Transcripts For CSPAN2 Today In Washington 20110113

people of haiti? release of state of homelessness in america. i am nan roman president of the national alliance to end homelessness. state of homelessness is a plan to be an annual report that will examine two things. whether homelessness has gone up or down since the last year's report. and what the economic and demographic causes of homelessness look like over that same period. we'll answer these questions both nationally and for each state. typically when we think about homelessness we focus on homelessness programs and homelessness assistance as being responsible for whether the number of homeless people goes up or down. homelessness assistance is definitely part of the equation but the other part is larger outside drivers like unemployment and housing costs. and this report really focuses on those economic factors. state of homelessness shows that homelessness which had been declining over the past few years went up between 2008 and 2009. and that this increase was associated with the economic recession. the total number of homeless people was 656,129 and that was up 3%. also populations of homeless people went up. however, families went up most, about 4%. the number of chronically homeless people went up less than 1%. just a note about the data that we used for the homeless numbers, we used data from counts that communities submit to hud. the data are not perfect but we examine them carefully and they are adjusted where we find problems with them. although not without limitations, we think that the data do present a valid picture of what's going on in terms of homelessness in america. the homelessness went up -- this is probably not a surprise to anyone given the recession. we looked at several economic factors that are associated with homelessness to see what happened to them during the period. unemployment, unemployment, of course, is up some 60% more people were unemployed during the period we looked at. incomes, low wage worker incomes were down about 2%. that's twice as much as the rate of workers incomes fell overall in the country. housing, the number of people who were low income and doubled up went up 12% over the period we looked at. people who become homeless were often doubled up before they became homeless. so this has obviously appearance big effect. the number of severely housing cost burdened households which are low-incomed households that are paying more than 50% of their income -- more than half of their income for their rent went up 9% so these housing factors also have an impact on the number of homeless people. so the national picture is that the economy did poorly especially for low-incomed people and as a result, homelessness went up. while the national picture is clear, the picture in the states varies. in some places the number of homelessness went up and some went down. in 19 of the states homelessness went down and in the majority of the states, 27, homelessness went down among chronically homeless people. similarly the economic causes of homelessness did not behave consistently. in some states the factors got worse and other places they got better. or the picture was mixed that was more typical. we did find that states had the most signs of economic distress were the states that had the biggest increases in homelessness. so if you hear locally or talk to local communities that say that their numbers went up substantially more than 3%, that wouldn't be a surprise. also, it says we said it's true that in some communities, the numbers actually went down during this period. but homelessness did get worse nationally because of the recession. and it's important to remember that these data are comparing '09 with 2008. this was early on really before some of the interventions that later emerged to help prevent recession related homelessness kicked into gear. it's also important to remember that homelessness is a lagging indicator. people don't become homeless on the day they lose their job. it typically takes a while for that happen so the pressure is not yet off. we anticipate that there could be continued increases in 2010 and 2011. on the other hand, the good news really is that the number could have been a lot worse. what's been happening in communities to forestall a recession-related increase in homelessness what have people been doing? in a lot of places, the number of homeless people went down during this period so communities are to be congratulated for improving their homeless systems, for redouble their efforts for investing wisely in solutions. those things can obviously work and did work. an example of this was the big increase in permanent support of housing during the period. the result of which was that the chronic homeless numbers did not go up at all, barely at all. since this report, communities and the federal government have continued to take steps to try to prevent homelessness increases. communities are focus in prevention and getting people into housing faster and the federal government has stepped up with a $1.5 billion federal stimulus program and rapid rise program. it also passed the heather act authored by senator reed who's going to join us that funds action oriented activities and these are upcoming but these resources are not adequate to meet all of the projected needs nor will they probably last long enough. so we'll be discussing a little later what can be done to prevent further increases in homelessness. i now would like to introduce bill sermons. bill is the author along with pete witty who's also here of the report and he is the director of the homelessness research institute which is the research arm of the national alliance to end homelessness and he's going to tell you a little bit more about what's in the repor report. >> thanks, nan. and thanks everybody in attendance today. you should have all found copies of the report in your seats. the binder -- or the folder that you have has a copy of the full report. and what you'll find inside is a report that consists of three main chapters. the first chapter looks at 2009 levels and 2008 to 2009 changes in overall homelessness and for individuals for the nation and each state. recognizing the impact of housing affordibility and income on homelessness, the second chapter looks at 2009 levels and changes from '08 to '09 in four economic factors and factors, the number of unpeople the number of households below of the poverty line that pay half their income on households, average real incomes of working poor people and the number of residential units in foreclosure. these measures are reported nationally and also for each state. further recognizing another truth about homelessness that some specific groups of people are at increased risk of experiencing homelessness, chapter 3 looks at the 2009 levels and '08 to '09 changes in the sizes of four specific groups. these are low-incomed people who are doubled up, that is living with family and friends for economic reasons. young adults who have aged out of foster care, people discharged from jail or prison and people without health insurance. these indicators are all reported against nationally and at the state level. as i move into presenting some additional findings from the report i'd like to acknowledge the very hard work of pete witty, my co-author and has katherine and shaun. it's an honor to be able to present our team's work today. nan provided an overview of the major findings in the report particularly at the national level. and i won't repeat those here but i'd like to highlight some additional findings including some insights into some of the state level data. nan mentioned in her introduction that while the nations saw an increase in overall homelessness, the individual states point decreases. and this is the wide variability across states and also in individual communities. by contrast, one thing that stood out when we were looking at the economic data was the relative consistent worsening of the economic circumstances across states. between 2009 -- 2008 and 2009, the number of unemployed people increased in all states. the number of doubled-up low-incomed people increased in 45 states. the number of units in foreclosure increased in 42 states. and the number of severely housing cost burdened households increased in 40 states. the ubiquity of the increases across states points to the widespread economic pressures faced by families experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. and to the demands on the systems that serve them. the first three chapters focus on homelessness and the economic and demographic factors that i talked about separately. chapter 4 looks at the economic and demographic factors in their relationship to the measures of homelessness that are in the report. a review reveals a handful of states, states like florida and nevada and california have rates of unemployment, cost burden, doubling up, lack of insurance, all worse than the national averages. and so not surprisingly, all of these states also have high rates of homelessness and they also have changes from 2008 to 2009 well above the 3% national increase. the report goes on to identify additional states with multiple high or worsening economic and demographic factors as well. lastly, the report combines 12-month shelter use data from hud with data on doubled-up people, young adults who age out of foster care and people discharged from prison and estimates that all three of those populations have annual odds of experiencing homelessness of 1 in 11 or greater. these relatively high odds speak clearly to the need to address these and other high risk groups and efforts to end homelessness. an appendix in the back of the record provides specifics about the data used in this report which relies most heavily on the 2008, 2009 january point in time counts conducted by over 450 communities across the country and reported to hud. and on the census bureau 2008 and 2009 american community survey microdata. sources also include foreclosure data from realty track, unemployment data from the bureau of labor statistics and data on prison releases and foster care emancipations from the departments of justice and health and human services respectively. sources using the report represent the most recent available national data. newer national data on homelessness and most of the indicators will be available toward the end of this year. i want to close with a little bit of background. two years ago, we released a report called homelessness counts, changes in homelessness from 2005 to 2007. the second in the homelessness count series. at that time, we were in the midst of a major economic downturn that was ultimately declared the recession of 2007 to 2009. because of the economic services at that time, the question that most people wanted answered was, what will this recession mean for homelessness? and while we knew anecdotally that many homeless service providers across the country were reporting increased demands for services and unemployment would lead to increased poverty and lead to increased homelessness there was no archive of national annual homeless data from past economic crises that we could consult to validate this expectation. fortunately, given the fact that annual national counts have been conducted since 2005, these data are available for 2007 to 2009 and the state of homelessness in america provides the first of its kind 5x5 look at changes in homelessness and the relevant economic and demographic factors. as nan mentioned, this is the first in the state of homelessness series which we expect to release annually. because of the relatively slow pace of economic recovery through 2010, it is expected that the next issue in the series will again focus largely on the economy's impact. it will also be where the first -- the first where the initial impacts of efforts like the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program will begin to be evident. thank you for your attention and i'll turn it back over to nan. thanks. >> thank you, bill. we'll be taking questions at the end about the report. but in the meantime, homelessness really can seem, when you read a report like this or hear comments about it, to be rather an abstract concept but for people who experience it obviously it's all too real. and i want to introduce you now to ebony roscoe, ebony and her children were homeless. they were living in the community of hope which is a wonderful organization here in dc that helps homeless families and thanks to the resources of the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program that bill and i both mentioned earlier, ebony and her family were able to move into an apartment and now she has a job with the mental health services organization. so ebony is going to give us a little bit of a perspective of the reality of homelessness and what it means in human terms to see these kinds of numbers increase. ebony? >> hello. my name is ebony roscoe. several years ago i moved to washington, d.c., from charlotte, north carolina, with my four children. we had need an unhealthy marriage that i was involved. i moved in with my brother who is staying here in washington, d.c. and without a job and stayed there for approximately four months. i stayed unemployed for 20 months. during the of unemployment and even while employed now, i make ends meet with assistance that i receive. benefits from social service have decreased tremendously but we still try to make things do with the current situation that we're in. homelessness and unemployment took a toll on me and my family. but we were able to receive the things that -- i'm sorry, my children weren't able to receive the things that they wanted as being children such as like bikes and small toys that they wanted during the time. we had to relocate so staying -- staying and feeling stable within a school was difficult. it was hard enough moving from place to place and not knowing where we were actually going to be staying. so making and keeping stable friends made them feel sad at times. plus, they didn't have a place to call home. we were finally housed by community of hope, a local housing program here in washington, d.c., with resources from the hprp program, my family and i were able to find permanent housing. finding housing is like a brick being lifted off of my soldiers shoulders and being placed back on the ground. my family and i are able to move and be more involved in our school and in the community. without being restricted to any time frame. also, it gives my children security, and they are happier. you can tell when they want to have a sleepover or have some of their friends over i'm able to say yes and make the decision without turning to someone else for approval. i'm able to build my independence again and make wiser choices when it comes to living with the necessities and wants. it makes a significant difference for secure, confidence stability but for children it gives them a piece of a childhood that they can say is like everyone else's in their eyes. it's difficult to see parents who have problems and not know if the children blame themselves or if they will later in life blame themselves. you never know what children are going through in the midst. i'm sorry. but to see the change so drastic and for them to see a positive direction. if you keep aiming high and to change things in a bad situation, that they can go through anything and overcome and see themselves come on top. moving forward, i'm aiming to increase my income to better support me and my family and eventually purchase a vehicle so that i can expand my children's eyes in the world. i would like to get back to my community because when i needed it, they gave it to me. [applause] >> thank you so much, ebony. i know it's not always so easy to tell your personal stories in front of people so i appreciate -- we really appreciate you doing that. the state of homelessness shows us not surprisingly that homelessness is linked to economic factors like unemployment and low wages and that as a result of the recession, homelessness is up. it also raises concerns that since homelessness is a lagging indicator, it may continue to rise over the next few years. what can congress and the administration do to avoid increased homelessness. while obviously as the report shows, there are two dimensions to this. one is the bigger picture that reduced unemployment, decent wages, in short and improved economy will lift all boats. and especially if housing costs stay a little bit lower. so as the economy improves, we expect that to have a positive impact, obviously, on the number of homeless people. we need congress and the administration to target their economic interventions, though, to the very lowest-incomed people because it's the very lowest-incomed people who have been hit the hardest by the recession. and although resources are scarce, experience tell us that letting people become homeless because of budget cuts is a false savings. increased medical, education, housing and law enforcement costs eat up anything that might appear to be saved. now is not the time to abandon the most vulnerable people. scarce resources should be targeted to those people who need them most. since we will face a period of time before the economy recovers obviously and even longer before those benefits reach the poorest people, we will need to rely on the homelessness assistance system in the short run to help people, obviously. the homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing program and other emergency resources are helping now. but they need to be replaced when they run