doesn't get any money, and how come there's money going to? and lassie to the two of you, how come we are not talking from the child's perspective as a guide to addressing? what is going on your? >> we are not very smart? [laughter] >> ninety -- [inaudible] 90% of the juvenile justice budget is going towards those kinds of detentions, interventions that doctor mccarthy said, not only don't work but often make people worse. why? i would love an answer to that question. >> i think some of it is to to priority, that children are not a priority. children don't vote. children are not, you know, you're taxpayers and i think it is easy to shuffle them on the side. in baltimore specifically we are

upset with the homicide number. it's in the paper everyday and we look at what the count is for the number of homicides this year. we look at the number of other crimes that are occurring, it does with what the homicide number is. we sort of reapportioned our focus. i think that's part of, we're just focus on the wrong thing and when you get have more people saying let's prevent this child from becoming that homicide, says his later in life by giving him services today. >> i mean, i think that one answer is science and knowledge is what head of our political will. and that the more complicated the issues are, we're talking about a very complex issue as we discovered today, the less passionate it's not soundbite. and that's one of the great dilemmas is that people don't really want to delve into and think about the most obligated

issues. and child development is a very complicated. and the impact of trauma on children's functioning and development to adulthood is very complicated. and that's something that takes time and effort, and that we, as i said, it's not soundbite. it's not something that people regularly and easily pay attention to. >> mr. rosenberg, i have a question for you. i was pleased to hear you say that in addition to the mainstream child abuse cases that we're so accustomed to having sent to a child ethics he said, that you are also starting to provide services for sex trafficking victims. can you explain to the task force, first of all, i think the task force is already a winner that we are victims who are really experience exposure to violence. perhaps more than most victims. and so, could you explain how you are able to get your cac to

embrace that come as many are not willing yet to evaluate or provide services for sex trafficking victims speak with i think it's a complicated issue, doctor cooper. in one case victims, all tiny% were victims of child abuse themselves. they ended up, we thought a lot about little kids of overseas as being trafficked up and down agency for but it really is girls from florida and rochester in new york. that's we've seen in the last month but these are kids ran away from one situation because they're being abused at home and then find itself not being trafficked. we got involved with it. we'll unique. we are a nonprofit so in one sense i cry for, i limited back when that funded it another since it does give us the ability to say we are going to do this today. we have set up good relationships locally. upper level and low level. i'm just sort of creating these relationships. look, i've got this great program, user. i think part of it is just a game breaking these silos.

you know, that our program runs a contradiction in some sense to other cac's national very governmentally focus and this is our box and this is what we shall do and this is what we shall not be. so even the neighboring county santos cases sometimes simply because they recognize that we can do this better. but in order to do this the centers, then you get your backing from both department of justice and i think you need to have the funding. every integer cost about $800. i'm eager to do these interviews, and we have some grants and we have couple them together. once restore the process, how can i not consider now? so we do it in i'm going to try to get two more questions in, mr. mendoza. >> first of all, i want to thank all of you for sharing your personal stories and expertise as was for your time and commitment. i wanted to shift gears a little bit. you all run exit programs but i want to see if there's any

component or opportunity for you to become leaders and step out of those of the shadow of just been victims or those that are in need of services and be seen as someone who is powerful and arista gold in a committee. that is something i care a lot. when they say things like me can when i go to teen lounge and hang out with them in jeans and they say well, who are you to tell me? you know, what i need? who are you to tell you what services are best for me? and i am stumped. like you're right, let's talk about it. so i want to know, is there any programs or components to programs that give the opportunities for that you've? >> i would suggest, and they mentioned to programs that do that very well. one of my benchmarking switches designed for the older youth, most of the jurisdictions of the station, all of my kids are older today. most of my kids come into foster care are not newborn incidents but most kids are 13, 11, teenagers. and so this program is designed

for older youth. the whole hearing is a two-hour hearing that is set aside. i don't accept reports on the doctor. the doctors determined. i don't accept reports from the staff person at the intervention center. they have determined. the idea is prior to getting beginning, the youth sits down with a social worker and talks about and fill out forms that aikido. one of them is what you want to be? so at&t manitoba go to a lawyer, the social worker said she wanted a cosmetologist and i said that's a little different. the lawyer, the worker said she is reading so far below grade that she will never be a little bit and i said i know a lot of people with degrees they can't read. [laughter] but anyway, but the point is it is entirely on the child. focus and tied him with needs a for the ability to support his or her dream. the other ones is a mediation program. might exit interviews with participants talk about this is one of the first times

