tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 10, 2014 12:00am-2:01am EDT
with the safety before the pour. but still needs to be done. and for what they have done so they have to do continue. and there is a strong delegation coming from egypt. and i very much hope we could do article for with the egyptian friends. and we continue to be engaged across the world with the support and the financial support as well.
>> i am with hong kong phoenix tv. with the federal reserve monetary policy as it has indicated relying on the economy's that we also see the federal reserve had global growth. for the interest-rate. thank you. >> i cannot predict what the fed will do i also believe that chairman yellen is given very clear and understandable explanation about the monetary policy of
the fed. so we could all be the same thing and what it is meant by what she says. and aunt we have also seen delivery of what she message to. from six months ago. but the other question dealt with others. in the areas to do christ a lot of work the outcome of what we call of remember back in may and june 2013? changing the monetary policy of the fed with the outflow of capital with the currency
and exchange rate of the emerging world. and also the response by those countries to make sure that they will be exposed to build a sense to respond to volatility. but with large emerging market economies are in difficulty will still work with the originating country. and including in the communication to find out she was paying attention to
both. >> i with a guardian. talk about the it does -- the year ozone, we have been here before so how close is that to becoming the new japan? >>. >> it has been commented upon about what year-ago noticed of low inflation which is one of the attributes of what you describe so low inflation was the risk and we identified that
so what are the a their sources approach that they turn to so what they could tap into because they continue to grow. and those measures could address the partner countries. thank you. >> if you did not get the translation, did you get it? it was the very comprehensive question from the peruvian colleague that peru will be hosting the next meeting next october for the imf and world bank.
then he asked question about the current economic situation of peru that is the economy clearly marked by a industries and that exports which profit from their recent decline. and on behalf of our tradition and major construction and to be together under one roof. in the we are of looking forward to it. i can assure you. with the peruvian economy and over the last decade to
take the hits in the early months of 2014 with the combination with the great exporter and sec didn't and in the country's. it does not necessarily follow as it should have. and seriously in the first few months compared with what it has produced in the last decade. with those policy measures that have been decided from the monetary standpoint to
>> our next guest a national political columnist also has written a book the truth is out. welcome. as far as what we're talking about 1987 with the front runner gary hart ahead is the polls and what ended up happening is the "miami herald" puts them under surveillance. event -- and it was during the satellite age the way we covered politics to scrutinize politicians.
>> with this picture of sitting on his lap? >> although everything it is remembered is misremembered everything people think and it doesn't come out for weeks. but they made a comment like that it was not publicly known. so if you think about it with that morality was given with get this moment. the story is gripping and remarkable you have this man
presumed nominee of the democratic party the most prominent politician in america up against the brick wall and those who peppered him with questions did you have sex with that woman? i do know her? are you lying? are you moral? i think if you pinpoint the ground up politics that would shift to the way that was inevitable and would have been anyway. >> host: you say their relationships with women was not the secret. >> no. little remembered he was separated from his wife twice hinted when separation he stayed on bob woodward's account each. he was no drought washington -- two was known so there was a lot of confusion about
his reputation and having been this well-known in washington nobody ever written about it people of not know about this and the visionary politician of his time to looking ahead around the corner you can see the domestic policy but in this particular area the feeling may be obvious story you cannot believe for one minute searching for the evidence. >> that is the belief to withdraw from the campaign and thanks to c-span because it is a fabulous speeches completely forgotten in the public record which i appreciate that spinning
gear is a little bit from gary hart 1987. >> seriously question the system to select our national leaders that reduces the nation to hunters and presidential candidates being hunted and as reporters the false and inaccurate stories printed and peaking in our windows, swarms of helicopters over the roof. and my wife close to tears when she cannot even get into her own house at night without being harassed. then congress pundits wonder in mock seriousness of some of the best people in the country wonder not to run for higher office said mickey goes on to say at the end of the speech he says i tremble for my country when may get the kind of leaders we deserve. he was going to give the difference speech but he
tore that up and gave that one. he is mocked because he is not contrite or not taking responsibility and frowned to criticize. 27 years later asking if there is something wrong with the way we cover politics i think it should be remembered. >> host: the book talks about said gary -- the gary hart campaign if you want to ask questions but from that point forward how did that change? what changed specifically? >> it might help me sort through my calls a little bit. but that political system changes from world views and
ideas and the agenda is we know you're hiding something there is a lie or a fraud or a hypocrisy. we spent a lot of time trying to assess the characters and very little time to understand their ideas. glading kid drove a lot of people lot of politics and keeps a lot of people out politics and it goes to any level that they have no business in public office when there is not as much attention paid to those ideas. >> host: those who experienced watergate was there a difference of would have been door that coverage? >> it is deeply connected. that affect is at the same time having not seen who
nixon was and at the same time a younker generation there is no business after watergate so. no more important directive and to find somebody is telling you is the truth. there is a direct line. in then to stand in a crowded ballroom in front of a national audience reuter gary hart tries to put this behind him he is behind in the polls and then walks into a series of questions are you a moral person? yes. i suppose so.
the original presidential candidate in modern history but the people who were in their room were gasping and people could not believe that they had no idea he did know how to answer the question the key is just looking that he has had an adulterous affairs on his bus for years old -- a clear. i am not suggesting but it's there would be of moment and i think that was it. >> what has he said? >> you just dismissed all these questions that were irrelevant.
>> i will not tell the readers would it comes down to a survey have to read the book what after donna rice they both refused to talk about it. but this is nobody's business and irrelevant and invasion of his privacy. people could pull his eyes but what i put to people is how do we define character? by the person who will conduct to every level of scrutiny? and to get around these issues? or the person refuses to talk about details that the cost of his political career? unable to return to public life over 27 years. that is a very important question. petersburg, virginia, you're up first.
caller: good morning. i am reading your book. i have an advanced reading copy. i will be reviewing it. guest: i'd rather see you get one, but ok. caller: well i highly recommend it. -- the geniethe g will ever be put back in the bottle? do you think we will ever be back in a country where we are working as hard, are you ever going to talk to me about our ideas or are we going to continue to dwell on personal aspects? life that is a good question. i do not think there is a switch you will flip and that is the point. that do think strongly younger journalists change the egos of the business.
