and the way things work. I do think though that the senate like any institution has folks that spend more time on particular issues. And so those folks, even when its not the issue, the day will continue to work on it. Id also say that as much as theres, you raised a couple questions, you said what are you worried about . The next outbreak or the next challenge or do we know enough about countermeasures beyond what we learned with zmapp or some other approaches. The greatest concern often is washington, kind of washington dysfunction creates a measure of uncertainty which slows down research sometimes. Where opportunities are lost because were not, were not working the way we should. So the best thing we could do in some ways is to make sure that were working Better Together because that uncertainty, you talk to, richard i know has talked to folks for years about this. Researchers need certainty, institutions need certainty. You know things are bad when the National Institutes of health has a measure of uncertainty, but damage inflicted by sequester and a few other problems. So our dysfunction is, its one thing im certain that that uncertainty creates a terrible problem for addressing all these worries that you outlined in a couple of questions. Were going turn to the audience before while they get their questions. We have a mic for those who want to ask a question, and im going to ask one while theres somebody over here with a question. And when you speak, identify yourself, the magic wand moment. I mean looking at what we looking you know intelligent classified stuff that the rest of us dont know about, among other things we should be worried about he knows more. [laughter] if you could just, you know, if you could just create one policy to fix something, would that ward about 60 votes or the sequester, one measure, if you, if you had a legislative magic wand, what would you do . From a standpoint of any threat . Or the 14 things youve identified. Or just, i mean, watching ebola and saying, you know, ok thank godded is wasnt even worse, we could learn some lessons. We can come out of this with knowledge. What would you like to see the senate do . We would, and i would make sure that the policies in the country were such that they encourage innovation because it is innovation thats going to help us to overcome those 14 threats, the next 14 that arise, its innovation thats going to give the next terrorist or the next manmade threat to us. We have to continue to be the country that innovates, and innovation means that the map works, two, you have to make sure that intellectual property is protected, and three make sure theres a market place to sell to. Senator casey . Agree with a lot of that. Were only supposed to pick one, but, constant vigilance or focus on the preparation, and that means what the World Health Organization and other International Institutions are going to do in places like liberia or sierra leone as well as a county in pennsylvania. That whole preparedness and then communication, but i think richards right, this innovation is going to drive the break throughs that will give us the tools we need. We have a question over here. Thank you, senators for coming today. What was the effect, if any, fred griffey im sorry, identify myself. Dod and cdc having different quarantine policies . Thank you again. That sort of tops my list on communication right there. Not to mention new jersey, new york, and connecticut, right . And the number of hours i spent on the phone with the administration trying to convince them that they had to fix this. And the lack of ability on their part to understand that there was a problem there. And i think anybody that had been through any type of tabletop demonstration on any threat and how the public responds would have seen that one as just probably the worst thing that could have happened. Still our policy today. Were still, were still taking the military that come out of region, have no contact with patients, quarantining them for 21 days. Anybody else doesnt get quarantined, its, it continues to be a problem, its maybe not as high today on the publics list of concerns that they have, but its one of those things that i think breaks down the trust of the American People that we have a system that really understands and can apply common sense. Anymore questions . Here. This is a free shot at bob and i, take it, fifth graders do it aggressively. Ok. Mike miller, Health Policy physician, Public Affairs communications consulting. And maybe you can clarify something for me, because my understanding of the term quarantine is that somebody is in a medical isolation type of situation whereas what the militaries doing and limiting their movements, their access, but theyre not actually in quarantine. More in isolation. It isnt applicable in the restrictions. There are really two different policies for two different situations. Nor is it the nancy sneiderman, i can go to the Grocery Store and do this as long as i feel ok. She made the plans for her walk. The whole different issue, right . And this just gets back to the need for somebody in charge. And i cant stress this point enough, and you know, it was, i think we all drilled it, drilled it, drilled it in the administration then all the sudden there was the debate about the czar. This isnt about a czar. That was about somebody in charge. This was about a person that made the pieces move and communicated what everything, what was going to happen. And i can only tell you that the faces have changed that do the weekly brief, but the process of consultation on what theyre going to do remains the same. And thats why you can have two policies that are so inconsistent on isolation and quarantine, one that the military adopts, one that the cdc adopts. And i think if theres one person whose responsibility is to communication and to administrate the whole organizational basket, you dont have those inconsistency. Does the person whos coordinating it within hhs have