out and they need to be strengthened. and communities across the country have shifted their homelessness approach from band-aid approaches to housing solutions to prevention to rehousing and to planning to end homelessness. these communities have developed plans to end homelessness. we need congress and the administration, good timing, to -- [laughter] >> which also the administration by the way also has a really excellent plan to end homelessness, opening doors which focuses on ending homelessness over the next 10 years. we need congress and the administration to continue to support these local and national plans to end homelessness and to fund them to succeed. and one of the real leaders in congress really our leader on homelessness is senator jack reed from rhode island. we know he does not need any introduction to any of the people in the room but let me just say we will rely and continue to rely on senator reed to advance the issues relating to homelessness and homeless veterans. he authored and led the heather bill which is really going to change the help communities change their homelessness assistance to be much more solution and outcome oriented and really refiguring the approach to homelessness at the local level, his experience at west point and as an army ranger has -- has only strengthened his commitment to homeless veterans and he has been a leader in that issue as well. so we look forward to continuing to work with him to solve the issues of homelessness in the country and we're delighted to have him with us today. thank you so much, senator reed? [applause] >> thank you very much, nan, for those very kind words. and i also want to recognize nan for her extraordinary work in leading this national alliance but bill sermons who's a researcher, bill, thank you for your great efforts and ebony roscoe, ebony is a consumer advocate a community of hope graduate and thank you so much. i also have to recognize on my staff james and tara who actually do the work. i get to give speeches. they actually do the work extraordinarily gifted and committed individuals. i've been engaged for many years in trying to address appropriately the issue of homelessness. as a young lawyer in rhode island, i was asked to go to be a pro bono lawyer for a a soup kitchen and homeless shelter in south providence and i began to understand homelessness in this country. today's report state of homelessness in america, it's gotten much worse despite the efforts and despite the extraordinary contributions of individuals across this country. the partnerships that have evolved. one, it's a reflection of the most difficult economic circumstances we've seen since the great depression. that has taken a huge toll and not surprisingly in terms of the homeless population as well as other americans. and this is not just about a topic, a policy issue. it's about people. our neighbors. our fellow americans who are facing some very, very severe challenges. one of the ironies back home in my state of rhode island is that the average rent, monthly rent, has increased 45% at a time when the housing market is collapsing. the residential housing market is collapsing. that is a bit of irony for people who are struggling to make ends meet struggling frankly in too many cases middle incomed families who have to give up their home and now have to look at soaring rents in the rental markets. that is a very bitter situation and all too prevalent in our communities, not just rhode island but in rhode island particularly we've seen the unemployment rate go from 6% to as high as 12.7% in 2008. it's come down to 11% plus now. still unacceptable. and the homeless population, no surprise, has increased dramatically. about 34% from 2008 to 2009 in rhode island. and what else is happening and what is identified in this report is the doubling up phenomenon, people moving in with other families. technically not homeless but as the report points out, if you're double up, there's a 1 in 10 chance that you'll be homeless very shortly. and the providence journal in one of their reports, my leading newspaper, more than half of rhode islanders sleeping on cots and mattresses in 2010 remember homeless for the first time. this is not the situation, the chronic individuals with several different issues, housing, health care issues, et cetera. these are people who have always had a home until very recently. so this issue of homelessness which has always been at the forefront of your efforts is now taking on an even more important dimension in our country and our neighborhood. the federal government, state government, local governments cannot tackle this issue alone. we need this kind of partnership that you're on the forefront but we all understand the fiscal pressures that are building in every level of government. that means we have to be more innovative, bring more ingenuity to these efforts, more partnership, more collaboration, more of those things that will put people in homes with less resources to do it. now, i'm here to work as i've tried to in the past to help you in your efforts. we must build on a passage of the hearth in 2009. it's not sufficient to make a legislative statement and not put the resources behind it to actually help people and we've got to do that. that's going to be a challenge. it's going to require your grassroots efforts across the country to help my colleagues battle from difficult choices of priorities about where we put resources. and this is going to require a national effort in the rural communities, in the urban communities. one of the things about the hearth act there's significant improvements in how we deal with rural homelessness and this was a central city issue not an issue affecting the great plains and the small towns of america. it's there. unfortunately. and this hearth act has some better approaches so i hope we can engage all of my colleagues in this effort. we're beginning an effort today but actually continuing an effort. i can recall again thinking back to the late '80s and when i came down here for a march against homelessness in the 1980s in washington, all across the country, that spirit is still alive. even in this very difficult environment. and the reason it's alive, frankly, because you, ladies and gentlemen, but you have not forgotten we are literally our brothers and sisters keepers and that's an important thing to remember. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, you can see why we're so grateful to have senator reed on our side working on this issue. thank you so much, senator reed. and now bill and i would be glad to entertain any questions you may have about state of homelessness in america. yes. >> i wanted to ask you about -- about homelessness in the district. and i wonder if you had a chance to look at the data and credit that to whether that was a policy or what were your explanation for that? >> well, i think here in the district, speaking from my own experiences as a resident of the district, that really was as a result of a policy to house chronically homeless people so there was a real effort on the part of the district government to identify chronically homeless people and get them into permanent supportive housing. there was also a big effort to house homeless veterans in the district. identify them and house them using hud -- the hud federal program. and also families who were also housed so there was a policy change in the district focusing on housing. >> do you have any numbers on how many houses like yours in the country now? >> it's a good question. we do have information in the report about the number -- total number of beds broken out by -- into three categories. sort of permanent supportive housing beds. also looking at transitional housing beds and emergency shelter beds and so i think the 2009 numbers on shelter beds were about 180,000 in terms of transitional housing beds, about 185,000 and in terms of permanent supportive housing beds around 215,000. >> there was an increase also, i believe -- there was an increase in permanent supportive housing beds of 11,000 between '08 and '09. >> given the variation that you found among states, did you look at what was working in a systemic way in the states where there was a decrease? i mean, you focus on the risk factors in the states where there was an increase but did you see in terms of states that spent more and allocated more of their budgets to this or what did you see that's consistent in those states whether there was a decrease? >> rights. and, you know, one of the things that's true is that these efforts tend to happen at very local levels. you know, one of the series that we have, of our publication series we have community snapshot series where we look at individual communities and our last three series which focused on wichita, quincy and alameda county all showed that from '08 to '09 there were individual communities that had decreases in specific populations and in overall homelessness in the context of the same economic factors that we're looking at. in this report we don't really look at sort of identifying one single factor that seemed to drive things. although we did find -- and i didn't mention it in my findings, a particular association between high rates of severe housing cost burden for poor households and high rates of homelessness and so those two seem to go together. >> any questions or comments? yes. >> you talked about the inadequacy of the resources that are available for homelessness programs. you probably also are aware for many cities across the country are in severe financial distress and there are estimates -- some people are estimating 50 to 100 municipalities are going bankrupt. do you have any sense what kind of impact -- if this continues -- if the cities continue to collapse this way, what kind of impact that will have? >> well, we're obviously very concerned about the current situation and the numbers going up because of the pressures you mentioned because, you know, the things that are talked about in the report in terms of income unemployment continue but also as you say, really the state and local budget cuts had not hit when this report came -- when the data from this report was accessed so we're very concerned about the numbers going up because of all of those factors. and the communities are going to have to do much, much more with much, much less because of the lack of state and local resources. i think with respect to state and local government resources it's also not only a matter of funding the homeless assistance programs for people after they become homeless but also whether those cuts are going to cause more homelessness because of inadequate mental health services, substance abuse treatment and supports for families. so we're worried about it. you know, the counter-veiling pressure this report does not impact the homelessness rapid recovery housing funding which we hope will push back some of those potential increases. and really the change strategies that communities are taking. but we are very, very concerned about increasing numbers. >> what do you think of states like south carolina where the risk factors are going to up but then homelessness is going down? >> i think as i sort of alluded to before, i think and maybe nan will answer that with ebony sort of communicating her story, you know, every individual, you know, that experiences homelessness has a very sort of unique circumstance. and i think that shows up when you look at the fact -- when you look in states, you know, the same factors that may be caused homelessness to increase in one state may not have the exact same impact. nan mentioned the fact that homelessness is also a lagging indicator so as we move forward with future reports we'll be able to take a little better look at that. one of the things that can't be overlooked and shouldn't be overlooked is that in the face of a lot of these overwhelming economic challenges, communities have adapted. they have innovated and introduced strategies to try to deal with homelessness to prevent it. and so i think we can't overlook, you know, the commendable work that's been done all across the country. >> any questions? >> over the years you guys have been great about identifying the different populations, especially chronic homelessness or, you know, youth aging out of foster case is there a new face of homelessness under the whole foreclosure crisis that we should be proactive about are making new alliances, you know, because there's like a world out there preventing foreclosures and something that we should be doing nationally or as we were talking about it? >> i'll let bill speak to the foreclosure connection because he has worked on that but i will just mention something we didn't mention earlier, which is the report identifies that only a very small group of homeless youth were counted by communities, was it 12,000; is that right? >> yes >> there are 12 more than 12,000 homeless youth in the country. and one thing that we feel that we're very concerned about is that we don't have a handle on the problem of homelessness among youth. we don't have a handle on the numbers. we don't have a good assessment of the solutions. and we called a lot of -- we called the communities that had reported no homeless youth which a lot of -- was it 30% of the continuum of no youth at all. i don't know about the new face of the homelessness but that is a population that i think we join with the federal government and the u.s. interagency council on homelessness and hha and hud trying to get a better handle of that problem and the solutions. >> and certainly as it relates to foreclosure, yeah, i see some people that help -- there was a joint multiorganization effort on the foreclosure to homelessness report. and one of the findings in the report was that while, you know, the majority of people being served by, you know, homeless assistance organizations are not there due to foreclosure. they're still are -- i think the report estimated 5 to 10%, you know, of serving organizations reported some of their -- the people that they were serving were experiencing foreclosures so i think that there's -- there's a mix. there's a lot of people who were experiencing the same kinds of factors that would have led them into homelessness before the foreclosure crisis and a lot of additional people who are having additional stresses whether it would be foreclosure or unemployment that they just wouldn't have imagined a few years before. >> a follow-up to that we're still a nation at war. so what's the status of homeless veterans and specifically in increased homelessness or decreased or awareness of communities of that population. >> we don't report on homeless veteran numbers this time around at least in part because in the past, the va had a system of counting or estimating the size of the homeless veteran population. they've recently teamed up with hud to come up with a new methodology and they're releasing that as an addendum to hud's report and so as that becomes a regularly sort of issued item and as the methodologies of that become clear, we'll be able to report on -- be able to report on that. >> i just would mention there is a national goal that the department of veterans affairs set the goals to ending veteran homelessness in five years. that's big priority for us as well. the number has been going down, which is a really good thing. and there's no reason we should have any homeless people, there's no reason we should have any homeless veterans. this is a solvable problem. and i think it's very -- there's a lot of political will behind it, and i'm pretty sure we'll be able to make good progress, we as a nation will be able to good progress on that moving ahead. other questions? very good. well, thank you all so much for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome back. again, my name is tony with the washington center for internships and academic seminars here in washington, d.c., an educational nonprofit organization that for 35 years has been providing internship opportunities for students from around the country and internationally here in our nation's capital. and abroad. we're happy to have our students here with the inside washington 2011 academic seminar this week focusing on politics in the media and here to introduce our next speaker, faculty director, professor of telecommunications at ball state university, professor steve bell. [ applause ] >> it's a special privilege to introduce our next speaker because he was a friendly competitor when i was here in washington for abc news, marvin kalb was the diplomatic correspondent for cbs news and the abc correspondent for the state department was ted koppel and i want to tell you that that was a great team covering the state department from the american networks. dick lariani was nbc and the three of them did remarkable things. and marvin no longer a friendly competitor but a friend and has agreed to come and really share with us this continuing conversation about how media and politics intersects with foreign policy and all the policies that end up being part of the government. marvin is a james clark welling presidential fellow at george washington university and he is the edward r. mur row professor emeritus at harvard's kennedy school of government. he is also a contributing news analyst for national public radio and fox news channel. in addition, he's frequently called upon to comment on major issues of the day as one of the chief contributors to the dialogue of how we go forth as a country. marvin is distinguished the broadcast career by working for both cbs and nbc news. as i said, he was a