by of the arguments made reporters who covered this story job. is not our -- this story. it is not our job. makes thesomeone front page, everyone who designs a website, someone sits down and makes decisions. what matters, what doesn't? i wrote a column today. i have to decide, what is important this week and what is not, what should be at the top, what should be at the bottom? all of a sudden, we advocate the responsibility and say, it is up .o the voters sometimes it does matter. absolutely relevant.
i could go into some of them. away the judgment for so long because we know these stories are fascinating to people. there is a new generation of journalists who can and may deploy the kind of cover -- the kind of judgment. host: next from iowa, independent line. caller: i have a question. -- how can bill clinton get by what he did? it was very scandalous what he did in our white house in the oval office. john edwards did not sit there at that panel when bill clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that stuck his finger
out there and said i did not have sexual relations with that woman. you know he did before and after and he lied right to the grand jury. >> i am not going to make that comparison because edwards has lied as well. behavior --e are examples of when behavior was relevant. measure being to in the 1990's and you go through a very tepid scandal. you are the innovator of the party. first to talk about manufactured on amies, terrorism natural -- national scale. you are watching him drive by and get through his scandals
while in office. meanwhile, he cannot get a job in office because everyone joke and is a national he is the punchline. do is to tried to imagine sort of being that person and what he goes through and how that affects not just the country but that man. the heart of your question, what we did in that moment was begin to redefine political leadership. before 1987, going back for a long time, lyrical leadership was really about your ideas and your plan. after that, it becomes, can you even gave the trap and survive? bill clinton becomes the survivor. in that sense, he is known as
the best politician of the generation. he is an intellectual giant and a brilliant man who i think did a lot of good things that resident. but the political genius is really in his ability to and say around scandal what he has to say and get by. i do not know if that is standard. from alexandria, virginia. your next. caller: i have a comment. this is not religious. it is the war between justice, injustice, and corruption area -- corruption. ont: i think we have moved to another topic. that was our previous topic. let's move onto travis, hello. you in i wanted to ask regards to scandals, do you
believe it is the lie itself or the actual scandal that hurts ?eople in the public eye >> excellent question and it depends on the case. one of the questions is, is every lie the same and is every like consequential? argument made by reporters. a lie is a lie and if you catch a politician in a lie, that is the story, and it justifies any manner of investigation. i'm not sure. i think more people engage in immoral acts and honest people sometime tell untruths. question, i think, about someone's character has to be viewed in context. we are talking about pollock titian's who have had a long have theublic life, duct of votes and taken money from lobbyists, have they lied to their constituents?
we can judge character by a whole wide amount of things. surely, if he is a liar, there are other lies he has told. no one ever did. the lie is what gets you into trouble and justifies a lot of the journalism. will i have to be a pattern in some context. we lost our focus on providing that context for people, particularly in this. >> what you think about the miami herald's approach to asking questions which resulted in the story? i have have up --guest: a piece about this and there was a very thoughtful response to the book and i answered it. i do not find it easy to put
myself in position. they are excellent reporters. i probably could have made the same decision in the moment. it is hard to look back and judge. he would ask, what should we have done that -- at that moment? -- alley if you are in the asking those questions and you thought you are being lied to, if that were me, i would probably write the story as well. the question is, should we ever have gone down a darkened alley to begin with? where i differ with my reporters at the herald, with all due respect, which are longer than mine, is that in all the years , first and foremost being this following around quote. boundaries and if
you're going to lame somebody -- that is not actually what happened. why do we change the rules and is it right to change the rules? responsibility as truth seekers. part of what i do in this book is wrestled with the repercussions of my own book. it is part memoir. in 11 about how i wrote or 12 years ago and how i felt i had not gotten the story right. host: when you report now, what questions do you ask yourself? guest: i thought about this for many years. a true story missing a larger
point. i have been thinking about this in terms of my clinical coverage. -- political coverage. for me, context and substance are very important. it was all about substance. media --he rest of the the only part of the antipoverty platform that really don't with new thinking on personal was a call for responsible fatherhood. deadbeat dads had to take responsibility for their children. john edwards was lying about taking responsibility for his own. to me, that is hypocrisy. it is relevant to government. if you do not practice the things you think other people are practicing, we have to doubt your conviction.
mind to keep an open what is relevant. more often in my own work, i have begun to put personal behavior to the side and not think about it and not question people about it and i find if you concentrate on ideas and plans and you're talking to is smart and thoughtful politicians, you can learn more about what they will actually do for the country than you can sunni across and thinking, will this person kill me? matt bai, author of "all the truth is out: the week politics went tabloid." joe, go ahead. caller: instead of taking the , you might talk about kennedy in the war. kennedy and news reporters back
upn, they were covering kennedy's sexual escapades that were going on. if you look forward, possibly gary hart may not have been on because, other87 scandals, kennedy, johnson, if they were exposed first, a lot of things forward from there would never have happened. is a pretty good timeline, but i think you really could go back to the kennedy and theration non-reporting that went on during that time. i think you're right. you poll on this thread and go in a lot of directions. but that time is very important. john kennedy's affairs were not known at that time, but they do
start to come out as a result of the church commission in the 1970's. wrestling with these issues. the feeling of dishonesty and cynicism that begins in vietnam and rises through watergate have a lot to do with 1987 as well. there are a couple real ironies about the events in 1987 that have to do what you are talking about. one, the youngest member of the church commission, he had very detailed knowledge of what was going on at the kennedy administration and what was overlooked. and i think drew the conclusion knew,judging from what he the press simply did not report these things, unless they rose to an egregious level. he probably learned the wrong lesson from that. also, the hero of watergate, the editor of washington post, because herge role goes out and perfect -- personally confirms evidence of what they believe could be another affair.
that is how they end up hurling this question of adultery. part of the interesting thing about this week and the recounting of it and the drama of it is some of the characters who are deeply involved go back to seminal events in the 1960's and 1970's. host: from north carolina, go ahead. caller: you could go back further than the kennedys. there have been brothels in washington dc since the 60's. clinton should not get credit for anything but redefining the word is. newt gingrich made clinton moved to the middle and then when we lost the senate, he was made to move back to the left. you ought to really put your eyes on hillary. all those women before they could get any dirt
on her. she is the real bad one. that is just my comment. i appreciate that and i will seize on the first thing you said, which is the talk about what was going on in washington in 1800's. you hear this a lot from people who will say, nothing new here, grover cleveland and alexander hamilton, we had sex scandals and people's personal lives from the beginning. i think that is a little bit of a red herring. 1800's, talk about you're not talking about the media as we think of the media. you're talking about partisan media. in 1800's during that time, we still had a congressman getting tamed on the house floor within an inch of his life. that is not something i think we want to go back to. for the purposes of my reporting on this, the 20th century is more relevant. no political candidate was
subjected to that level in his private life and no one until him experienced the full force of the modern scandal. coincideappened to with the invention of the modern satellite dish and the rise of punditry and a lot of other friends and culture that this kind ofted modern scandal that we know so well, with minute by minute buttes and a camera crews that in 1987 was unheard of. do you think people are jaded when it comes to character issues? ?ww.c-span.orgww.c-span.org guest: yes.