to be the person whos the public spokesman . Were all so used to tony after 30 years of having him explain things. Were used to tony and all the sudden tom frieden and i love them all to death, are they necessarily the ones that you want out on tv . As richard said before, you do have a, a designated person, assistant secretary for preparedness and responsibility i cant name that person, and i do this for a living. Well nor can the administration. [laughter] she had a military background too, and that, i mean, what, what the doctor pointed out is part of communicating is not just having the right terminology that everyone agrees to and defining terms, but another part of this is just standardizing how we approach these things. This cant be the 50 states cant have 50 ebola responses or 50 some states themselves. It has to be some standardization. You talked about dod versus cdc, but also, the governors, and that wasnt purely, it wasnt republicans or democrat, it was both. It was state policy, i mean, is that hhss job to say sit down and dont do that or you cant, i mean do they try and fail . Tom frieden was tried to do it. I think it was difficult in the midst of i think when there was a vacuum, people were filling it. It might have been right, might have been wrong, but they were filling it based upon folks at the local level saying hey, i cant, i think it was probably happening to the governors, probably happening to mayors or other municipal people. Whats going on . Tell me whats going on. Washington, i keep hearing Different Things from washington or the news is saying one thing, and this person on television is these never happened until the trust began to break down. Everything was fine up to that point. When the trust of the public towards the messenger or the message are both changed, then all of a sudden, governor said my public insert of outrage so i have to take over and have the policy and we will do that or do that. You would not be there if you had a consistent approach to it from the beginning. Me just say this. You can have a consistent in west air here africa that evolves based on how the disease is there. Two totally different places. Is this history of, there is complex reasons for trust of government with the v. A. Fresh in peoples minds but the gap between what a large segment of the public thought and the science, it was a very big gap. How do you get over Something Like that when if there is something that is more contagious and more frightening, something that is a bigger i logical or medical threat with that inability to temp down fears and not create chaos, how do you look at that gap and worry when we have a bigger emergency . That veryarticulate well but you know what i mean. Remember, congress is not simply about legislating, it is about communicating. You have to communicate what you work on and what the facts are. I do think the administration, any administration has to figure out a way to constantly repeat what the science is telling us. Not just in rebuttal, not just when people are doubting. There has to be a constant repetition of what the science is telling us about the facts. If you do not do that others will film fill the void with some science and sometimes stuff that does not make a lot of sense. We heard a lot of it on tv. It is time to wrap up our conversation. Thank you for taking the time to talk with us and share your insight and thank you to everyone who attended today and for watching us on the live stream and a big thank you to cbs health for partnering with us on this important event and the whole series we have done for two or three years now. Have a great day and we look forward to seeing you at the next politico event which may be in 2015 for health. [applause] covers when steve king of ireland talks about his attempts to stop the executive order on immigration. We hear from Jim Mcdermott of Washington State on negotiations to fund the federal government amid the tensions over immigration. Liveington journal is every day on 7 00 a. M. On cspan. It can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Friday, Football Player ray rice was reinstated into the of nfl after winning an appeal after a video showed him punching his wife and dragging her body out of the elevator. On Domestic Violence on at 2 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. Taking history on the road to learn about history and literary life area as we begin to receive the final to be digitized, to be saved, we began turning over the besides of the 45 we received. Gospel music was not widely heard in the white community. It would be only the hits if that area but the flipside would be even less. What we discovered was how many of the b side songs were drug the directly related to the Civil Rights Movement. We did not know the sheer number of songs that had, very over songs like the rightnow segregation in heaven type songs area data time when possessing one of those songs was a dangerous thing. Sound a sort of song out loud is a risk area the texas ranger hall of fame, it was set up in 1976 for the 175th anniversary of the rangers. Majorgers who made contributions to the service or gave their lives under heroic circumstances. We had painted portraits of all those rangers. Austin. An with stephen he was successful with his rangers. They fought not only managing to make the area reasonably safe for settlement from indian raids but when the texas war for independence broke out, the rangers later major role in texas gaining its independence the mexican army long enough to allow the colonists to build their own army and develop a strategy. As a result, texas became its aboutdependent nation for 10 years. Watch all of our events from waco saturday at noon eastern on book tv. Sunday afternoon at two on history tv on to spend two. Our life Program Begins later this morning. , on National Security issues. Dangerous to do and we need to do the same thing with this is understanding world and an even more compelling