diplomatic correspondent. he was also the moscow bureau chief for cbs before that and moderated "meet the press" in the nbc years. he has won the 2006 fourth estate award from the national press club. he's also won more than half a dozen overseas press club awards. lectured at many universities throughout the country and abroad. a graduate of city college of new york. and then from harvard and he's a continuing scholar who is currently just wrapping up writing a book on the american experience in vietnam. marvin kalb. [ applause ] >> thank you all very much. it's a pleasure for me to be back. i was here last year, not in this building. somewhere else. and it was a good experience for me and when steve called and invited me back i said, yes, immediately. my pleasure. what i know about you is that there are about 130 of you here and you're here for a week or two and i think you're extremely lucky. and i wish that when i were in college i had the opportunity to sit in on a group like this and meet people like p.j. crowley who, in fact, are terribly important in the fashioning of american foreign policy. he's one of secretary clinton's closest advisers. what i would like to do is divide this hour in two. i'd like very much to hear your questions and i would like to have the opportunity of talking about a few issues that i consider very important within the framework of what steve bell has outlined, which is the media, how it's evolved into its current shape, and power and importance. and then the impact that it has upon public policy. let me start by just asking you a couple of hands up kind of questions. how many of you read, not just the sports page, but read a daily newspaper every day? just raise your hand if you do. i'm guessing but it's less than half. how many of you watch a television news program every day? more than half. how many of you watch one of the sunday morning interview programs? again, less than half. that's kind of interesting. but how many of you at the same time on any given morning will open up your computer and look at the yahoo! news or google news in order to get the headlines on what's going on in the world? almost everybody. which is absolutely an honest reflection of what is happened. we have moved from a society that for the most part lived by the daily newspaper and radio into a society where we are absorbed with cable news, occasionally hard news on cbs, nbc, abc and the internet. we are also absorbed with radio, surprisingly to a very high degree. there are generally speaking talk radio hosts who have enormous political power. the number one being rush limbaugh who can attract 15 million people, 18 million people a week. that's a lot. and he's being paid an enormous amount of money to attract that kind of an audience. there is not a comparable -- excuse me -- a liberal representative of the world on radio. not a comparable one. there are people who try. cable television is where you have the most fiercely articulated political points of view. the question at the end of the day is, if cable television news, fox, msnbc, cnn struggling in the middle, if they exercised that kind of influence and clout, what is there on the other side? what is called the mainstream media side. to sort of provide the underpinning for all of the opinion. and the answer is, there still are great and distinguished newspapers and the networks still provide a very important function with their evening newscasts. i mean, for example, evening newscasts of all three of the big ones, abc, cbs, nbc attract something in the neighborhood of 25 million homes. now, that's not bad. that's very good, in fact. but it doesn't measure up to the collective power of the internet, the computer systems, radio. not at all. i want to give you two examples of the danger in this world. i'm going to be a little skimpy on names here because i don't want to get anybody into trouble. but npr which is reputed to be the finest radio news operation in existence in the united states, npr last saturday when congresswoman giffords was shot went on the air an hour or so after the bulletins first ran saying that she was dead. what was that based on? it was based on reports npr said. what reports? where did they come from? there were reports on the internet, on blogs, two particularly, which said that she was dead. so when npr went on the air, what did it say? it didn't say she was dead flat out. it said there are reports that she is dead. now, in and of itself that sentence is accurate. there are reports that she is dead. but she's not dead. so what's going on here? what's going on is that npr was sucked in to the modern world of communications where so much information is out there in the ether that it requires a very good editor or producer or reporter to go through all of the chaff and to find something that is accurate. how is it accurate? how can you be comfortable going on the air unless you yourself as a reporter has checked it? and that is where we begin as a media writ large to fail. we're not checking things very much anymore. because there is so many facts quote unquote out there that it is difficult for us to discern the true fact from the made up or the incomplete quote fact. it was only two hours later that npr corrected itself. another story. this has to do with cbs radio. in my time at cbs, we had a five-minute newscast was like four minutes and 28 seconds or something. newscast every hour. and we would provide spots for the news. and it was kind of fun. i enjoyed it a lot. you would do a 45, 50-second spot on something that was going on. something that you knew that was going on. you didn't concoct these things. right now, cbs radio because of the phenomenal pressure in which journalism lives, cbs puts out bulletins any time it feels in the course of the hour between hours to its entire network. the network does not have to run them but the network is provided with these bulletins. now, supposing you are one of the writers and one of the broadcasters for these bulletins. and your editor does not get paid for the number of inserts, no. but is regarded as a pretty good editor of, let's say he or she can get three or four bulletins in the course of one hour. well, maybe five. so the pressure is there to produce. so if the pressure is there to produce, everybody is producing. it's a kind of mass production and what suffers? what suffers is the absence of a check. journalism is only as good as the validity, the soundness of the information that is being conveyed. otherwise, in my book it's propaganda and worthless. so where are we today in terms of the media? not in a very good place is my answer. unfortunately. i am not one of those who believes that if we only go back 30 and 40 years it was a much better time. well, in some ways it was. and in some ways it wasn't. it was in the sense that there were reporters like steve bell who would go out and cover the war in vietnam and people like me and people like you were able to rely on what it is that he said. because you had a sense that here was a guy who would check the information before he would go on the air and tell you about it. that was a wonderful feeling. it was a feeling of comfort on the part of the american people. walter cronkite who was the anchor of "the cbs evening news" the guy i worked for, walter was regarded as the most trusted man in america. which journalist today is the most trusted man in america? none. i'm sorry? [ inaudible ] i didn't hear it. say it again. >> stephen colbert or jon stewart. >> colbert and stewart are the most trusted men? wow. we have really come a long way. really come a long way. well, my point is that in those days, anyway cronkite represented legitimacy and respectability and solid news. at the same time, when i arrived at the cbs bureau in washington, we had one woman reporter, two women editors and two women producers. today, poo. it's way over 50%. it's a totally changed environment but in those days it was very much a man's world. no question about that. and the people at the very top right now two of the three top evening anchors are women. so that in and of itself gives you a demonstration of the change. so we have come a long way from then, but then, time and time again i think the reporting was much sounder. let me give you one illustration. cbs had a marvelous reporter named winston burrdett. no longer with us. winston covered italy. he covered the vatican. and it was his responsibility every now and then to wander off into the middle east. one day, at the state department i got a call from our washington bureau chief, terrific chief named bill small and bill said, can you please check with the state department and find out where the heck winston is? i said, why don't you know in new york? check with the foreign desk. he said the foreign desk has no idea where this guy is. we think he went to yemen. but we're not sure. yemen today is a pretty rough terrain. then even more so because we knew less about it. what happened was that winston and his crew simply left rome, went off to yemen and were there for three weeks without communicating with new york but when they emerged in cairo as it turned out one morning they got in touch with new york and their stuff was so fabulous, their report from yemen, that cbs put a special on that night. and that's the kind of remarkable self generating news that was possible in those days. absolutely out of the question today. every news person walks around with a bookkeeper. everything has to be measured. how much money does this cost or that cost? when you're doing a program, if your program is not making money, you're out. there's no love affair as there was in the old days. it is business. and if you don't produce, you're out. profits ubit olis. up and up with the profits. that has to do with a mind-set. what happens when that kind of pressure is on you every single day? every hour. literally, if you're in a radio business, or in an associated press world you are in this kind of work, under this kind of pressure at all times. how is it possible then to maintain the quality of news that existed 20, 30, 40 years ago today? and i would maintain that it's not possible. however, on the plus side, there are big advantages because of the explosion of the new technology, people who never in a million years could have imagined what the world was outside of their own village or town know what it is like today. because of the advantages of modern technology. because of the advantages of reporters going out into the field, covering a war, covering a presidential campaign. doing something where they see and hear things. and then convey that to the public. in as honest a way as possible. that's a marvelous thing. the negative within that positive is simply the pressure to get it on the air first, no matter what. and the desire of major newspapers, even "new york times," of quite literally hoping that something ends up on the internet rather than on the printed part of "the new york times." they'd rather have it, i'm told, on the nytimes.com than even on the front page of the paper. that is the shifting between the old and the new journalism. money. it is said as a great cliche money is the root of all evil. i would never go that far in journalism. i think some of the salaries are pretty terrific, particularly if you're getting them. but the value system of a news organization is money, then everything has to come in on the positive side of the ledger. or else you are in serious trouble. the pressure then is to produce profitable news. news that will make money. so, let's say you had a story about the economic life in cincinnati. as opposed to the sex life of the cincinnati mayor. which story is going to get on the air? thank you very much. why? is that because the mayor's sex life is more important than the economic underpinning of the city? no. but it's because of what you all want to see and read and hear about. it all has to do with the relationship with the public. if the public is educated to the need for information about cincinnati's economy, it will demand it. and the people who run the networks will end up providing it. but if it is clear that the public would prefer something lower scale, believe me, you will get lots of lower scale. and you'll get it in spades. there was a murder here of a young woman about ten years ago. and that murder created a big deal because instantly a congressman from california was involved. cbs at that time made a command decision by dan rather who was the anchor. cbs is not going to cover the story about the murder of this young woman except the first day to mention it and move on. nbc decided to go with the story every night for two weeks. and it was wonderful to see the ratings. cbs' ratings went like that. and nbc's ratings went like that. which i think says an enormous amount about the linkage between substantive news that is checked out and important and news that titillates and that is the verb. the news that titillates is the news that you're going to watch and see. into this has come in recent years all of this opinion. i often think that the united states would be so much better off if we had no cable news at all. let's take a step back and eliminate all of the cable news operations. we would have no opinion. we would not have pundits telling us what to think. i cannot tell you how often i am surprised at a washington dinner party with very distinguished people, senators, congressmen, p.j. crowley, all of these people to hear them talk about what they heard last night on keith olberrman's program or what was on fox last night and the thought that keeps running through my mind is, do these people who are our leaders spend that much time watching cable news, listening to opinion? it is -- it is opinion dolled out cheaply. i know pundits who know nothing about stories. who speak with total authority. pundits who may be terrific on domestic policy but know very little about foreign policy telling us about the value and the importance of the war in afghanistan. well, i must say that's very difficult for me to take because the longer i'm around the more memory goes back to times when that would have been unimaginable. to get on these programs you have to say thing that is are outrageous. if you are asked on the program and somebody, the anchor asked you about what we're doing in afghanistan? what do you think and you answered, well, you know, there are -- i guess two points of view on that. you might think about it this way or you might think about it this way. you're not going to be invited back a second time. because what they want is crisp, aauthoritative answers based on what is not important. it is what comes through. i mean, we have been told all the time, since marshal mccluian told about the message. we live in a universe of messages today and those that convey the message are the people with influence and therefore with power. i would like at this point to hear from you folks so that if you have a question please come to either one of the two microphones, but i want to make as you do that, i want to make this one other point, which is terribly important to me. when this country was formed, we had newspapers that were highly partisan. there were newspapers that were created by a particular party or institution and the newspapers supported that party. that was it. it only was there for that one purpose of supporting that one party. it wasn't there to give you the news. that only developed in the mid-19th century but the latter part of the 19th century we had owners encouraging reporters to just come up and create a war between spain and america. that would be a marvelous thing. why? because it would increase the circulation in new york of this particular newspaper. the real what i would regard anyway as the area, the time in american history when we had relati relatively straight news was somewhere in the beginning of the depression in the 1930s right up to the end of the cold war in the 1990s. when there were news organizations, believe it or not, who really wanted to exist solely for the purpose of giving you the news. i want to believe because the first amendment provides a special place for the independence and the freedom of the press and speech and of the press, why did they put that phrase into the first amendment? it was when you read some of the documentation, it was because they felt that people who are not questioned are apt to abuse the power they have. in other words, somebody who has power without anyone having the authority to question that power has absolute power. you have absolute power, you are one step away from the arbitrary use of that power. it is the act opposite of a democracy. this country was created with that idea in mind that people would be free. and one of the guarantors of freedom is freedom of the press. freedom for somebody to stand up and say, wait a second. that's not right. or, more classically, to be able to stand up and provide the facts and let other people simply make up their minds about what it is that is right or wrong. i believe today that we are, oh, on the edge of sliding down toward a period in our history when we don't respect other points of view. i remember when president reagan was in office. the speaker of the house was tip o'neill, the massachusetts cambridge liberal. the two of them met most afternoons at about 5:00 for a drink and they enjoyed telling stories. good stories. dirty stories. i mean, they were -- there was a good time that the two of them had. they liked each other. they respected each other. even though they profoundly disagreed with each other. we don't