he knew three presidential candidates yet covered in all those decades. jimmy carter was one. one of the questions i have with tom at the herald who responded to this, he said in his piece in politico last week, i think the ask question is not why we these questions, but why didn't we ask them of franklin roosevelt and john kennedy and lyndon johnson. that is we could have been they would have done exactly what part did. had off hehave skate -- off the obfuscated. all of those things would have been the fruit of the poison
tree. i think that is a dangerous road to go down. you talked by what was going on in 1987, the rise of feminism, and how it changed coverage overall. guest: yes. and this is a larger point. it is already turning in the culture. the rise of feminism, different attitudes of adultery on the left, on the right, the rise of moral majority, which cares very much about personal morality. before, andar, just it is important to think about, you have the big baker scandal, which you may remember. the wife with the mascara running down her face, and then you have the whole iran-contra scandal, which, interesting, the facts of which are obscure.
the secretary who stuffed the papers in her skirt, but we already have this kind of entertainment culture taking hold in our politics. critic writescial an astounding book which everyone should read and he says , two years before the heart scandal, he says, we have now become a television culture. there are story arcs and if your news is not entertaining and they are not following a certain story arc, we are tuning them out. iostm in the context of the heart scandal and the next three decades, it is shocking. california, joseph next. caller: i have a comment. comment is every relationship
is fundamentally based on trust. when that trust is file a did, so is the relationship you're is reason this is important, because, what most people fail to articulate is it is not so much a big deal that an adulterous affair occurred. from the perspective of the voter, we are saying this guy is willing to do this to his partner in life. what is he willing to do to the rest of us? that is my comment. guest: that is an often heard and important point and a fair interpretation. if someone is going to lie to their wife and lied to the country. valid viewpoint and i do not reject it. the only thing i would say is, as i said before, moral people do immoral things and truthful people while the time. the question is, is it a pattern ? is it a compulsion? are there human reasons we can
understand why somebody tells an untruth? to me, this is not about sex and the book is not about sex. my discussion of local journalism scandals is not about sex. the larger scandal is what we decide years after the art scandal and what we are deciding is, it is hypocrisy and that lie that you need to find. about something. maybe it is a land deal and a friendship closer than what you said it was and it is embarrassing. maybe you got tired one night and said something stupid you did not mean to say. whatever the gas or the lie or the hypocrisy is, we are seizing on that and defining you buy it. if you can do it once, you could do it again. it was said to me when i was noting on a story, "we are the worst thing we have ever done in our lives and there is a tendency to think we are. i think that is important.
in my industry, in an industry where we decided, you can and probably should be the worst thing we can figure out you have ever done. context andt compassion and you cannot possibly attract the kinds of leaders you need to attract. host: arlington, virginia. good morning. caller: matt, for the first time in a long time, i have enjoyed this morning's show. guest: [laughter] i feel good about that. i am a colleague. i covered the white house for 2.5 administrations. i tell people i was in the east room the day journalism died. it was a day the health-care bill is being signed. the media has an obligation to -- in place and come back
host: are you there? i apologize, she got dropped. if you call back, that is fine. but thank you. i gather you appreciate the book and the discussion. if you have not, i hope you will. host: pam, arizona, independent line. caller: yes, the question. -- i have a question. it seems like they keep talking about the same people. it appears they never seem to be in the people who are example, that congressman who talks about family values all the time to he is a republican and because he is a republican, it does not get covered.
he is seen kissing her after he says family values are the most important thing, and he is running for election again and there is no problem and we are not bring it up. -- bringing it up. the congressman who was the andrnor of north carolina goes off to a foreign country instead of doing his job and he comes back and his now elected. we only talk about the same people over and over and we never talk about all the current ones. newt gingrich was teaching , and what happened with newt gingrich? was he convicted of anything? we just pick democrats and we never talk about republicans. guest: i get it.
actually, no, we do not all do that. about in mytalked book and i recall him about him about three weeks ago, which you could go look at. anatomic -- an entire column talking about him. we do and there is a reason we know about these things. it is because you read it in the media. all of these things actually do get covered. but look, i am not a compendium of sex scandals. i am not interested in eight compendium of sex scandals. i wrote about a guy who was extraordinary in a moment when extraordinary things happened. and how we can understand our time better by understanding that. others tove it to stay -- start the effect the. . it is a huge job. host: pennsylvania, republican
line, good morning. i want to tell you something. your book might be good, and all comes to, but when it personal like bill clinton's sex life, that is personal. that should never have gone out to the public. anybody or anything. all crap. people, forple of 50 years. it is a great point. too much attention is put on personal lives. i do not think it is a link at role. who isler before, pam, quite exercised over there, she
has got a point. you are out there telling other people they have to live a moral and upright life while you are having affairs and lying about it, your constituent probably has the right to know that. i think it is judgment and we seize to show judgment and after 1987, we shape for the culture is going instead of trying to have an answer effective process and discussion about what we owe ir readers and that is where met out. i pretty much left the private discussions to him. i think he appreciates the fact
that i have tried to see it more deeply than before. he has been through a lot. he carries around a lot of guilt and feels he would have been a president and would've been a great president and feels like he put a lot of people down. he feels like he has a lot of anger. he feels like there is a lot of unfairness. perspective. he watched all these people rehabilitate their image as an come back and serve again and he has not been able to do some of the things he would a flight to do in public life. there are complicated emotions. that humanity is what i tried to get at in the book. texas, next. caller: i want to know why we have to point the finger at everybody because we all lie and we all fall short.