throughout the entire court system that they feel their voice has been heard because they had the privilege of sitting down and saying how this affects them and what affects them in the most and what they need out of the hearing pics i think there are programs throughout the nation, and those are just too, right in cook county which work very well. >> we actually had just started a program with some of our teenagers have gone through treatments and come out to be pure mentors to some of your children, and i've to we have asked has agreed to do it. so we will see how it goes. that you started. >> all right. doctor? >> thank you. i've wanted to thank all of you for speaking both from the expertise but i think particularly from your hearts. and especially the rewrites at the end of the day because you bought a lot of information but it wasn't all just from your intellect, from your heart. and all spoke from her

heartfelt. so i thought might be done at the end of this day, i think this is an upper, not again. but just to bring up the concept and to get a quick reaction from each of you. maybe something to think about as we move forward over the next 12 months to get this report done. if we think about as steve has brought up, child development and what we would call child centric language. right? and have difficulty government becomes when there is disrupted attachment. trauma that impacts development. underneath that, i'm going to propose is oppression, transgender and slednecks at this point in time in america we don't have birth equity. we don't have employment equity. we don't have educational equity, and that it is in my view anyway, a large theater into the cycle of drama. i wanted, since this panel is about the impact, which at any comments with respect to the

structural racism and oppression that continues to unfortunately keep a large portion of our population in a place where it is very hard for them to even catch a breath of? >> yeah, i would like to respond to that, robert. i actually think if we look at what is often called deep poverty, yeah, if we as poverty as a sort of wide-ranging term, but there is something called deep poverty, multi-generational poverty in families, have been impoverished youth long as we measure. and if you look at those families, in the studies have shown that in, i think in the nis three, i think was 1992, if you made under $15,000 a year, the rates of maltreatment were 22 times and if you made over $30,000 a year. 22 times. that is the cycle of violence

and it's also the cycle of poverty. because those very same kids who are maltreated are unable to learn well. they don't do well in school. they have health problems. they end up unemployed and homeless. so we perpetuate that cycle, and i think that one of the issues that we're never going to address, unfortunately, in this country is assuring a livable wage. we knows -- we know that makes a huge difference of breaking the cycle we're talking about. but that said, i do think we can intervene with families, with communities to interrupt cycles of maltreatment and abuse and trauma. and i think there are multiple ways of doing the. every time we identify a child we are identifying a family. and the family need a whole intervention as a child. and that's the opportunity that i think we have come and that's

what i see as really the outcome and the positive outcome of identification. but it requires a nation, not the village. >> i would just suggest that, two things, one is that the nis studies are being done, reports of abuse and neglect. it's not based on actual abuse and neglect that i would suggest there are some very rich families and some white families that have abuse and neglect in their households as well. i don't see many of those but as a medevac at cook county when wife emma comes in my office, on april, i hear about it before they ever get there. i actually as a presiding judge did not know why families were charged with abuse and neglect until it went down south dakota and south carolina. i honestly didn't know that because in cook county they're all black. so, so to the point that i have no -- they're all from, mean they're all from cook county, not on northwestern that even

means wide childbearing age women don't use drugs in chicago, which is possible, not probable, or something happened in the social investigation work of a cook county that is given the northwestern. i called the ama and they don't, they have a return my call yet. but my point is, my point is there's institutional racism, no debt. but institutions are developed by people. and we have people are racist but we also have implicit bias that we overlook possibly. and i have it as with each and every one of us has implicit bias but i mean, when i grew up, let me use a black example since i'm black. black women afpak. my sister resident of the. she doesn't have back. you know what i'm talking about, right? [laughter] i'm with you, sister. [laughter]