have that anymore. we don't have that anymore whether a republican is in the white house or a democrat. we don't have the kind of bonding, human bonding that takes place to soften the edges of political difference. and so, the edges get hardened in an atmosphere of cable talk opinion. if people can't talk without respect for the other side we're going to have lots of last saturdays. last saturday in my book, i know that there are a lot of people who say you can't link this to anything going on. i think that's nonsense. of course you can link it to all of the terrible talk that goes on in not only in arizona but across the whole country. having to do with the nature of differences of political opinion. we must be able not just to tolerate but to respect another person's point of view. and not believe because you heard it on television that your point of view is right. because it may be dead wrong. it may be right only in your mind and in the mind of a pundit but it may be dead wrong and in any case an thet call to what this country represents which is openness to all points of view and the tolerance and accepting all of those points of view. okay. that's me. now what about you? [ applause ] i assume you'll identify yourself? >> yes. hello. my name's corey and i'm from quinnipiac university. you said how they shorten down the complex issues into 30-second sound bites. what would you say is a good way of combatting the idea that the simplest, most just rudimentary not in depth ideas are the most important, to get more complexity into the news, to get people more informed of the issue that is are involved in -- >> corey, that's a terrific question. it goes to the heart of what he was trying to say. at the moment, i do not believe it is realistic to hope that the networks are going to change their operation. or even newspapers or magazines or radio will change its operation. however, you do have a double power. you are the consumer and if you don't want to consume that you don't have to. you can turn it off and read a book, read a magazine. go into the internet, not for the blog necessarily but for all of the good things that are there. there's -- i finished a book on vietnam. when i had sometimes -- when was that battle? damn, i couldn't figure it out. you'd go in, google it and there it was. so it has enormous positive advantage. but the responsibility ultimately is going to end up being yours. all right. yes? >> hello. my name is monique, i'm representing the honors college at miami dade college. first, i'm solely -- i solely appreciate you appreciating the quality of journalism. it touches me. i just want to say. do you think your reputation public appearance and corporations income is worth sacrificing for the sake of the first amendment? >> you mean, if you're making a great deal of money, is that enough to sacrifice? >> for example, your reputation or let's say what -- the example you gave of the money, like, holding a story. >> the answer to that is, i could give you a very glib answer and say under no circumstances must you sacrifice principle and i really believe that. but i'm also -- i've been alive for a long time. and i know that there are instances where young people like you have a job. it's a tough economic environment. and your boss wants you to write a story in more inflammatory way. and you're going to think, whoops. i don't want to say no to the guy. he hired me. and i need this job and you're apt to go along with it. and that gets back to corey's question. there's a -- you're in kind of a slide now where things happen even though you don't want them to happen and even though your own instincts tell you it's wrong, but you go along with it the way these young people at cbs last saturday had to go along with the death of somebody. but they didn't know that she had died and, in fact, she didn't. but they did put it out. and that is -- that is the kind of -- it's a scandal, really. i did a book in the 1990s called "one scandalous story." it was about the way the media covered the clinton-lewinsky scandal and i'll never forget. the story broke in "the washington post" on a wednesday morning. at 7:00 a.m., when the morning newscasts begin, the reporters who spoke about clinton's reported liaison with this woman spoke about it as a fact. what was their -- how did they know that? i mean, were they in the room? did somebody specifically tell them? no. the only way they knew it was that it was in "the washington post" that morning. that's lousy journalism. you've got to check things. you've got to be sure about it. and so, yes, do the best you can in sticking as closely as you can to the principles of the first amendment. and the idea of freedom of the press within i hope a society that will remain free for centuries. so that at the end of the day you're the one who goes to sleep and you may review in your mind what you did that day. if you can sleep comfortably, your conscious in no way bothered, good for you. >> thank you. >> okay. >> hi. my name's kathleen. guy to the university of san diego. and i was wondering, do you really feel that there won't be a return to more substantive journalism and more true journalism in general? because there seems to be a growing dissatisfaction with the new that is produced? >> there's no question of the growing dissatisfaction of the news but as a people we're rather confused when we use that word, "news." that would suggest that the people in it are newses people. so you have to ask yourself the question, is -- are most of the pundits you hear news people? many are. but not all. some are political people. fox, for example, hires politicians to do commentary. mike huckabee is on fox. sarah palin is on fox. now are they journalists? no. but they live in an environment in which news is a part of a structure that at the end of the day composes the public policy of the country. and news is an extremely important part of that. it's the -- it's the glue really that's smoothed out the edges and makes these things happen. we're right in the middle. the journalists are right in the middle of things. i was noticing p.j. crowley was speaking about in answer to a question over here and he said that the state department does something and the media if it devoted a lot more attention to a problem would put the heat on a lead tore do something and then the leader and congress -- blah blah but the media's part of that circle of a making of a public policy. and i cannot -- i cannot alter the facts. the facts are that right now in my judgment we're in a down time of american journalism. can it come back strong? god, i hope so. i hope so for all our sake. but at the moment, i don't think we're there. and i really don't see the incentive for turning the current system around. if there were a way of producing solid news and not have to make money, you know, there was a relatively new outfit set up excellent guy paul stiger. used to be the editor of "the wall street journal" and they're doing wonderful work. where do they get the money from? rich people in california gave them the money to do it. let's get the rich people from all over the country to give money to the journalists to create this news and take the pressure off them constantly to be making a profit. >> okay. thank you. >> all right. >> hi. i'm ashley and i go to suffolk university in boston. my question is, in 2009 "time" magazine poll stated that jon stewart voted with 44% of the vote to be the most trusted newscaster and coming in second was brian williams with 29% of the vote. do you think that this is not only alarming but an accurate e depiction of how people get their news today and who people trust in teling them the news? >> that's a very, very good question. and i could be dead wrong on this but my sense is that people watch jon stewart to be entertained. and they watch brian williams to get the news. and that most people in this country, unfortunately, choose to be entertained much more than they choose to be informed. and so, more people may end up watching jon stewart. the fact is that brian gets, i don't know what? 20 times more viewers than jon stewart but jon stewart lives in this cable world which has emerged with enormous clout. jon stewart is capable of having a big event on the mall. why? because he wants a big event on the mall. i've never met jon stewart. i don't know the man. but i do know that most of my students would prefer to watch him than watch brian williams. but i don't think that's the best testimony about my students. it's the difference between entertainment and information. >> thank you. >> okay. yes, sir? >> peter from the university of san diego. a few years ago -- >> you have a lot of san diego people here. >> a few years ago jon stewart and not to suggest i believe that he's the best news source but he appeared on cnn on the show "crossfire" and criticized and accused the news networks of participating in partisan hackery and the failure to hold public officials accountable. i think you seem to agree on that but do you think that this fuels the sort of polarization amongst political parties? >> the answer is, yes. i think it does feed the polarization of political parties and the polarization more importantly of political opinion in this country among people who aren't politicians. just ordinary folks have a very specific view of what politics is supposed to be like. politics is tough. you are trying to find an area of reconciliation between two opposing views most of the time but if you approach that as warfare, you want to destroy the enemy. that's where we are today. i suspect that even after the tragedy in tucson we're going to return to if we haven't already the very rough and tumble world of modern-day punditry and laying the worse motivation upon the opposition rather than this idea of the reagan ability to meet with the democrats and try to strike a deal. we're not there yet. i literally pray that we return to those days very soon because the problems in the world today have become so complicated and so dangerous that unless we have an informed citizenry prepared to live up to certain obligations we are all going to be in terrible trouble. i mean, crowley was used again an expression about if we don't have the money to continue an operation, for example, in afghanistan it's going to be very bad and that this started an administration or two ago and we simply have to continue it. okay. the right policy. it could have been wrong. in which case it is wrong to continue a wrong policy. what does that mean? that means that you have to be able to discuss it. you have to be able to argue the point. but you have to be able to argue the point in a democracy where you respect not just tolerate but respect the view of the opposition. and i'm repeating myself when i say that i don't see us at least in the immediate future getting that point but it is certainly where we should be. yes? >>. >> haley from suffolk university outside of boston or in boston, and i think that the gatekeepers of past generations have done a really fabulous job of maintaining credibility and mai credibility in the media. i wonder if a limited number of gate keepers perhaps concerning. and i'm wondering if you think a hybrid system of network niz and cable news could work if cable news was dropped to the news label and clearly identified as opinion or commentary. >> that's fascinating. i wish you would write a paper on that. that would be fascinating, to find out if there would be to bring traditional network news and cable news together. there have been discussions, by the way, between cbs and cnn about coming together. but there the motivation is money. the motivation is to try -- to try to stop the hemorrhaging of losses and to create a combination. cnn/cbs that would cover the news and make money. i mean, that's -- that's the -- the misery, the secret. and if you can uncover that secret, you have it made it would be a huge public service. so your question is right on target. you there are dozens of serious people working on that problem, but i haven't seen -- not that formula, but i have not seen any document, any study that says we're closer to resolution from this fundamental problem. thank you. >> yes, sir. >> jerry from the university of san diego. >> yeah. >> i was wondering if you thought there should be some limit to the extent of what we consider the free press? you can't oorg eau with the fact that the press should be able to criticize the government or editorialize or factualize opinions, but to some extent, it feels like the press has overstepped that bounds and has overstepped -- overstepped those bounds in the sense that they can publish documents obtained illegally or opinions that aren't factually backed up, such as -- what they just automatically assume that the congresswoman from arizona was dead, but they splished something completely untrue. but do you think there should be some extent where they have to have a factual basis or some kind of grounding of what they publish as opposed to being just carte blanche because of freedom of press? >> the answer to that question is absolutely yes. there ought to be a way, and the question becomes which way. if there was to be an outfit created by congress, or all of the universities represented in this room, the presidents of all of the universities were to get together and in good will, intelligently come up with a solution to the current problems of the media, and supposing "the new york times" listened to them and said what are you going to do about it? you can't force -- unless are you going to the supreme court with a specific, legal infraction, your group, no matter how well intentioned, is irrelevant. journalism lives essentially -- it's very interesting. they live up here, and yet they are rooted financially in the business community. it is a business. and yet is it is the only business in america guaranteed its freedom by the constitution. so it's extraordinary, this business and it has to be treated with that kind of tender, loving care. which we are not provided. your point is very well taken. yes, sir. >> good morning, my name is samuel from jonas college. my question is from your point of view, what is the psychological role that the media has on society, particularly on human behavior? from your point of view what is the psychological role that the media has on society, particularly in the human behavior? >> we're not very good a psychology. and i really don't know how to answer that question. let me answer it in this way. it's unsatisfactory. i worked for a network -- two networks for 30 years. every now and then, i came upon a boss accident who psychologically was open to different points of view, different personalities and knew how to balance interests. the washington newsroom of cbs was loaded with ego. and only a certain amount of room on the cbs evening news, so you had to balance these things. it was the most delicate psychological problem. but my bureau chief did it very, very well. aside from him, i can't imagine anyone else who had in mind psychology in dealing with the news and presentation of news. as a matter of fact, i think deliberately, you went away from that toward introducing distance between yourself as the collector of reliable news, and the public and the source. i mean, there's that triangle. the source, the reporter, the public. and it's a triangle of crucial importance. and it requires professionalism on all sides. but most important on the side of the public. the public has to demand something better. if it demands something better, i am absolutely certain it is going to get it. but until it demands something better it will get what we see now. thank you. >> thank you very much, marvin. >> my pleasure is your payoff. >> works very well. thank you. >> and now as we used to say, i'll tell you the rest of the story. paul harvey used to say that. he wouldn't tell us about it, but marvin actually wrote fiction as well as very learned nonfiction. in fact, he and koppel co-authored a spy novel some years ago, and one tomb i asked ted what was the most difficult thing about writing the book, and he said the sex >> good morning again. i'm tony saris, the program manager, the washington center for internships and academic seminars. the washington center is the largest provider of academic internship opportunities here in washington, d.c. with 1500 students coming from over 850 colleges throughout the country to do intern ships in the fall, spring and summer terms in washington, d.c. welcome to the second day of week two of inside washington 2011, politics and the media. we're happy to have you here with us again this morning and it is my pleasure to welcome our faculty director who will introduce our next speaker. our professor is professor ameritus at ball state university. professor steve bell. >> thank you, tony. this is a special guest this morning from my perspective because i wanted this guy to talk us to and i used a contact and the contact was a former student who is now working for the state department in the public affairs office and i have so much pride, whether i defsh it or not in following his career and he was sitting where you are. he did this seminar when he was a student and just remember, you can go from this seminar right back to help us in many different ways. our speaker here is the assistant secretary of state for public affairs and he is the guy who greets every day at the state department. he's the guy you see on the newscasts from time to time being put on the hot seat by reporters and handeling himself very well, just thank you. before going to the state department he