so, i mean, we need to learn how and look ateople their thoughts and what they could do for our country. not one person on this earth that does not lie even today. it is not up to us to point the finger about them who are lying -- about lying and cheating. that is something they will have to deal with god with. that is all i have to say. does it change your perspective of the politician? caller: not really. i kind of feel like it depends on what it is about. me, auld not matter to personal life. if he was lying about something that would cause death to my children in the military or something that would cause catastrophic events to our country, i would be upset. but that is his job. but when it comes to who he is
sleeping with or who he is kissing and all of that, that is none of my business. guest: you rse aat p . .ok, the days in 1987 as senator hart is explaining himself and tried to navigate this new kind of scandal, the hearings on the iran contra scandal are opening in washington. there is a moment in the book give aart is about to speech about the media and he sees his friend tom brokaw standing in the balcony, and he is shocked because it is the first day of the iran contra hearing. he says, what is tom brokaw doing here to cover me to see if i am going to say something about an affair that may the iran-contra was about a lie. it was about a violation of the law lying to congress about having sold arms to iran into
the middle east so you could take the money and give it to south american rebels because, because in fact they were prohibited from doing that by congress at that time. that was a major scandal and very few people remember the details of it. i have a hard time recalling the details and yet at the same moment the world, the late-night shows, the comedians, everybody is riveted and i think it set the tone for what we have seen repeated over and over again for many years. not all eyes are the same. >> host: dan is from alabama. go ahead. >> caller: yes, all the political scandals where everybody is writing a book about the president and whoever it may be. it's all about the man but the lady that's on the right played a big part of big part in that
too so why don't we bring up some of the scandals that have interfered on women to happen that's all i have to say. >> host: do you have a specific one in mind? >> caller: it's wide open. >> guest: are you talking about the women involved in the scandals are we talking about the politicians? >> caller: we are talking about the politicians in the men's wives. we are talking about the man but we don't talk about the scandals that play a big part in the men. >> guest: i do talk quite a bit in the book about senator hart's marriage and by the way he's been married for over 50 years. people assume wrongly that this destroyed their marriage and they couldn't get through. they did get through them they are very happily married. i was talking about donna rice. she really becomes the first
woman caught, the other woman. there's no playbook for her. they don't know what to do with her and when it happened she wants to protect hart. she doesn't want to cause him any trouble. she wants to go home. she is now remembered as the steamy model. she was a mecom lobby and the leading sales representative for wyeth pharmaceuticals in her district. she wanted to go home and what everybody's trying to explain to her she can't really go home and mpac she can never go home again. she goes back to her condo in florida and photographers have rented votes to shoot through the windows. neighbors have rented out their apartments or reporters can stay there and try to find her and a pizza delivery guy can't make it through the crust to get up stairs so she can have pizza. she realizes quickly pushed her home is surrounded and she realizes quickly she's never going to be who she was again.
this is a holy thing and she ends up on a plane provided by a campaign lawyer, a private plane chased by tv trucks to the airport strapped into a private plane to engine gunning and she has no idea where she's going next. she's going wherever they take her because there's nothing she can go back to. i think it's a really poignant story. she ends up having a really important career and public service of her own. she's been a pioneer against internet pornography and she reinvented herself and got married and had a really good life. i go through all that in the book but it was an experience that no one had gone through at that point and you are right. >> host: what did she tell you about her role in what took place back then looking at it now? >> guest: well she's reticent about it. she never wanted to give the impression that she was just someone of loose morals and no substance. she wanted to move beyond it in the same way that hart did. she didn't want to define her
life. she wanted her life to have more meaning than that. so you know she talks about it now that she was under pressure that she did what she thought was expected of her and she has tried to respect his privacy and her privacy and part of what i wrestle with in the book and i won't say what i would like people to read the part of what i wrestle with in the book is how much do i need to know? how hard do i push and plan than what is my responsibility and our people going to want to know the details? do you is not an easy thing to work through. >> host: sarah you are up next from ft. lauderdale florida. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i'm a republican but no one ever gives our president credit for being a loyal husband and father of his children and behaving like a gentleman in the white house. no one on my side ever says anything about that. it's always everything bad that he did. and i wanted to say you know women throw themselves at men in
power and the men are not necessarily going out and grabbing after these women. they are coming to them and seducing them many many times. they are heads of -- but i suggest you write a book about the power in washington that keeps the pharmaceutical companies from rolling their prices like that cancer drug on "60 minutes" $11,000 a year when they give it to the doctor for 5000 he sells it for $11,000 we pay 80 to 60% more than anybody in the world. >> host: thanks caller. >> guest: thank you and it is a story that gets covered quite a bit and the story that should be covered more is in the culture of washington that way and i agree with your point about the president. he probably doesn't get a lot of credit for being in all accounts
a good father and a good husband for part of what i deal with in the book is where president obama does fit into all of this. you know it's an interesting thing. obama and hart have a lot of similarities in their personalities. they're both a little professorial and intellectual and obama seems in a way to be a turn away from what we have had in the last 25 or 30 years in politics because there is no scandal attached. he is a good father and husband and a good person and i abari spelt that way in his presence. i don't think anybody has that concern with him but what i think we need to recognize too is that president obama viability was in part a result of the entertainment culture. i must say he shouldn't have been president or didn't have the ability but i do think it would have been on thinkable in an earlier era of our politics
for somebody to win the presidency in that way based on the story, on the narrative look up what he embodied rather than a clear vision for the country. hope and change is not an agenda for the country. president obama was a political narrative and i think we have seen him painfully at times try to work through what he actually believes in what he wants to do in office because he had not had a chance to work that out in a brief political career. when you compare him to someone like gary hart who had thought so deeply about governing and at so much experience on the national stage i think that too is a reflection of entertainment culture that seeped into our political journalism of years. >> host: here is joy from mission viejo california. hi. >> caller: good morning. i really appreciate -- i med democrat -- that republican saying what an outstanding citizen president obama is.
i'm sorry i just woke up. >> guest: you and me both, joy. >> caller: his home life and his integrity. as for, i'm 54 years old and when i was younger there was nixon but the worst president i have seen is george w. bush and how he lied to us in iraq, killing more people and 9/11 and iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 not to mention the millions of innocent iraqi's that died and were displaced. as far as i am concerned until the day i die he will go down as a stain on this country.