fashion than we thought a couple of years ago and that is how the Intelligence Committee response. The relationship between intelligence and strategy is an area that the Atlantic Council with oured on sustained analysis of Global Trends in our strategic foresight initiative. Where the directors met. At the council, we pride ourselves on building a network of experts dedicated to understanding what the future holds. Creatively think about solutions and creatively about strategy for the future. It is not easy work. Strategy you had containment of the soviet union containment , of communism. And the tactics were difficult. Now he complains were all tactics and not enough strategy. Of course, intelligence is a lot about informing what our strategy ought to be. One of the best experts i talked to over the years on any number of issues, but as you know, im a recovering journalist of the wall street journal, and you always try to turn to the smartest people to form your own ideas so you could steal theirs whenever you could. And i always enjoyed stealing greg trevertons ideas. From his various incarnations in government, cfr, iran. We met in europe. I think even more often than in the United States. Recent events in the middle east and Eastern Europe have changed the conversation in washington, and reinforced the importance of timely, accurate and appropriately disseminated intelligence analysis. Very often it may seem the world of intelligence is distant from the policy realm, but as any strategist knows, the strategy is only as good as the intelligence is based on, looking from the case of wmds in iraq, the hunt for osama bin laden. You can list a lot of positive cases as well. The next landmark global trend 2030 report forecasts that we are living in a world of rising state actors and revisionist powers. I think were all seeing that accelerating faster than we thought it would. In fact, i think thats one of the most interesting findings of the Global Trends reports is theyve underestimated the pace of change. So, with that as prelude, we have the pleasure of welcoming a thought leader tackling these issues, dr. Gregory f. Treverton. Greg treverton, the newly appointed chairman of the council. He served as director of rand center for global risk and security as well as a professor of the Rand Graduate School where he serves as associate dean for research. Prior to joining rand, he was vice chairman of the nic, where he oversaw the international problems, National Intelligence estimates. What years were you vice chairman . It was 9396. So i think i may start there. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called you to do this job for your combination of world class analytical skills, brought substantive expertise, and a deep understanding of the nics unique role. Ill ask you a few additional questions, initial questions, and then well get into the q a. And so clearly he called you the right man at the right time. And i think thats absolutely right. So thank you for joining us. Thank you. We have a hash tag for this event. Thats probably something new in terms of your nic appearances. So we encourage you to tweet away using the hash tag, i apologize in advance for this hash tag, acdisrupt. With that, greg, lets get started. Why dont we start with your time when you were vice chair. And youre back now, and there i think you were vice chair with joe nine who was the chair. Right. So coming back into a building, coming back into this nic capacity, how is it different . Both in terms of how the place operates, and then also substantively . Great. Its a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the nic and Intelligence Community and Intelligence Task in general. The biggest change coming back, you can see im slow to rise. It took me 15 years to go from vice chairman to chairman. But its great being back. Interestingly enough, i still have the same phone number i had all those years ago. So some things change more slowly. The big change really is the operating environment. When i was at the nic before, we basically only did more strategic work, not just National Intelligence efforts, but more strategic in the sense of putting the pieces together, putting issues in context. And often taking a little longer look at particular issues. We didnt have much role at all in current intelligence. Thats a dramatic change. Now, the nic is responsible for doing the intelligence preparation of the principles committees and deputies committees. When did that all begin to shift . It all really began with clapper, i think. When jim came in. And working out the arrangements between the cia and the dni, director of National Intelligence. The cia does most of the work on the president s daily brief, but now the dni delivers it. We turn to all the agencies for help but were the people who do the quality control, put them together, interagency, when an Intelligence Community wide view of a particular issue is wanted. Thats the big change. It makes us on the good side makes us relevant. That means were in the thick of things. And it means critically we know whats going on. Which is always a great problem in intelligence, knowing what policy makers have some idea of what they would like to accomplish over the next few years, but have no idea what theyre going to do next tuesday. So trying to keep up with policy in those circumstances is a real challenge. The cost is that it is a hugely consuming effort. And so for the busy accounts like the middle east, like russia, my National Intelligence officers feel like they spend most of their time either preparing for meetings, going to meetings, or writing short response memos after those meetings. Last year we did like in the range of 15 National Intelligence estimates. We did about 900 pieces of paper. More than half of those 900 were memos, specific memos to susan rice, or tony lincoln, about particular issues that came out of the d. C. s, or more rarely the pcs and dcs meet more often. Thats really the