was the senior fellow and director of homeland security at the center for american progress and while there he authored very important papers on subjects involving a national security. issues such as how we keep bombs off airplanes and how we protect our country while all these terrorist threats are out there somewhere and he's a frequent guest speaker on all of the network news programs. he's done both olbermann and o'reil o'reilly. if you can handle that you can handle anything. it's my pleasure -- one other thing i wanted you to know was more than 20 years in the air force retired as a colonel, his wife is also a retired colonel from the air force, and i found that very interesting as part of his background. ladies and gentlemen, i introduce p.j. crowley from the state department. [ applause ] >> good morning. i'm delighted to be here. i'm delighted to be in a situation where i can take tough questions from students and not from pernickety reporters. so when the state department briefing happens today on c span, my abel deputy will be at the podium, but the daily briefings that i do at the state department do feature snappy repart, with a professional and talented group of reporters, many of whom have been covering foreign policy for longer than i have been in and around government, and this is my 34th year of being in and around national security policy, but i came to appreciate the difference between the state department press corps and journalists who cover other agencies and other branches of government. i was answering a question one day on nato and i threw in what i thought was garnish. i simply said nato was the most successful military alliance in history. really, said the dean of the state department press corps. what about the league? now i come to the podium every day prepared for a wide range of foreign policy challenges. iran, north korea, venezuela, and the middle east peace process. not so much the league which last held its formal meeting in 1669, 120 years before the establishment of the department of state. no. i still think i was right. the league, for the record, was more an economic alliance and nato was more a security alliance. as steve said you do have to be mindful of history and stay on your toes. what i do every day when i step to the podium is to enunciate the united states view on world affairs and as events permit i try to find some humor in these situations. we're not exactly political although i went from a political background and when the president was selected to receive the nobel prize, i was asked bia reporter, does he deserve it? it's better to have these accolades thrown away than shoes. when president hugo chavez of venezuela with whom i have a twitter -- ongoing twitter relationship suggested that venezuela would pursue a space program despite the fact that he can't keep the lights on in caracas, i suggested that he stick with terrestrial rather than extraterrestrial pursuits. he called me ridiculous, high praise, indeed. iran invited diplomats from a handful of countries, but not the united states. to visit nuclear facilities as an alternative to full cooperation with the international atomic energy agency, maybe reflecting my age a little bit, i said this is the magical mystery tour. today we use a variety of media to mun kate to governments and people around the world. we use formal briefings at the state department covered by traditional media and we use social media that bypass governments and communicate directly with people and chuck todd and savannah guthrie of msnbc late last year recognized me for issuing the tweet of the year. in part because the state department spokesman had a sense of humor. what i said in my tweet after president carter traveled to pyongyang to rescue an american citizen jailed there and this followed a similar trip last year when our president clinton brought home two journalists, i tweeted that the american people should heed the travel warnings. after all, we only have so many former presidents. now in a shameless attempt at self-promotion since i am currently hundreds of followers behind my friend and the ambassador to the united nations, feel free to follow me at p.j. crowley. now, in my view, success in the 21st century depends on effective governance. a free and vibrant press plays an important role in the development of civil society and accountable governments, as a general rule, the freer the press the more transparent and the more democratic a government is likely to be. any in the context of this similar, media and politics, think of places around the worlds where fraud that skews the results to a significant degree or steals elections outright. this involves, for example, the election of june 2009 in iran where the government harassed traditional media as they covered the election accident fraud that was evident as well as the opposition that had effectively used social media during the campaign and has refused to be silenced to this present day. dictator ships understand the power of the media where the ruling junta held an election in november where it did not allow aung sung suu kyi, a nobel laureate to run in that campaign, nor did they allow outside media to cover the election. the result was kieptd of an election laundering, where an existing military government attempted to use the election to transform itself into a civilian government, but it looked the legitimacy that only civil society backed by a vibrant press can bestow. unfortunately, there is no shortage of present-day examples from coat devoir to belarus where the media continues to document the actions of repressive governance that in one case refuses to accept an election that it did not expect to lose and in the other case has literally jailed every opposition figure that dared run against europe's last dictator. the former yugoslavia, and i have to stop here. how old are we here? you may remember something called the former yugoslavia is my best example. we call it the western balkans, but it's the best example of where investment in independent media helped to transform a country and we hope over time our region contributing to the dynamic that led to the end of the rule of slobodan milosevic and his transfer to the hague where he died in prison while facing charges of crimes against humanity. we also note that media can be used destructively to encite violence as we saw tragically in the 1990 in rwanda and we continue to have concerns regarding state-controlled media, particularly in the middle east that continued to ferment religious tension across the region. >> now no one is a great are advocate for a vibrant, independent and responsible press, committed to the freedom of expression and the development of a true, global, civil society than the united states. every day we express concern about the flight of the -- the plight of journalists and now bloggers around the world who are intimidated, jailed and tragically in some cases killed by governments that are afraid of their people and afraid of the empowerment that comes with the free flow of information within a free flowing saasity. most recently we did so in the context of this week tunisia which has hacked social media accounts while claims to protect their citizens from the encitement of violence. in doing so we feel the government is restricting the epitome of its peaceful to peacefully assemble and express their views in order to influence government policies. these are universal principles that we continue to support and we practice what we preach. just look at our own country and cable television. we don't silence dissidents. we make them television analysts. okay. got to work on that one. some in this country and around the world are questioning the united states' commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and internet freedom in the aftermath of something you might have heard of called wikileaks. i'm constrained in what i can say because individual cables remain classified. if you read "the new york times" we all have our favorites and the leak of these cables that is under investigation by the department of justice, but let me briefly put in context before i open up the floor for questions, what this is about. wonning i leaks is about the disclosure of crass phied information and it is not an exercise in internet freedom. it is about the legitimate investigation of a crime. it is about the need to continue to protect sensitive information and that can be government information or personal information while enabling the free throw of public information throughout our society and around the world. now, we remain arguably the most traps parent country in the world. the american people, through innovations including c-span are a well-informed citizenry which is crucial to a functioning democracy. we can have a discussion about how well our democracy is functioning and whether political figures are spending more time pandering or posturing on television than actually governing, and of course, in the aftermath of the tragedy last weekend in tucson, we pray for the recovery of congresswoman gabi giffords, i'm not going speculate about what led that troubled man to do what he did, but we should recommit ourselves to improve public discourse going forward so that we can sustain a functioning democracy that is important both in the context of serving our national interest, but also to collectively solve global challenges for the benefit of our people and others. this transparency relies on a vibrant, independent, fourth estate that serves as a vital check and balance in our democracy. the first amendment created deliberate tension in the relationship between the media and government. this tension helps to sustain effective oversight of the government in which i serve. when i stand up every day to answer questions about z policies and action, in a small way i he system works. and i have the fan mail to prove it particularly when i do appear on fox. some fox viewers have me on speed dial. transparency does not mean that there are no secrets. whether you are a government or a business, there is proprietary information that is vital to your day to day function. think about it. coca-cola has a secret formula. google has its search algorithm. their success is based on those secrets. as a government, we are no different. in the conduct of our diplomacy at the state department we have confidential interaction every day arne the world. these conversations with government officials, society activists, business people and journalists help us make sense of the world and inform our policy making. these confidential exchanges are rooted in our values and they serve our national interest, and they are based on mutual trust, trust that a conversation will be held in confidence and not betrayed. now, someone inside our government violated a sworn oath to protect the national interest and protect classified and sensitive information that is an inherent part of our conduct of our national security policy. we can debate whether there are too many secrets, but no one should doubt that there has been substantial damage in the up authorized lease -- release of a database containing among other things, 251,000 state department cables. many of them classified. now, we have encountered government leaks before and we've worked through them. some of those leaks have been to expose wrongdoing, without getting into any specific information. when you hear about the stories about the axe contained in the state department cables, they're about right doing and we're very proud of the work that we do in behalf of all of you every week. we believe our activity is serving our national interest, mitigating crises and in some cases saving lives. but what makes this case different is its volume and its scope. unlike the past where someone might have smuggled out of document or a file on one subject and give 10 to one reporter, in this case the database contained documents that touched on every part of the world affected almost every relationship we have around the world and almost every national interest. the reaction has varied country by country, but human nature being what it is there will be an impact for at least a time. governments will be more cautious in sharing information with the united states. why is this important? it was the sharing of information last year that enabled the united states working with other governments to intersent the plot to blow up cargo aircraft over in chicago. if less information is shared in the future, our policies and our actions could be less effective. now the release of this information has placed helpundr of people at risk. in many cases, the very civil society activists that wikileaks has suggested, it wants to empower around the world. now we interact regularly with people from all walks of life who are trying to reform repressive societies both from inside and outside their governments. in some cases their names have been withheld by the media, but many have been exposed and are now at risk. the mere fact that these classified documents now reside in unclassified computer networks means that this information can be intercepted by a foreign security service. so the fact that only 2700 documents out of the 251,000 have been publicly released so far is small comfort to the people who have been needlessly exposed. we are tracking hundreds of people around the world, we believe in one way or another are now in danger, reaching out to as many as we prudently can in helping to ensure to the extent that we can that they will remain safe. the founder of wikileaks has claimed that no one has lost his or her life due to these releases. that is true as far as we know, but that is not the only measure of the impact. real lives and real interests have been compromised by what has been done. we are doing everything we can to mitigate the impact, but as secretary clinton said a couple of days ago, it will take years to move beyond it. we are a nation of laws and the laws of this country have been violated. so as we funk under the rule of law it is appropriate and necessary that we investigate and froms cute those who have violated u.s. law. though some have suggested that this ongoing investigation marks a retreat from our commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and internet freedom, nonsense. these are universal principles and our commitment is unwavering. these freedoms have always co-existed with the rule of law and the application of laws is in no way intended to deny access to readily available information or silence legitimate and necessary political discourse, but our belief in internet freedom and it did not give me the right to use the internet to illegally inflict arm. we must use it responsibly. wikileaks reminds us of how to protect vital information, whether personal or classified information while also promoting the free flow of information that can empow tor form global communities and to change the world for the better. we believe it's possible and necessary to do both. with those opening comments i'll be happy to take your questions. [ applause ] >> amelia naj ar from clark university. >> i'm sorry? >> ammel arnajar from clark university. my question is about how most americans are not well informed about national security issues and foreign affairs and more concerned about domestic issues such as the economy and health care. how can we change that and make more americans informed about foreign affairs? >> that's a great question. i say there may or may not be a need to change anything. in my time in government going back to the early '70s, 30 years ago there was this clear dividing line. there were lots of things that were domestic and there were lots of things that were international, but think about it. most everything that has domestic consequences today can have international consequences as well. we live in a global economy, in this country, that challenge is shared by other countries and other political leaders and in fact, to resolve the economic challenges that we face in this country will involve action not only by the united states, but action in concert with other countries. if you think about health, another issue of great debate in this country, global health is a very significant challenge and as we've heard about various strands of flu, last year being h1n1 and while thankfully that turned out not to be as severe as feared, the fact is our public health was in part affected by the great work done the public health system in mexico where that strain of the flu was first identified. when you think about our food supply, the fact is the safety of our food supply depends on international supply systems. so our -- the security of our food supply is in the supply chain in another country any another country. so on and so forth. if you think about the traditional concerns about domestic policy they now have international counterparts and to turn that around when we look at foreign approximately see challenges, say the situation in afghanistan, we are now drawing other agencies of government that are traditionally called domestic into those challenges. vilsack has made a couple of trips to afghanistan and he's trying to help them re-establish agricultural economy. also, you know, pushing out or decreasing the current narcotic economy. so you have agricultural experts standing next to rule of law experts, standing next to health and human services experts and staying next to military soldiers. that is going to be the solution to a country like afghanistan or iraq or pakistan or others. i would think that it is important