>> guest: okay and i guess your point is, would be sort of a variation on what i have been saying that all lives are not equal. there's a moment in the book where hart says we were talking about the guilty talks about the guilty as and his wife is prodding him to talk about it because he doesn't like to. then he says things would be different if i were president and he says well we wouldn't have had george w. bush as president and we would have gone to iraq and a lot of people would be alive. my first thought in a lot of people's first thought in reading it was is that the delusion of. when you stop and think about it it's not so crazy. hart's is double digits above george w. bush in the scandal would happen if he would have
gone on to win the election. certainly george w. bush almost certainly doesn't become governor of texas and doesn't become president. i think the point of that is they shouldn't have jumped gary hart out of politics. i think the point is our actions have consequences. decisions have consequences. they are not just entertainment and we are not just creating the ratings. there are consequences that reverberate and tip like done the most that we lose sight of that follow us through the years. it goes back to the point in the speech. you get the delete word -- the leaders you deserve and the leaders you deserve are the leaders you get when the dominos fall in that way. >> host: bill from pennsylvania, go ahead. >> caller: well hello. hi. calling to emphasize the point i suppose. there's only so much time that people have to listen to current
affairs and when we have a situation where the whole world becomes a kardashian episode we end up losing any knowledge of what the government is actually doing. the only important thing is what's in the bill that's going to become a lot? and why the various positions on that bill are being disputed. we hear nothing about that. we hear everything about obama, the horserace and the personalities and the scandals about the people involved. so basically we end up going blind into the real business of government which is what is in the loss. >> guest: you know i think you raise it great point though.
one of the things you hear often is we have such great variants of journalism now. we have the web. we have so much political journalism and people are covering the substance and it's better now because we help this great journalism and so many more outlets that people don't have to follow the entertainment piece of politics if they don't want to. but i think your point if i can paraphrase it because it's very wise is yes but people don't have endless time and i don't have endless bandwidth. there's a lot of great journalism. there's more great journalism out there today in politics but people can only read so much and if the focus of so many places they do go for their information news is the entertainment value and the gotcha coverage and the personal coverage is supposed to substance that's mostly what they are going to have an opportunity to consume. it's not that we don't have great journalism or more
>> the house homeland security committee will hold a hearing in texas about the state's response to the ebola virus. officials will testify before the committee and the dallas-fort worth area about thomas duncan and lead. national who died this weekend was the first person diagnosed with people in the united states. live coverage of this hearing starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.
at c-span.org you can find debates and political campaign ads from races across the country. here's a look at some of the ads running in colorado's sixth district. >> it's really pretty simple come he don't buy things you can pay for but that's what congress does all the time. spending our tax dollars on privileges or racking up a mountain of debt. i am andrew romanoff and when i am speaker of the colorado house we balance the budget every year. it wasn't easy. it's not like we had a choice either. out here balancing the budget is the loss rate i approve this message because it ought to be the law in washington too. >> disturbing reports of sexual assaults in the military, mike
sub i took action passing a bill is stronger protections for victims. it's not the first time. coffman made colorado a leader in discrimination charging women more than men and coffman bucked his own party to pass the violence against women act. >> i'm mike coffman and i approved this message. >> this is the african ostrich tall, flightless, had in the sand and this is congressman coffman also with his head in the sand on climate change. 97% of scientists agreed climate change is real. nasa says its worsening extreme weather but coffman is so extreme he questions whether climate change is even a problem and opposes commonsense efforts to reduce carbon pollution. tell congressman coffman it's time to act on climate change. >> i'm very concerned about the direction of our country. i'm not sure we are headed in
the right direction. i think washington is not concerned about what's happening to our families. people should look at andrew romanoff's wrecker. he wants to tax us more and he wants to spend more. isn't that obamacare went far enough. andrew romanoff is way too extreme for families. we are to have a big spending big taxing politicians in washington. we don't need another one. the national republican congressional committee is responsible for this advertising. secretary johnson's remarks came at an event hosted by this strategic and international studies. he spoke for about an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. welcome to the center for
strategic and international studies. my name is juan gerardi and i'm the adviser here at csis. welcome to all of you and those of you who haven't been to our new building hope you like it and feel welcome at this new venue. today we are privileged and honored to have have the secretary of homeland security jeh johnson with us to deliver remarks on border security in the 21st century. it's an honor and privilege not only to have secretary johnson here for to have him speaking on such a critical issue at a critical time for the nation's security as well as the department. i've gotten to know the secretary over the last year and i will tell you he is one of the most serious, sober, substandard public servants i have met and it's an honor and privilege to have him here at csis. you know the secretary's background so i won't recite his bio, but certainly know he is a distinguished legal and public career. he has served in the public
sector numerous times before his stint as the secretary of homeland security. he served as the general counsel for the department of defense. he may have been running the largest law firm in the world, probably 10,000 lawyers are so dealing with some authority of tissues the nation had to deal with including guantánamo to "don't ask don't tell" policy. the secretary was asked to come back to run the department an enormous challenge at a critical time in our history. it's a department with enormous responsibilities, authority and capability, one that has a responsibility to everything from counterterrorism and cybersecurity to border response, natural disasters and pandemics. so today we are privileged at the secretary speak to us about border security, one of the pillar responsibilities the
department and the secretary. talking about protecting our borders and what that means in the context of a variety of threats and actors that may threaten the united states. this is a time obviously where these issues not only have national homeland security importance but obviously play into the political dynamics with respect to questions on immigration reform. as with a great honor but as we have the secretary here today. we will conduct this as we have other statesmen and speaker series where we will hear from the secretary and then we will have in a question-and-answer period which we will moderate with discretion and discipline. so with that i want to introduce secretary johnson and again thank them for the privilege of having him here with us to talk about border border security in the 21st century 21st century. thank you very much. [applause]
>> thank you very much juan and i want to thank this terrific organization for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. today i want to talk to you about the important subject of border security particularly the security of our southern land border with mexico. i see many good friends here including my good friend the ambassador from guatemala who i had the honor and the opportunity to spend time with this summer several times. in fact, over the last 15 years across the clinton bush and obama administrations our government has invested more in border security than at any point in the history of our nation. in fact over the last 15 years a number of apprehensions on our southwest border a major indicator of total attempts to
cross the border illegally has climbed significantly. it is now less than a third of what it was in the year 2000 it's at its lowest level since the 1970s. in fact, over the last 15 years, the estimated number of undocumented immigrants in this country grew to a high of 12.2 million in 2006, dropped to around 11.3 million and has stopped growing for the first time since 1980s. without a doubt we have a setback this summer with the unprecedented number of unaccompanied children and others who crossed a narrow area of our southern border in the rio grande valley in search of a family member and a better life in this country. we responded aggressively and in fact now the numbers of unaccompanied children crossing into the rio grande valley are
at the lowest they have been in almost two years. can i have my next slide. where did we go? there we go, okay thank you. but this is not mission accomplished because we can and should do more to best enforce the security of our borders. in his speech i will discuss the past, present and future of our border security efforts. not enough has been said publicly by our government in a clear concise way about our border security efforts on behalf of the american people and in the absence of the facts the american public is susceptible to claims that we have an open porous border to which unaccompanied minors and members of terrorist organizations such as thy soul may. in late june and july millions
of americans saw the images of the processing centers filled with kids. far fewer americans know that by early june despite an illegal migration by unaccompanied kids had turned a corner and now it's in fact at its lowest number since january 2013. in september the public heard it claimed that more individuals with suspected ties to terrorism in the middle east had attempted to cross our southern border. far fewer know that in fact these four individuals were arrested. they're supposedly in terrorism was thoroughly investigated and checked and then in may and amounted to a claim by the individuals themselves that they were members of the kurdish workers party, an organization that is fighting against isil and offended kurdish territory
in iraq. nevertheless these individuals have been arrested for unlawful entry. they are detained and they will be deported. in the recent outbreak there has been only one case so far of ebola diagnosed in this country. nevertheless my department, the department of homeland security, the department of defense and cdc are heavily engaged. we are enhancing our ebola screening of air passengers are on the three affected african countries and we are continually evaluating whether moore is appropriate. as secretary of homeland security i'm committed to more transparency about our border security. this speech today is part of that effort. given all we do today it's hard to believe that as recently as 1904 we had virtually no border patrol at all.