big change. The thing that hasnt changed other than my phone number is the people that are still a terrific collection of the National Officers and their deputies. Its a world class set of people. I feel like i get to go every day to a world class intellectual salad bar. And it really is a treat. Well, before we get to the substantive issues of it, where do you think you want to adjust that needle between realtime and longterm . That is the big challenge i face. I think thats the issue number one on my agenda is trying to think about, and to the extent necessary, recalibrate that balance. It means finding ways to let people have time, energy to do somewhat longer or somewhat broader thinking. I had a really good deputy of National Intelligence officer in russia who said, i like getting to do this straty piece, longer term strategy piece. He said unfortunately i only had six hours to do it. So deep thought in six hours is probably not a great idea. So finding ways to let that more strategic, not always longer term, but putting things in context, finding ways to do that is really the big challenge. Now, happily not many of the questions that come out of the dcs are pretty straightforward. But many of them are quite interesting. Well get a whatif. What if we do this, how will these dcs, deputy committees. The main policy committee in the u. S. Government in the policy making side. As a practical matter, its the dcs that do most of the work, and sort of tee up decisions for the principals. Sometimes theyll ask us interesting questions, just the sort that id like to engage in with policy. If we do this, how will putin respond. Whats your assessment of how putin will respond. Those are ideal as a first task that i need to begin to develop a better count. Because its not the case that all those memos are only information and only the nies are more strategic. Theres a middle ground, trying to figure out exactly how our work breaks down. Thats the first task. Before going present tense into the future on substance, since youve raised russia, lets go back a little bit to when you were there before. Everyone argues, should we have known where things were going, could we have altered things, what is our role in the outcome were experiencing today. With my knowledge, and your knowledge in these areas, what is your take on when you were last at the nic, in terms of how we were looking at that . One reason im asking this is this interesting mixture of longterm trends and shortterm action. If youre trying to look at russia out ten, even five, certainly 20 years, its hard. But five, ten years, you may make smarter decisions about today. So take us back a little bit right now, and then how do you play that out right now . What sort of intellectual process did we go through then, and what sort of intellectual process ought we be going through right now . One thing that strikes me is this seems to me an interesting Inflection Point in global politics. Maybe the third in the last generation or so. One was obviously the fall of the soviet union, and communism. The second was 9 11. And 9 11 was easier because it seemed to come with instructions attached. So heres what you do. You go after these bad people. So this feels to me a lot more like the fall of the soviet union, the end of communism, where one geopolitical framework for thinking about the world is gone, but it hasnt quite yet replaced with another. It seems to me the first time when the soviet union fell, we very quickly said, thats over. And while i think that as a policy person at the time, i thought that the expanding of nato and all those things was a good thing to do. But we probably were in retrospect pretty dismissive. And part of putins attitude plainly is, it feels like he and russia were dissed by the west for a couple decades. And that obviously does have some effect. It doesnt explain him. But i think it happened because we sort of quickly went to, well, now thats over. The cold wars over. And now russias no longer a threat, no longer a major power, and we sort of jumped quickly to a different attitude toward russia that is in some sense part of the sweep of what were confronting now. Its interesting to think about. Sometimes we think that change takes a long time. If you look backward, the distance between the evil empire, and the fall of the soviet union, which is slightly over a decade, so it does mean that things can go very quickly from time to time. My staff here, im so glad you raised the point of Inflection Point. Were kind of living by that argument right now at the Atlantic Council in a way, drawing it out of the Global Trends 2030 report, where the Inflection Points listed there were 1919, 1945, 1989. And the argument being that at these points in history, decisions of leaders had outsized importance, because you were at a plastic moment in history where things could be molded and shaped, et cetera. You used different Inflection Points here. And this gets to my point of how is your job different than it was then. How big is this Inflection Point . Is it of this historical dimension, end of world war i, end of world war ii and the cold war . I think obviously, i dont know whether its as big as those other ones. It seems a very significant one in the sense that we are sort of scrambling around for a view, a lens with which to apprehend this world, to mix a metaphor, and that i think means a real challenge for intelligence, trying to help people build that lens, or that story. Ive come to think that intelligence is about helping people create and adjust stories in their head, and we know when the story gets too firm, we call that mindset and often results in what gets called in intelligence failure. But if theres not a story, then new information just kind of bounces around. Its a factoid. Its hard in policy to have a conversation. So one of the true churchill lines he was supposed to have said after a particularly undistinguished meal, asked what he thought of it, he said the