for people to think in terms of these challenges as being global challenges and not necessarily domestic challenges in the future. thank you. >> hi, my name is -- hello? >> hello. >> my name is monique madden and i represent the honors college. my question is to begin, i'm editor of my college paper and i'm currently facing my college attorneys, and college police department as well as the legal affairs office, trying to collect college crime activity logs i was denied time and time again. by all of these departments, aware of my rights i had a press attorney represent me with his request. now, would you say some departments denied releasing this information for the sake of the institution's reputation. is that worth not keeping the student informed? that's a great question. i would say that it is important for students to be informed with the environment and the security that might exist on your college campus us or other college campuses. in most cases, the real question in terms of negotiation between the media and an institution is can you find a search for common ground so that you can obtain the information so whatever instushl interests may be a trigger. >> i can use my own example. i've been the chief negotiator between the united states and the new york times about what to do about these cables and we opened up a channel of communication whereas "the new york times" is preparing to report on a cable and perhaps post that cable internet, they give us the opportunity to say aside from the fact it's classified and the conversation, always starts with we know you'd prefer we not reference this at all, but is there anything of particular concern that, you know, we might want to be mindful of as we decide how to treat this particular document and we have a productive conversation of where we go back and try to determine this name or that circumstance that may, in fact, we believe put an individual or individuals at risk. so it is a coop struckive interaction within a relationship whereby its very nature is going to have some tension. so what you're experiencing is in fact the relationship that has been set up under our founding fathers where the media is a gadfry, it is a watchdog and institutions can react to that in different ways and it's very much a conversation worth having and perhaps there's a way to resolve it without having to take legal ak, but necessarily at times governments and the media will find themselves in court and that's actually a quite good thing. >> thank you very much. >> matt diamond from clark university. >> wooster. >> wooster, mass. yes. >> my question is on the shift that happened in the geopolitical structure. the shift that changed with the united states and the soviet union, something that's very different. how has the interstate conflict and intrastate conflict and small conflicts that are contained within the particular geographic areas, how has the 24-hour media cycle changed that? >> first on the shift, for the last 20 years there's been a different dynamic, you had the emergence of for want of a better word, and that is playing itself out in a lot of ways and take the former yugoslavia and at this point, you pause and talk about the great work done by the country's most able diplomats, richard holbrooke who passed away late last year who actually was the protagonist of the ultimate agreement that led to the end of the conflict in the early '90es, but yugoslavia was a manufactured state, but within it, it had department a variety of different identities that serves croats and muslims in check, but at the end of the cold war, the glue that kept yugoslavia together could not hold the country together and now, in fact, you have the countries and you still have 20 years later the seed of the conflict and the conflict has ended, but the tension is not. we see this playing out as we speak at this moment where over the next six months we may see the emergence of yet another country of south sudan. now there was a peace treaty in the -- negotiated by the bush administration of 2005 that ended a four-year civil war in sudan and promised a referendum with the people of south sudan will have the vote to have a vote which is happening this week over whether to remain a part of sudan or split off into a new country. the betting is that they'll vote for a new country and so we'll see the, mergence of the member of a united nations and one that may or not have at this point the capacity to govern itself effectively and it will need an enormous amount of international assistance for a number of years, but this dynamic is playing itself out. i'm trying to remember, when theup charter was approved in the late '40s, i think there was something like there were 38 voting countries that approved it. my math is correct. we have 192 members of the united nations, but as has shown you how the world has -- the world hasn't changed, but the map has over the course of this length of time and this dynamic, whatever you call it, it was for a while called the post-cold war phenomenon and thou we're in the post-war phenomenon and the post economic collapse phenomenon and it has changed from a bipolar situation where as president obama said you were for us or against us to where you will have much more complex challenges and you have a reality that today, the united states by itself cannot solve any major international challenge. without an effective action, and he was asked to collaborate that requires us to have partnerships and alliance wes other relationships where we can collectively solved the challenges that we face, up to and including the challenge of climate change as one example. >> hello, i'm from new york university. correct me if i'm wrong, but as i understand that julian assange is not a u.s. citizen nor did he commit his crime in the united states and as the only law in the books that criminalizes his activity violates the act of 1917. in terms of prosecution. >> that is a question i cannot answer. julian assange is not a citizen. that is not the only law that may or may not be triggered by that investigation and beyond that i will leave it to the justice department to continue on its investigation. >> good morning. >> hi. >> can you hear me or should i project? >> you're projecting very well. >> my name is rachel gonzalez from miami date college and my question is in regard to speaking about with this beautiful thing we know as freedom of the press. where does that merge into or get dangerously close to the disclosure of unauthorized material? >> freedom of the press is vitally important and it is enshrined in the first amendment and we have to steadfastly protect it even though the press may not be popular, and i think if you look over the polling of various institutions, the press is kind of low on the polls, nonetheless, it plays a vitally important role in the maintenance of a civil society. whether we, and i -- whether we like what the press prints or reports every day, and i certainly wish that the wikileaks story had not emerged and the many stream media or the guardian or el taes in other you countries has not published this information. there was damage done, but by the same token the media has a right to report information that it acquires for the benefit of its readers. we can debate that role, but the media is vitally important and as much as we might rail at the media for an individual story, it really is important to contrast what is happening here versus what is happening elsewhere. journalism is a very important business and a dangerous business. if you're a journalist in russia today you are at severe risk of being imprisoned or killed. if you are a despotic regime you're not in favor of a free press, and so to be able to bring the activities of government to light so that citizens can have the impact of knowing what's going on and influence the policies of their country and participate in an open, political process, that is how you acquire effective government and as you acquire that effective government, that government is more likely than not to be democratic and democracies as a general rule are more stable and more peaceful and they tend not to get into conflicts with each other. so i am an ardent supporter of the importance of a free press even as on day in or day out i might have an argument as to what particular story or set of packs they might report. >> good morning. i'm from the honors college at miami-dade college. the united states is known as being an advocate for human rights and also for gender equality. what is the opinion on the ongoing discrimination towards women around the world? >> well, i have the benefit and pleasure of working for arguably the most famous woman in the world and this is a topic of significant importance to the secretary of state hillary clinton, and it is part of every conversation that she has when she travels around the world. when secretary clinton visits a country as she is currently today, she's in the gulf region and we set up for her, a public forum and usually a forum that is covered by the media and even in traditional societies and an audience that would include men and women and both who are empowered to ask questions and she will go to places where they have dramatic concerns about the safety of women and she went two years ago to the democratic republic of the congo and to a part of that country where rape is used as a weapon of war, and she has come back to that issue time and time again to tell governments and multilateral institutions and governments and the united states and it is vitally important for us to work together and protect women. why? because if you are a poor country and you're trying to lift yourself up out of poverty, agriculture is probably going to be the most important means to get there. 70% of the agricultural workers in the world are women in societies that only give full rights to half of their population and that societiy is necessarily probably by design going to be less successful, if you were able to empower women and give them access to own properties and access to microcredit. if a woman is producing food, she's going to feed her own family and she's going to create a surface, but then she can use to help generate an income for her family. so this is fundamental not just in terms of gender rights. it's fundamental importance to how we build a more stable, peaceful and prosperous world and the secretary's working on that every single day. >> popman college, with wikileaks, i agree with you to an extent that certain things need to be kept secret for national security reasons. what about secretary of state hillary clinton ordering u.s. officials to smil on certain u.n. diplomats by getting their dna and getting the fingerprints and iris scans and getting their credit card numbers and their frequent flier miles, do you deny that? are you guys proud of that? because you said you were proud of the diplomacy, i believe, you completely defy it and you speak about it and the whole threat, is it more that you guys are concerned or because you're embarrassed by this being released? >> without getting into the contents of any particular cable, we have nothing to be embarrassed about. i mean, if you read the coverage in the paper, you can see that diplomats are doing, are pursuing the national interest day in and day out in very difficult settings around the world. we're very proud of what the diplomats do. we don't get as much of the headlines as say the military does, but we're not embarrassed by what has been revealed by these cables. our concern is is about, you know, compromises in our relationships and those relationships have value and importantance to the united states. the secretary of state did not order any diplomat to spy. we are not spies. there was a cable that came out of the state department. it had secretary clinton's name on the bottom because of the hundreds of thousands of cables that are generated by the state department every year, by tradition, the name on the bottom of the cable is the secretary of state, whether it's hillary clinton or condy rice or colin powell, mad rin albright and whatever have you. the contents of that cable was generated outside of the state department. it did not instruct diplomats to spy. it simply was a cable that said these are things that are useful to us if you come across them. it didn't change the day to day activity of our diplomats. in fact, in most cases when a message like that arrived at post it was ignored. >> david from nicholas college, south of wooster. >> i'm a holy cross graduate, so i know where all of you are coming from. >> far eco-zack rya said it was harmful to the state department and the united states government. how do you react to the suggestion that the american people should take solace in the way that the state department is dealing diplomatically, you know, based on what is in these cables? >> we are not embarrassed. we are embarrassed that confidential communications have been compromised and that means necessarily that the next time one of our ambassadors or one of my counterparts or other assistant secretary is talking to the leader of the country is cautious about what he tells us because they don't want to be on the front page of the furp. we're very proud of what they do. we are pursuing our national interest and it helps create economic opportunities and jobs in this country and we are out there trying to resolve conflicts before they become all-out wars, but the -- there's no question that the revelations here which in many cases involve not -- as much as they involve what we think, it's detailing what other countries think, that has had an impact and we are going to have to take months, if not years to rebuild that trust and rebuild those relationships because of what's been disclosed. >> good morning. my name is paula and i'm from the miami-dade college. my question is how economic interests, mainly petroleum have interfered in the diplomatic relationship between venezuela and the united states? how do you think that this relationship can be improved? how can an oppressed nation recover its freedom of speech? will the u.s. be willing to help venezuela to escape from becoming the next cuba? >> it is a relationship that we would like to see improve. secretary clinton on january 1st was in brazil for the inauguration of the new visit of brazil and she happened to have a brief encounter with president hugo chavez. the dilemma is that venezuela, for example, has has refused to have our ambassador candidate, larry palmer and it is -- his nomination was up for approval by the senate this past fall, but venezuela clearly told us if his nomination was con firmed by the senate they would not allow him to present his credentials to the venezuela an government. we have ambassadors at posts around the world. it's to carry on the day to day interact between our country and that country. we have great concerns for trends in vep ven. we have great concerns that president chavez, among other things has taken dead aim at -- at media institutions and he's trying to intim date those in business. and there is, and in venezuela, and since he came to office. we would like to work with the venezuela ans to see if we can't reverse that trend, but we'll have to work to see if we can try over time to establish more diplomatic relations with that country. >> i'm from the university of san diego. i'm wondering what is the interpretation of international relations within the state department? >> we're against it. what do you mean? >> like are most of the people in the state department realists, liberals -- and which one is -- >> i was having -- well, they're american citizens and they're patriots. most of our foreign policy has great continuity and we have a foreign service just like we have a military service and the foreign service serves whatever, you know,know, president and secretary of state is in office. they're not political. they're very pragmaticpragmatic. most of us are realists. i was talking to a journalist the other day. he was reflecting on wikileaks and said what astounded him was the absence of ideology in the accounts of the day-to-day diplomacy that we conduct around the world. you know, we need these kinds of people, a profession sol, diplomatic service backed by a civil service who will just serve the needs of the american people in this construct of diplomacy and pursuing the civilian dimension of our national security, you know, strategy. it is important to remember, i spent 26 years in the air force so i can critique the two agencies that i have served both of them. you know, the military budget is give or take going to be, you know, $550 billion, $560 billion for this year. can anybody guess what the budget is for the state department and foreign assistance? no guesses? one tenth. so $550 billion. $56 billion. the american people can be assured that you get a significant return on that investment. and in many cases, in the -- in developing -- in development, in diplomacy, you're trying to build something and also prevent something and we're very, very good at that. but it is not id logically driven. we are in afghanistan today because we are pursuing our national interest. we are engaged in pakistan today because we are trying to mitigate a threat that's a threat to the united states as well as a threat to pakistan and that region of the world. we have diplomats in coat devoir trying to convince a dictator to leave office trying to promote democracy and have governments around the world that do, in fact, respect the will of their people. we're in haiti today on the eve of the anniversary