our land borders were completely open to all forms of migration. in 1904 teddy roosevelt created the united states immigration service. this force consisted of 75 men on horseback based in el paso texas responsible for the patrol of the entire 2300 miles southwest border. it was not until 1921 that we began to restrict the numbers of immigrants who entered the country illegally, entered the country illegally with the passage of something called the emergency quota act of 1921. that lowers trip did immigration to 3% of each nationality already present in this country according to the 1910 census. prior to that the only limits on immigration were restrictions on so-called undesirables. with the limits created in 1921
came a dramatic increase in illegal immigration which led to the creation of the u.s. border patrol in 1924. originally the border patrol is part of the department of labor and was created to prevent illegal migration across our southern border with mexico and our northern border with canada. in those days there were actually more personnel devoted to the northern border than the southern border to prevent the smuggling of liquor into the u.s. from canada during prohibition. while other government agencies had faced cutbacks and limits in these times of fiscal constraint our national leaders in congress and the executive branch have chosen to build border patrol to an unprecedented level and resources. today border patrol is itself one of the largest agencies of our government with a budget of $3.5 billion, total of 23,000
personnel, 20,833 border patrol agents in the largest ever level of technology and equipment. let's look at that in more detail. in fiscal year 2000 we had 8619 border patrol agents. next slide please. dedicated to the southwest border. in 2014 that number is 18,127 and growing. in fiscal year 2000 we had just 57.9 miles of primary fence along the southwest border. today we have 352.7 miles. in fiscal year 2000 we had 10 miles of secondary fence along the southwest border. today we have 36.3 miles of secondary fence. in fiscal year 2000 we had just 10 miles of vehicle fence in the remote areas of the southwest
border. today we have 299 miles of vehicle fence. if you include primary and secondary tertiary and vehicle senses today there is about 700 miles of total offense across the southwest border compared to just 77 miles of fence in the year 2000. in 14 years we have built almost 10 times more fences across the southwest border. in fiscal year 2000 the border patrol had just 17 miles of all weather roads to get to and from the southwest border. today we have 145.7 miles of these roads strategically placed where we have determined they are needed. in fiscal year 2000 we had just 29 miles along the southwest border. today we have 70-mile strategically placed in places where we determined it was
needed. 14 years ago we had underground sensors to detect illegal migration of the southwest borders. today we have 11,863 of these devices. in fiscal year 2000 the border patrol had 56 aircraft. today that number is 170. in the year 2000 the border patrol had no unmanned aerial vehicles. today we have eight of these were surveillance of legal activity over the southwest border. in the year 2000 the border patrol had just two votes to patrol the entire southwest border over waterways like the rio grande. today we have 84. in the year 2000 border patrol had one mobile surveillance system and today we have 40. in the year 2000 we had little if any mobile video surveillance capabilities. today we have 178 of these. in 2000 we had 140 remote video
surveillance systems. today we have 273 of these. in fiscal year 2014 the border patrol had 9255 pairs of night vision goggles. the year 2000 border patrol had little or no thermal and merging capability. today we have 600 of these devices. today the border patrol is the largest deployment of people, vehicles, aircraft, boats and equipment along the southwest border in a 90 year history. more than the large numbers of people and equipment i have high regard for today's border patr patrol. in nine and a half months in office i have been to the southwest border seven times. over the hot summer i observe the border patrol and its leadership taking on the unprecedented number of kids and families crossing the border into south texas. they did this in a calm and
professional manner without complaints and worked overtime and took on duties far beyond the job description. i salute the border patrol chief fisher for making the border patrol's use of force policy public earlier this year and rewriting it to explicitly address the incidences of rockthrowing at the border represented by vehicles. i salute kerlikowske for making public the executor of her search form on the use of force by border patrol. i also salute the commissioner for implementing a unified formal review process that will more effectively respond to investigate review and resolve any use of the border patrol in a timely manner. this nations long investment, long-term investments in border security has produced significant positive results
over the years. illegal migration into this country peaked in the year 2000 reflected by over 1.6 million apprehensions that year. as you can see from this slide, illegal migration in this country has dropped considerably since then reflected by the decline in total apprehensions from 1.6 million in 2000 to around 400,000 a year in recent years. the overall downward trend is no doubt due in large part to economic conditions in both the u.s. and mexico but we are certain it is also due in very large measure to the turned -- deterrent factor of border security efforts. apprehended at the lowest rate that they have been since the 1970s. slide 24 makes this point. it reflects both the increase in border patrol agents and the simultaneous decrease in total apprehensions in the same. math.