pudding, thats dessert for the english, lacked a theme. Well, i think our world lacks a theme. So trying to provide a story or a lens, that seems to be a job a formidable job for us to do working with policy people. As i said, whether this ranks with 1989 or 1992 in importance, dont know. But it does seem like were again in a pretty shapeless world, where its easy to get dominated by tactics. How about regionally, as youre coming in, and how the world is different than it was then. What were your regional priorities you know, in this world of challenges, the middle east, ukraine, you know, the far east, south china sea, ebola, Global Financial stability, what are your how do you set your priorities in the job youre doing right now . And where would you set them both in regional sense and in a subject sense . We set our priorities by whats in front of us. The big crises that are going on that need to be handled, the challenge with those is trying to help people step a little bit up and say, here are the tactics, what are we trying to get out of this . Whats a realistic end game, offer at least end point to this particular set of crises . Not very easy. Hard to do. So those well define. I think for the remainder of the administration, of course, the middle east and russia are going to be dominant themes. I think we need to keep trying to raise peoples sights a little bit to beyond the immediate tactical to, what are we trying to do here, whats our ultimate point here given realistic possibilities. I dont get to have too many priorities in my current job, though as i said, somebody the other day, i spent my whole career avoiding the middle east. Thats over. As the kids would say, thats so over. Right . So ive learned a lot. Acdisrupt. Otherwise, on my personal list, i think china and east asia has to be at the top of the list of so much going on there, so much chance of multiple issues at play, connecting in ways, people making miscalculations. We know there are going to be bumps ahead in the road for china. We dont know how bad theyre going to be, but there are going to be some bumps. And there may be good ones as well. I think that whole combination of issues there, in a region that doesnt have Strong Security agreements, mostly bilateral with us and allies, so thats going to be at the top of my list. My own personal list is certainly cyber. From where i sit, we still havent calibrated the threat. Its very hard to calibrate the threat. Its very dynamic. Were divided in ways that make it hard to have a complete view. We have, you know, the military part of the government, the private sector that has all the infrastructure and does all the stuff. We have the government. And we have offense and defense. And working across all those divides, i think its no surprise that we havent really calibrated the threat. So thats high on my list. And then and globally offense is stronger than defense at the moment. I think we dont know. Its part of calibrating the threat. And then i as you said earlier, fred, i was really happy when the cold war ended, because it had become boring. It had become a sort of a managerial problem. And we knew that if we kept our Alliance Together and kept ourselves strong, we would win in the end. We didnt expect to win in 1992, or in our lifetimes, but we did end. So in that sense it was kind of boring, because it meant all these great ideas, you had to sort of swat down because they were bad for the alliance. It was really kind of a management problem. I wasnt really interested in europe for a long time, but now i am. Europe two seems to be going through a difficult set of passages. Its on my list as well. In what sense . Europe unfinished experiment . Europe as an europe was first, europe was a partner. We know for all the countries around, europe was still our main partner. But its capacity is diminishing, particularly in the military sphere. Then theres europe as an ongoing venture. In the short run, theres the euro crisis, which is not over, by all means. And then theres the longer term question that seems to be about the european construction. In a funny way, europe has succeeded well enough so that cat loan yeah and scotland dont need countries, they can just have europe. Then theres the looming question of europes neighborhood, both northern, of which were very aware now, but slow to come to grips with i think in europe, and also its southern border as well. Again, i put it on the list. Because so much is in motion there, in flux, both inside europe and with respect to it and its neighbors. Let me stay there for one question, given were the Atlantic Council and we talk a lot about this here. Clear to us the role of the transatlantic relationship during the cold war and centrality. How do you apply it to todays world and uncertain world that were facing in terms of importance, neutrality, relevance . I think its changed. We always used to say in the cold war, if we dont hang together, well hang separately, that wasnt quite right, but it was evocative. But we did manage, i think an impressive degree of both continuity toward the alliance over a lot of different administrations and of unity inside the alliance. Thats changed significantly it seems to me with the end of the cold war. But as i said earlier, europe is still our main set of partners, our main set of companies in the world. So we continue to have a stake in them. I just made my first trip as chairman a couple weeks ago, i was in europe for a week, and i kept bumping into people saying, raising questions about values. Same set ofhe shared values across the atlantic that we used to. Bothhere are divisions on side. So the europeans would talk about the disconnect between peoples and their governing arrangements, just as in this be the case country. Of values and partly generation al. The cold warught grew up assuming that wed be allies. Of age since the early 90s dont have that same experience. Are interesting currents. I found on this trip for the first time