of an earthquake, you know, not because, you know, haiti has, you know, some mineral or some oil that is of importance to our economy. because it's the right thing to do, it's humanitarian thing to do and it's country in our hemisphere that we think we can help, you know, rebuild. we are serving our interests and in serving our interests we're not a hedgeaman. we're concerning the interests of other regions and other people and other countries, as well. >> hi. i'm megan from the university of san diego. and with the -- >> there is a trend here. >> qua. with the upcoming olympics being in brazil, do you think that the media spotlight on them will help create short term or long-term more civil society or democratic government? >> it's a very good question. and of course, you've got the olympics coming up in russia, as well. let me take you back, you know, very briefly. china hosted the olympics in the immediate past and this was very important to china. and, it was a ten or 15-year process and part of this was kind of the coming out of a country that had an uncertain relationship with the rest of the world. so, with the awarding of an olympics it recognizes that countries like china and countries like brazil are emerging powers and that's a recognition of the increased role and importance they play in their region and around the world. we welcome that development. but at the same time, with that emerging power also comes responsibility. and just as china has a significant role to play in terms of the economy and security, so does brazil. and so, i would certainly think that that shines a spotlight but it also reflects a larger phenomenon that countries like brazil, countries like china and turkey and south africa are, you know, which hosted the world cup, are playing an increasingly important role in the world and we welcome that and want to work effectively with them for the benefit of all. >> we're going to take a few more questions. >> okay. >> i'm from kosovo and that nato, it's a good organization for me to have helped us a lot but i'm also concerned as far as how media covers conflicts such as rwanda and kashmir and other third world countries to fight for change in peace and what is the foreign diplomacy doing to meet their needs? >> i don't exactly put that -- in all of those cases i don't exactly put a challenge like kashmir in a media context. kashmir is a very complex challenge and ultimately only effective, responsible governments in pakistan and india can sit quietly and try to resolve, you know, that challenge once and for all. i think the media actually play a important role here in making sure that challenges are not forgotten. go back to what i was saying a moment ago. you know, we intervened along with others in europe in bosnia in the early and mid-'90s, but 15 years later that work is still not done. it's going to take a generation as you know better than anybody else if not longer to reduce and resolve the tensions underneath that conflict. you know, the same with kosovo. it is going to take a generational change before other neighboring countries are willing to accept a kosovo and its independence. you look at a challenge like haiti. i mean, a year ago we all remember the compelling pictures but it's going to take a decade or more to rebuild haiti. are we as american people and are we as international citizens going to be able to sustain that support for as long as it takes to resolve the challenge once and for all? the media actually have an important role to play in keeping -- in, you know, keeping that spotlight bright enough so that leaders can marshal the political will and the resources to solve these challenges. on the way in to work this morning i was listening to the incoming chairwoman of the house foreign affairs committee who was looking at how you can cut foreign assistance to other countries. we have to put that in context. if you cut foreign assistance to other countries, what that means is that in front line states like iraq or afghanistan or pakistan, we'll not be devoting the resources for as long as it takes to resolve that challenge and iraq is a good example of we intervened in 1991. we did some very good things in 1991 but we didn't fix the problem which necessitated having troops come back to that country 12 years later. we have to sustain our effort for as long as it takes and devote the necessary resources in partnership with others to actually fix these challenges, integrate the countries into the global system and have them play a responsible role in the future and that takes time and that takes money. and so, the media can be beneficial in helping to sustain public interest and public support for what we need to do. >> all right. my topic -- oh, first off i'm courtney from florida southern college in florida. my topic is something that i'm passionate about and that doesn't get the spotlight of the media as much as we want it to and there are issues in america today that do not receive as much media attention as it should. but i just was curious and had a question that what is the state department doing to prevent and inform americans about the issue of human trafficking in american borders and whether that be sex trafficking or agricultural trafficking and human beings today in american borders? >> we actually do a lot. it is a -- it's a significant challenge around the world. coming up a little bit later this year we'll have an annual report on global trafficking in persons. you can see it on our website, you know, state.gov and country by country it goes through what the challenge is for the trafficking persons, particularly, you know, women who might be trafficked for or taken advantage of for a variety of reasons. and that very definitely informs our policies and our relationships with each of these countries and we will rate countries as to what effective steps we are taking to both intercede to prevent trafficking of people and also to help and support those who are victims of trafficking in persons. and the secretary of state has said that we are not immune. you know, so just as we look and evaluate and we assess eveffort in other countries, the secretary has made clear that we should also and this upcoming report will assess what we the united states are doing within our own borders prevent trafficking persons. thank you very much. thank you very much. have a good day. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. in the old days we used to call this paola. >> thank you very much. >> we appreciate -- [ applause ] >> we appreciate so much his participation and we have marvin kalb coming next who will keep us in our foreign policy theme of the day. at least in part. i haven't talked about his remarks with him. but don't you notice the intersection between politics and the process of foreign policy? and how not only is separates the left and right into warring factions, but how it also when you become the president and you're looking out through those windows and the oval office it in a way brings us together because it has to be a unified foreign policy and, therefore, it is a very worthwhile discussion for a seminar on politics and the media. thanks again, p.j. crowley. [ applause ] >> we'll take a quick little one-minute break here. really quick, though, before i guess before we do that break, i've lived in washington now for several years, and coming from montana, you don't see a lot of television cameras out on your front lawn every day and a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago i was on my way to work, running late, had the ipod headphones in on the way to the metro to come to work and there was a television camera on the lawn with a -- the apartment building that i was living in. i didn't think anything of it. they came up to me with a microphone. i just kept on trucking because i was running late for work. had the headphones in. didn't think anything of it. thought maybe they're doing another story on the ridiculously high rents here in washington, d.c. well, i get to work and i find out that there are -- well, i had heard the stories but i found out that several of the russian spies that were here in the united states of those several two of them were living in my building. and that befuddled me even more when i think of the state department one of the roommates works for the state department and how interesting of an environment washington, d.c. is when we talk about diplomacy and international relations and washington, d.c. and the media and there was this television crew wanting to know had i ever met any of the russian spies and my answer is, no, i never have but that afternoon when i came home from work, walking through the parking lot and the license plates of cars that are registered to the great state of virginia commonwealth of virginia all have three letters followed by three numbers and sure enough there's a car in the parking lot and can anybody guess what the lee letters of the license plate were? >> kgb? >> kgb. anybody know what the kgb was? anybody not know what the kgb was? how many -- everybody know what the -- good,itarian response, not the entire area of all humanitarian action. >> order, questions to the prime minister. mr. david hanson. >> number one, mr. speaker. thank you mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house would wish to join me to paying tribute to corporal dunn from the parachute squadron who died on the 21st of december and charles wood from 23 pioneer regiment logistic corps who died on the 28th of december and to private from the argonne and southern highlanders fifth battalion the royal regiment of scotland who died on the first of january. these were courageous and selfless servicemen who made the ultimate sacrifice in the fight to make our country a safer place. we send our deepest condolences to their families, friends and colleagues. >> here, here. >> this morning i spoke to the australiian prime minister for the appalling floods and damage in queensland and we were thinking of her and the australiian people at this time. i shall have further such meetings later today. >> could i indulge of the to the troops and the australian people. he will also recall in the coalition document his solemn promise to take action on bankers bonuses and he's renegatives on his second promise why should we ever trust him again? >> the reason we had to put up value added tax is because of the complete and utter mess we were left by the government. i know they are now denial about this. but the fact is we had one of the biggest budget deficits in the g8, one of the worst records on debt anywhere that you could mention. we had to take action and the reason we can now discuss taxes and bankers bonuses and we're not queuing behind greece and ireland of a bailout is because what this government took. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime ministerless know of the good progress in the regeneration of my constituency gloster. >> would the prime minister agree with me in line with the localism agenda the best thing now is to transfer those assets as soon as possible to the city council for the development for the benefit of the city and can i highlight how much support this has? >> we're going to pay tribute to my honorable friend to what he does to help drive the regeneration efforts. gloucester and we're having stronger local enterprise partnerships and i think there's much more room for good local developments including in gloucester. >> dave miliband. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i join it is prime minister in paying tribute to corporal steven dunn from the signal squadron, and charles wood and 23 pioneer wood and the private from the public highlanders fifth battalion the while regiment of scotland. we pay tribute to them for their heroism, their commitment and their dedication and our hearts go out to their families and friends. i also join the prime minister in sending condolences to the australian people who are affected with the floods. in opposition the prime minister said and i quote, whether the taxpayer owns a large stake in a bank we are saying that no employee shall be paid a bonus of over 2,000 pounds. can the prime minister update us on the progress in implementing this? [laughter] >> what i would say is this, it was -- it was the last government that bailed out the banks and asked for nothing in return. that is what happened. the reason we have difficulties with royal bank of scotland this year is because of the completely inadequate account that was initiated by the government that he supported. what we all want to see is the banks paying more in tax and we will see that. we want to see the banks do more lending and we will see that and we want to see the banks cut and we will see that. perhaps make a constructive suggestion. >> the country is getting fed up with the prime minister's suggestions of the bank. he made a promise of no bank bonus over 2,000 pounds. it's still on the conservative website. it's a promise broken. now, he can't offer the bank of bonuses, let's try on the bank of tax. committee explain to the british people why does he think it's fair and reasonable at a time when he's raising taxes on everyone else to be cutting taxes this year on the banks? >> we're not. >> i know the shadow chancellor can't do any math on that. let me give you the figures. last year the banks paid $18 billion in tax. this year they will pay $20 billion in taxes. their taxes will be going up. he just needs to look at page 91 of the office of budget responsibility published in november. labour's payroll tax on the banks raised 3.5 billion pounds. his banking levee is raising just 1.2 billion pounds. in any one language that is a tax cut for the banks. why doesn't the prime minister just admit it? >> i've given him the numbers the taxes are going up. 18 billion to 20 billion. now, let me explain -- now let me explain the numbers in terms of his bank bonus tax and our bank levee because obviously he can't get the numbers from the man sitting next to him so let me give him the numbers. the bank bonus tax raised net 2.3 billion pounds. and the author of that tax is sitting over there, the former chancellor says you cannot go on introducing this tax here year after year. the bank levee will raise 2.5 billion pounds each year once it's clearly up and running. >> yes, yes. 2.5 billion, even the shadow chancellor can tell him 2.5 billion is more than 2.3 billion. and with the magic of addition, if you have a bank levee every year, which we supported and he opposed, they said don't do that do it, remember that, we will raise $9 billion compared to his 2.3 billion. even the shadow chancellor can work out that it's bigger than 2.3. >> mr. speaker, i think that is as close as we get to an admission to the prime minister that he is cutting taxes on the banks. the obr is clear they raised 3.5 billion pounds and he will be raising 2.2 billion pounds in the bank's levee. he can't answer on banks and bonuses. we know the business secretary is not a man to mess with because he told them he had a nuclear weapon in his pocket and he wasn't afraid to use it so we would listen to him and he said -- and he said if you keep people in the dark you grow a poisonous fungus he wasn't talking about the bank of ex-checker. he was talking about the banks. why doesn't he listen to his business secretary and listen to our proposal of his disclosure of all bonuses over a million pounds. it's on the statute books. it's ready to go. why doesn't he just get on with it? >> i think that was such a long question that i think the honorable gentleman -- i think the honorable gentleman should be thinking of a television career and he should get his brother to run the labour party. he would have a better way around. >> you don't have to be -- look, we want greater transparency but let me put this to him. he had 13 years to put these rules in place. why didn't he ever get around to it? >> dave miliband? >> you know he doesn't have the answers when he starts asking the questions? now, let me tell the prime minister he is now in the position of being a more of a defender of the bank than even the banks themselves because steven he is banker. the walker report the labour department commissioned which made this recommendation and would be implemented for the whole industry. i'm not arguing about it. i have no great problem with the issue of transparency and would have no difficulty. mr. speaker, on the banks the pm has had eight months to hold them to account. he's had eight months to hold them to account. when is he going to start? >> i take a lecture from a lot of people on how to regulate banks. i won't take one from the people opposite who let them get away with absolutely murder. who was it who set up the bank regulation that completely failed? who bailed out the banks and got nothing return. and who agreed on the contract and had nothing about the bank and the right honorable gentleman was at the treasury there. he was there when they knighted good win and they knighted him for services of england and they sent with him a 17 million pound payoff and that's why they will never trust them on labour or the economy again. and what he was he saying when all this was going on, deregulate the banks even more. he even put the vulcan on his policy of the banks. planet redwood and planet cameron and that is the truth, mr. speaker. there we have it. life in 2011 on planet cameron. one rule for the banks. another for everybody else. and is there any wonder that now we know why his minister -- his health minister says, i don't want you to trust david cameron. he