the bottom-line of all of this is in recent years the total number of those who attempts to cross our southwest border has declined dramatically while the percentage of those who are apprehended has gone up. put simply its now much harder to cross our border and if they'd capture that used to be and people know that. the final indicator is the estimated number of undocumented immigrants in this country. according to pew research that number grew to a high of 12.2 million in 2006, dropped and has remained at about 11.3 million ever since. so the population of undocumented immigrants in this country has stopped growing for the first time since the 1980s and over half of these individuals have been in this country nearly 13 years. meanwhile mexico has become our
third largest trading partner with $507 billion in total two-way trading in 2013. it is the country's second-largest goods export market at more than 1.1 million u.s. jobs are supported by exports from mexico. our estimate for fiscal year 2014 and it is still an estimate at this point as the fiscal year just ended nine days ago shows a modest increase in apprehensions to 480,000. this increase is almost entirely to do what happened this summer in the rio grande valley. in fact in fiscal year 2014 about 53% of all apprehensions across the southwest border were in what we refer to as the rio grande valley sector of the southwest border. indicated by the red arrow there on the slide. this summer we saw an
unprecedented spike in illegal migration into south texas. almost all of this migration came from guatemala, honduras and el salvador and as everyone knows it consisted of large numbers of unaccompanied children and adults with children which presented a humanitarian dimension to the problem. you saw the photos of overcrowded processing centers in south texas. unlike other spikes in migration the past many of these families and kids expected to be apprehended once they crossed the rio grande. they were not seeking to evade our border patrol agents and they probably knew they could not. in response we did a number of things. our message was simple. our border is not open to it illegal immigration and if you come here illegally you will be sent back consistent with our laws and our values.
so we put additional border security and law enforcement in south texas. we open new processing centers across the southwest and handle the additional illegal migrati migration. in the gallant texas and dallas texas and elsewhere. we assigned agents of the rio grande valley sector to manage the increased apprehensions. we dramatically reduce the time it takes to repatriate adults from an average of 33 days down to four days. we added additional flights to repatriate people back faster to their home countries, built more detention space in new mexico and karnes texas, dedicated resources to the prosecution of the criminal smuggling organization that coyotes that were inducing people to take the long and dangerous journey from central america. we launched a renewed public messaging campaign in central
america highlighting the dangers of the journey and correcting the misinformation that coyotes are putting out about free passes if you come to the united states. vice president biden met with leaders in central america to coordinate a response. president obama himself went to guatemala honduras and el salvador to coordinate our response to this situation. the government of mexico did a considerable amount to interdict migration to central america. the good news is since mid-june the numbers of illegal migrants into south texas has gone down considerably. slide 30 please. can we go to slide 30.
if you saw slide 30 you would see a big sharp deep slope. we will get there. there we go. the high watermark was june 10 of 2014. since the number of unaccompanied children and then -- and send the number has declined steadily. the same thing as reflected on a monthly basis. please. in may 201410580 unaccompanied children across the southwest border. in june, 10,620 to cross the south border and in july 5501 and august 3141 and september was 2024. the monthly numbers are now the lowest they have been in almost two years. in terms of the year-end numbers are original projections in january was 60,000 unaccompanied
children across the southwest border illegally in fy2014. during the summer we revise that projection upward to 90,000. the fact is the year-end number is 68,434. not far off the original projection of 60,000. the decline in illegal migration by parents who brought their children followed a similar path. next slide please. though the worst is over for now from the spikes this summer and the high illegal migration 15 years ago the president and i are committed to building an even more secure border and a smart strategy to get there. much of the illegal migration is -- despite the migration we saw this summer could return. the poverty and violence that are the push factors in central america still exist.
the economy in this country a pull factor is getting better thus there are still more we can and should do. first, as we are doing across the department of homeland security in a variety of contexts we will continue build a risk-based strategy for border security. our southern border is a mixture of winding river, desert and mountains. simply building more fences is not the answer. my predecessor used to say build a 50-foot fence and i'm sure someone else will build a 51-foot ladder. today we have the intelligence capability, surveillance equipment and technology to do more. much of that is our deployed on the border today. we need to go further in this direction so that we can focus our resources where intelligence and our surveillance tell us. this is a smart effective and efficient use of taxpayer
resources. here is a vivid example of what i mean. we know where their risks are. we need to focus on these areas and the risk areas starts to move someplace else we get there first. second, to best accomplish our border security goals along the southern border and consistent with the overall community initiative announced in april i have directed that the department of homeland security embark on a common department wide southern border campaign plan. this plan will put to use in a strategic and coordinated way the personnel of customs and border protection, immigration and customs enforcement citizenship and immigration services, the coast guard and other resources of the department plan if they are necessary. we are discarding the stovepipe
that you see on this slide. to pursue the southern border campaign plan where first developing a department wide strategy in securing the southern border and approaches. we will then direct the resources and activities of the comport -- departments compone component. our overarching goals of the effective end to interdiction along land sea and air and do these things without impeding the flow of lawful trade and commerce across their borders. we are now in the midst of developing a more specific plan to pursue these goals and associated metrics, planning team across the department led by vice our borough -- vice admiral michelle to develop milestones to compass these goals in an effective cost-efficient manner.
we will then take the next logical step which you see reflected on this slide in this plan and establish three new department taskforces each headed by senior official of this department to direct the resources of cbp i.c.e. and the coast guard in three discrete areas. the first joint task force east reflected by the blue box will be responsible for maritime ports across the southeast. second joint task force west will be responsible for southwest land border and the west coast of california. in the third will be standing joint task force for investigations to support the work of the other two task forces. these efforts departmentwide campaign planning and joint task forces, will enable more effective, more efficient in march unified homeland security and border security efforts
across our southern border and approaches. finally, there is much more we can do to inform the public about our border security efforts on their behalf. within the department we are developing metrics for measuring and evaluating our border security efforts and we intend to make those measures public. i am bolstering our office of immigration by adding new statisticians. i've instructed that this office establishing linkage where all the components of the department from border security or immigration mission so that the data publicized by this office reflects what is happening department wide. with transparency comes responsibility. those of us in public office and in the media weather and describing the border, isil or
ebola owes the public informed, careful and responsible dialogue not overheated rhetoric that is certain to feed the flames of fear, anxiety and suspicion. as i have said many times homeland security means striking a balance. in the name of homeland security i can build you a perfectly safe city but it will be a prison. i can build more fences and solve -- install more invasive screening devices ask more intrusive questions and alarm the public enough to make everybody suspicious of each other and simply stay at home but this will cost us who we are as a nation, a people who respect the law, cherish privacy enjoy the freedom to travel and associate, celebrate our diversity and who are not afraid. in the final analysis these are the things that constitute our
greatest strengths. thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you mr. secretary. i think you have proven what i've said in terms of the serious and sober and substandard conversation. you can see the new office of statisticians you are setting up on your watch. what you just presented you presented much like a making the case that the border is more secure. >> i do have a law degree. >> i know you do. talk to us a little bit about where you see the vulnerabilities. you have announces campaign plan on the border. that means more needs to be done both within the department and at the border. you have laid out where things have improved. where are the vulnerability still than?