has values that i don't share. the health minister knows he's out of touch. the house knows he's out of touch and now because of his failure with the banks, the whole country knows he's out of touch. >> i think he knows this just isn't working. >> yeah. >> we've ended up -- we've ended up with a shadow chancellor who can't count and a labour leader who doesn't count. [laughter] >> he was in the treasury. what did he do? what did he do when they set up the regulatory system that failed? he did nothing. what did he do when they paid out $11 billion to bankers, he did nothing. what did he say when he abolished boom and bust. he did nothing. he is the nothing man when he's at the treasury man and the nothing man now and he's trying to run the treasury. >> they have been involved in the last year's -- helping over 2,000 people. would the prime minister agree to meet with the delegation to hear about the importance of their local knowledge? and skills. and also to hear how we can avoid a fiasco similar to what we saw with the regionalization of fire services? >> i look very carefully at the time of this announcement of exactly what's being proposed in terms of the coast guard and there are proposals to try to and put more on the front line by sharing back-office services in the way we coordinate the coast guard. i know there are very strong local feelings. i will arrange for her to meet with the transparent secretary to discuss this because what is essential we have really good coast guard coverage for all of our country. >> the prime minister has just confirmed to everybody listening that he's not taking any action on the bankers bonuses. at the same time his government is removing the mobility element for thousands of people living in residential areas. is that the influence of the liberal democrats or the unfinished business of them? >> obviously, i actually said no things. you obviously were not listening to the interesting exchanges we were having. let's be clear, we want a settlement where their examines go up, their lending goes up and their bonuses come down instead of posturing and posing about it. we're actually doing something about it. in terms of disability, in terms of disability, living allowance, this is an important issue. the intention here is very clear that there should be a similar approach for people who are in hospital and for people who are in residential care homes. that is what we intend to do and that is what i'll make sure happens. >> may i ask the prime minister to look favorably and flexibility upon community groups to hold street parties to celebrate the forthcoming royal wedding? >> i will certainly do that. i'm sure some of the large trade unit, everyone else wants to have a well celebration for the alikes, and the diamond jubilee and the royal wedding. >> and i wish to give my condolences to the soldiers who died fighting for their country and charlie wood a supporter and our prayers are with the families. mr. speaker, the business secretary compromised himself over the takeover. his culture secretary has declared that -- or the prime minister knows it's the right thing and the culture secretary to repair the takeover bed to the competition commission. >> first of all, i think the honorable gentleman is entirely right to pay tribute and he spoke about him very movingly. on the issue of the responsibility for media mergers there is a proper process that needs to be followed. ministers have a quasi-judicial role in doing that and i'm confident the arrangements that are put in place will do that. >> thank you, mr. speaker, as chairman of the all-party homeland security group, may i commend the prime minister and the government for having a very proper internal discussion about the future of control. given that president obama himself has been unable to deliver his pledge to close guantanamo bay, wouldn't it be ludicrous to suggest that some kind of simple answer to this problem and we look forward to seeing his proposals. >> we do face an enormously dangerousus terrorist threat and it's a threat the british judicial system have struggled to meet and the reason we all talked about reviewing control orders is we want to make sure the answer we come up with is good for liberty and good for security. i can see the shadow home secretary nodding and i hope we can reach all-party agreement on this important issue. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister think it's fair or reasonable of that training should have their ema support withdrawn for the secretaries year. isn't this a case of breaking our promises and letting them down. >> we will be replacing it and we want to look carefully on how best to replace it but there are two very important facts i think we have to bear in mind. the first is the researchers find that 90% of recipients of ema will be staying on at school in any event. and secondly, again with all-party support we're raise got participating support to 18. for those two reasons i think it's right to look for a replacement that is more tailored and more targeted and will help to make sure that those children who really need it get that extra money to stay in school. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i made the prime minister understand that there is a huge amount of support for the uptick convoy veterans of world war to receive a medal. but does he also appreciate that in order for their remaining representatives of this incredibly brave group of men to receive this recognition in their lifetime and that the time to act is right now? >> i do. i have considerable sympathy with what the right honorable lady have said. it does seem to me -- of course you have to have -- you have to have -- yes, we given by consent. we do have to have proper rules here but it seems to me, people on these convoys served on these incredibly hard conditions and were able to serve for a very long time and there is a case that they have missed out and many are coming to the end of their lives and it would be good to do more than what they've done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. which does the prime minister consider to be a worst political betrayal, a liberal democrats deputy prime minister not to introduce tuition fees but did but they promised to introduce a fuel duty stabilizer and didn't? >> i think you can topple those with an snp who said they would have an referendum on s & p and never did. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my local conservative council has announced a council tax freeze while protecting essential public services. now, there were many in the country and indeed some in this chamber that it's possible. what message would the prime minister send to those to be deny that it's possible for government to deliver more for less? >> well, i actually commend what my honorable friend said. the fact is, of course, we are making reductions in local government grant, although when you look at the figures, what local government will get in 2013 is actually equivalent to what they get in 2007 so i think we should keep these reductions in perspective but i would urge every local counsel to look at what it will do by sharing services and chief executives bireducing back-office cost and take the money so they can reduce by less. >> with the government cutting 20,000 front line officers, will he give me that crime will come down on his watch. >> and the fact is only 11% of police officers at any one time are out on the beat. i have the figures for the north wales police and yes, of course, there are some spending reductions are being made and i'm answering his question and when it comes to the funding in 2011, '12 it will be the same as the funding they had in 2007, '8 so it's perfectly possible to have effective crime fighting to get police out in the street in north wales. >> given the rural nature and the impact of the record of them, will the prime minister look as what the chancellor is undertaking in june and offer a fuel stabilizes -- stabilizer. >> and we have looked at the rural areas and some progress was made on the budget issues. on the fuel stabilizer, yes, the treasury are looking at this because clearly there is a case for saying as the oil price rises, if it can be shown the treasury benefits from extra revenue, there should be a way of sharing that from the motors who are suffering from all prices and while we hear by all the chattering from the party opposite, the last fuel duty increases were all increased in their budget. >> the disclose of the new passport of it will have a devastating on 250 families involved. and an effect of the economy of newport. can i give an assurance that no final decision will be taken until the economic impact assessment is published and considered? >> well, i know how important the pos part office has been to newport and how many jobs it has provided obviously we want to see diverse economies right across our country and that is what the regional growth fund is there to help achieve in terms of areas that are threatened with public sector job reductions. but i'll certainly look at the case the specific question and i'll make sure he has an answer. >> the prime minister will record his visit to my constituency hospital as part of supporting the campaign to prevent the forced closer of ame and consultant-led services. does he agree with me that there should be no forced closures particularly given -- particularly given -- particularly given the fact that our local gp's are opposed to it as are indeed the residents? >> my right honorable friend makes a very good point. any local changes to the nhs have got to meet four tests. they've got to have the support of local gp's and strong public and patient engagement and they got to provide support for patient choice there were no tests like that under the last government that had these top-down reconstructions. there are no tests and they will be adhered to by this government. >>erny chapman? -- jenny chapman. >> the business secretary wants to moves jobs from darlington what is the prime minister going to do to stop it? >> we agree with the program that was started not by the last government but actually by several previous governments of trying to diversify and spread jobs out of whitehall and into the regions and we should continue with that. >> order, i want to hear brandon lewis. >> it has been approved as one of the schemes for the gp practitioners. the local health teams with the officers. what will the government newer that we will deliver on this sfroj >> i'm delighted that his constituency is taking part in this pathfinder project. those people who say that somehow nhs reform is being introduced in one big start are completely wrong. there's 25% of gp's are going forward to make this work. there's huge enthusiasm amongst gp's to get this moving and i think it will show real benefit in terms of patient choice. and what i would say to everyone in this house, the idea that there is somehow a choice of a simple life where you just don't reform the nhs, when you have rising drug bills, rising treatment bills and frankly a record in this country where we are not ahead in europe on cancer outcomes and all stroke outcomes and heart outcomes is not a sensible option. it's right to make this coalition and it is digging an unacceptable status quo. >> the prime minister -- the prime minister will be aware of the changes to the rescue and coast guard and a protector of the proposed closer of the coast guard station and the exchange of responsibilities to scotland. will the prime minister ensure the house today that the future of the coast guard station -- that it will be for air city rescue and that the people of northern ireland in northern ireland will be safe and secure? >> i have been lobbied sensitively about the rescue including by people from all walks of life, if i can put it that way and i totally understand the need for air, sea, rescue. i think what matters is not necessarily who is carrying it out but are they fully qualified? and is it a good service and is that valued for money. >> in reviewing antiterrorist laws, will my right honorable friend ensure that there's a balance between the police having the powers and detention and arrest and making sure that there is a return to the rule of law as it is understood? >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely right. that we should not depart from normal procedures and practices in terms of british law and justice unless it's absolutely necessary. you have to defend every change in that way. and i think -- as i said earlier, we do face a terrorist threat that is materially different to what we face for the ira. we face a threat where people are quite prepared to murder themselves and as many as they can at any occasion. so we are -- it is difficult to meet this using all the existing methods. that's why control orders were put if place and that's why their replacement is put in place that is good for their liberty and their security. i'm absolutely convinced that we will do this and we will do it in a way that has the support of the police and the security services and those who i pay tribute today from this dispatch box for all their work for keeping us safe. >> mr. speaker, we rack the valuable work that the armed forces do and from watching and protecting democracy. in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. and yet they see their own prime minister in their own country sacrificing democracy to a foreign media basis hear no evil, see no evil, can the prime minister explain why? >> i'm afraid i didn't quite get the gist of that question. [laughter] >> so i'll have to -- the point i would make is the media regulation is properly carried out in this country and by this government and it will be done in a way that is fair and transparent. that is what -- that is what needs to happen, that is what will happen. >> the right to strike is an important one. and the hallmark of a free society. but with it comes responsibilities. will he agree that any union ballot that these two industrial actions will have the majority support of those entitled to vote? >> well, i know -- i know there is a strong case being made not in the least by my colleague the mayor of london for this sort of change. i'm very happy to look at the arguments for it because i want to make sure that we have a fair body of union law in this country. i think the laws put in place in the 1980s are working well. we don't currently have proposals to amend them but i'm very happy to look at this argument 'cause i don't want to see a wave of irresponsible strikes when they are not by people taking part. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my a vision and remarkable face once said this prime minister is an absolute genius in translating flam l.a. county languages. one such example because it's some day to be adopted. >> i don't accept that for a moment that they will make sure we rationalize all of the nongovernmental bodies there are. and it will save billions of pounds in the process. it's a very sensible process of asking the question what should be part of government and properly accountable for this house and what doesn't need to be done and, therefore, can be team away. and as i say, it will save billions of pounds and a very good thing, too. >> henry smith. >> thank you, very much, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join me in congratulating the league of friends on helping secure a new mammogram machine for that hospitals? can the prime minister explain the way we can have better cancer services in this country. >> i'm grateful for my right honorable friend's question. and members right across this house support the league of friends and their constituencies to raise money for their hospitals to do extraordinary things in terms of equipment and services. and it's a good moment to all those who take part. today we are making an announcement about a new cancer plan that aims to save another 5,000 lives every year by the end of this parliament. this is all about the early diagnosis that we need in the nhs but i have to say to the honorable gentleman we wouldn't be able to do it if we hadn't as

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Montana ,United States ,Nevada ,Australia ,Alameda County ,California ,Belarus ,Florida Southern College ,Florida ,Brazil ,Kosovo ,San Diego ,Croatia ,Mexico ,Charlotte ,North Carolina ,Arizona ,Central City ,Massachusetts ,Spain ,Whitehall ,Orkney Islands ,United Kingdom ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Miami ,Moscow ,Moskva ,Russia ,Afghanistan ,Virginia ,Cincinnati ,Ohio ,London ,City Of ,Pakistan ,Tunisia ,Caracas ,Distrito Federal ,Venezuela ,Iraq ,New York University ,New York ,North Korea ,City College ,Turkey ,China ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,South Sudan ,India ,Sudan ,Rome ,Lazio ,Italy ,South Carolina ,Ireland ,Cuba ,Greece ,South Africa ,Haiti ,Pyongyang ,P Yongyang Si ,Iran ,Congo ,Rhode Island ,Rwanda ,Boston ,Washington Center ,West Point ,Northern Ireland ,Craigavon ,Newport ,Cairo ,Al Qahirah ,Egypt ,Yemen ,Americans ,Australian ,America ,Croats ,Scotland ,British ,American ,Russian ,Soviet ,Walter Cronkite ,Hugo Chavez ,Richard Holbrooke ,David Cameron ,David Hanson ,Dave Miliband ,Julian Assange ,Jenny Chapman ,Rachel Gonzalez ,Suu Kyi ,Brian Williams ,Jack Reed ,Savannah Guthrie ,Henry Smith ,Larry Palmer ,Paul Harvey ,Chuck Todd ,James Clark ,Mike Huckabee ,Steven Dunn ,Sarah Palin ,Colin Powell ,Jon Stewart ,States ,Nan Roman ,Steve Bell ,Slobodan Milosevic ,Ted Koppel ,Hillary Clinton ,Marvin Kalb ,Monique Madden ,