>> well i wouldn't describe it as vulnerabilities though i will get to where i think we need to do more through the department of homeland security is 11 years old and in 2002 congress brought together pre-existing components coast guard, immigration components border patrol but as you saw in the presentation were around long before dhs so they have their own way of doing business, their own culture, their own headquarters, their own office of statisticians. and the way we have done business up until now as each component would make its own budget request up to the stovepipe income to headquarters and then it goes to congress. so we want to do a couple of things. we want to get an earlier stage in that process and have a more strategic departmentwide move toward what we need to deliver
more efficient services to the taxpayer and we also want to have a more strategic departmentwide look at hey what do we need in the rio grande valley sector this upcoming year? what do we need on the southwest border? relying upon all the resources of the department, coast guard, cbt and i.c.e. rather than receiving it all is the stovepipe. just this past summer i saw the virtue of bringing to bear all these components toward one mission which we need to do more of. so when i go to mcallen station texas i would keep the border patrol personnel and i would meet with cbp personnel and blue uniforms. i would meet with immigration enforcement personnel, cif
personnel fame and the coast guard and literally the only person that all of them had in their common in their command and control structure there was no one between them and me and washington. a task force poll that puts in place somebody geographically who is focused on the southwest border southeast border investigation so he we can bring a more strategic approach and have somebody at a slightly lower level than me focus on various parts of the country and we will approve the allocation of resources each year. to me that is a better more efficient more strategic way of developing border security. now the graphic i showed that the hotspots is my way of saying hey the proper approach whether
it's border security or aviation security is a risk-based strategy where you focus on where you see the hotspots. we have the ability to do that there are technology and our surveillance capability to focus on where received the illegal migrations trending and we focus our resources there. and so that is what i believe should be the approach of the future. we have already begun to move in that direction i want to continue to make strides in that way. >> let me q. off by the management structure. different cultures and different systems etc.. is the department too big to manage it more broadly as the homeland security enterprise involve not just the department that the department of defense, is it just too unwieldy at this point? >> well, people asked me that question in the first thing i'd point out is you have to ask
what are all these departments for and all these components are the broad umbrella of homeland security used to be in something like 20 different agencies of government ranging from treasury, agriculture, justice, with a lot of component heads who did not have a homeland security law enforcement core mission. so we brought them together and interestingly a lot of my european counterparts, a lot of my middle eastern counterparts have ministries of interior with almost identical jurisdiction sets. and from my point of view i just spent nine and a half months in office and have seen the efficiencies that can be brought about by having multiple components at one table for the purpose of a common mission so i
think it makes a tremendous amount of sense. should we consider a more inefficient command-and-control structure or more efficient supervisory chain? gas and the last slide is a step in that direction. >> one last question before opening it up and it's my prerogative as the moderator. talk to us about your thinking about defense with partners not just along the border but around the world still in the context of the summer crisis obviously working with mexican partners and central american partners have become key obviously. and then you look at the ebola crisis and the issue of the transportation channel and what our partners around the world are doing. how does the defense and depth of the homeland security enterprise fit into your model
in dealing with these issues? >> i have spent a lot of time with my counterparts to the south and my counterparts to the north. i was in ottawa last week meeting with minister mike canadian counterpart and other members of that cabinet. i have been to conferences with my european counterparts. i visited with my middle eastern counterparts and we are building what i believe to be a better system of immigration, of information-sharing, working together on border security issues, homeland security issues. i think that given the current world situation we all appreciate the need to do that
and so i think we are creating a pretty good environment and doing that. when i was in office just a couple of weeks i went down to mexico for a meeting of our president, president kennyetto and the north american leaders summit and they are the focus is on trade and travel and how to promote that between the three countries. there were a number of initiatives signed in 2011. the three leaders entered into or beyond the border initiative which we are constantly pushing. so there's an increased emphasis on working with other governments as i see it. >> let's open this up. a little bit of a russo again. if you are called on the secretary will call on you identify yourself quickly and please keep it short. we want to have as many
questions as possible and make it a question pleased on the commentary. math. yes, sir. >> mr. secretary how has the dash impact of border control so far? >> isil is of course the most prominent terrorist organization in the world stage right now and we are taking the fight to them and iraq and in syria with airstrikes and there's an international coalition that is being assembled that will participate in this overall effort. basil is obviously a dangerous terrorist organization. they have demonstrated a willingness to kill americans in a brutal public way. they call for attacks on the west and they have very slick
social very slick social media and very slick propaganda. so you put all those things together and in my view they represent a very significant potential threat to our homeland for which we have to be vigilant. we are vigilant around a couple of different things. one is the issue of foreign fighters, people who leave their home country, go there, spend some time there, link up with some extremist elements and then returned to their own countries, either this country or a country that is in our visa waiver program. we are very focused on tracking us on tracking of the deposed -- individuals. think the fbi does a good job of that and also we are concerned about, this doesn't really go to the border but in my view is very significant issue to focus on. we are concerned about
domestic-based lone wolf acts of terror inspired by the social media of these groups are the literature of these groups. i've seen cases where somebody arrested and prosecuted was motivated by some literature put out by a terrorist organization. i'm not in the business of singling them out and i don't want to give them motion but in many respects that the terrorist threat that i worry the most about because they can happen on very little notice. one of the things we are doing in the department of homeland security in addition to partnering with law enforcement is encountering our reach in the community that have large muslim populations. two weeks ago i was in columbus ohio when i was at an islamic
cultural center right outside of columbus ohio to meet with 50 or 60 community leaders who themselves have the capacity to reach young people and their communities who made the attem attempt -- attempting to turn toward violence. i was in the chicago suburb in the somali american community organization and i'm going to other cities like minneapolis and a couple of weeks, boston, dearborn and los angeles. when i'm done i want to be able to reach personally a large percentage of the organizations that themselves have the ability to reach people in this country and communities where that potential might exist. and so while we monitor threats from overseas, potential overseas threats our intelligence community does a