>> i said that and there's a chairman who is just like colonel sanders. he got be read in the front will benefit either together wait to get out of it. but the point is we all have biases and have been developed for a number of years for a number of reasons. but i had to teach my judges how to understand that they have implicit bias. and hang it up like a trenchcoat in the chambers and go out to the courtroom and make decisions that are devoid of the implicit eyes. likewise, i would suggest that the residents come in the medical residents, social workers, students come in have to learn that, too. so that's one of the reasons. judges are not the answer but we are part of the answer. when we understand that racism is about implicit bias as well, that means is something we can do about it. so contrary to you said this is something that we can change. we have to be willing to change it, but we can't impact and possibly professor assess

develop a benchmark on implicit bias for judges so that we can start looking at this issue, and i hope that we will have an opportunity to have a written test or provide additional tests were on some of the specific issues for you. because these are issues that the court is looking at and looking toward eliminating. >> thank you very much. >> can i take a really short -- >> real short. >> okay. i would ask we like to refer to the task force, a short book by a woman named grace lee, called the next american revolution. she is a 96 year old activist, and she offers that the next american revolution will not be about equality. but of who we are as human beings. and she talks very cogently about what we need to do because all of these jobs are lost are not coming back. we need to restructure our education system that we need to restructure our criminal justice

system. we need to learn how to take care of each other, and in the process be careful in the committee. and i feel like the restorative justice work that we are doing is about bringing together human beings in a circle, not ignore the fact that there is racism, that there's all sorts of biases and oppression, but letting people be human and figure out a different way to be with each other so that those biases get broken down and get re-created, or people reestablish relationships in a very different way. >> thank you. thank you very much to our panel. very informative. what can i say? thank you very much. it's time for public testimony right now, so, five minutes? will this telling me, a big and there, will. closer to 10 minutes. [laughter] five minutes break.

[inaudible conversations] >> this afternoon we'll go live to the pentagon for today's defense department briefing. >> we continue with the attorney general's national task force on children exposed to violence. this hour-long portion looks at the consequences for children and the committee in the baltimore area. >> thank you, carol. would everybody take their seats. we would like to reconvene, thank you.

earlier today we were given our call to action by attorney general holder, and we've had the benefit of hearing from several individuals with first hand experience about the impact of violence on them as individuals and on children. we now have the pleasure of hearing from several national leaders on how various agencies are working to address the issue of children's exposure to violence. mr. nigel cox, in his senior year at farmville central high school in north carolina. he is the chairman of the youth advisory board for students against violence everywhere. a student driven organization that provides opportunities for youth to learn crime prevention, and conflict management skills, as well as the virtues of good citizenship, stability and nonviolence. doctor patrick mccarthy is present and ceo of the annie e. casey foundation, a private

philanthropy organization dedicated to helping build better futures for disadvantaged children in the united states. he is a trustee of the casey foundation, the chairman of jim casey youth opportunity initiative, and a director of the casey family services board of advisors. ms. sonja sohn, an actor and activist but she is the founder and ceo of rewired for change. she was inspired to start rewired for change by her own life journey which began as a child growing up in an underserved community and newport news, virginia at and eventually led to her role as a principal cast member of hbo's, the wire. mr. nigel cox in my name is nigel cox. i'm the chairman of the student at -- s.a.v.e. is a student body

run public nonprofit striving to increase the potentials for violence in our student community by promoting meaningful students involved in education opportunities. the history of s.a.v.e., started everywhere. in 1989, in the memory of a student from the school, he was at a party trying to promote, trying to break of the fight at a party. the color purple, from the peace and the peace of the. we promote, we try best to the boat the word by ballot but by balance we mean in all forms, you know, violence with people coming we mean by reckless driving, gang violence, child abuse and cyberbullying, just to name a few. and we do this by we call the

'40s which recall and power, engage, encourage and educate. by engaging we engage students to meaningful violence prevention efforts with their schools and communities. empower youth, by empowerment we empower youth with knowledge and skills necessary to provide service to the communities in pursuit but we encourage positive peer influence within the school and community through violence prevention efforts. we educate students about the consequences of violence to live in safe activities for students, parents and the committee. our two main components of s.a.v.e. is conflict management and committee project. with conflict management, peers our top that it's a normal part of life. and as we all know, that conflicts will not be resolved always be resolve, but we try to resolve it in a nonviolent way where we can talk it out,

mediation or just talk it out with the person you have a problem with. and though we also have another which is service project. service projects are how we learn to get back to the community and connect with other people. by connecting and getting back, you should feel like you're doing something to help the problem. the reason i got involved with s.a.v.e., i got involved with s.a.v.e. mi6 could you. she started working with me, and by the time i got to my seventh grade year she told me i see something in you. and i'm glad she sought in the because, i sigh but i didn't see it and i'm glad she did see it. is just one person can stand up and take the stand and say not here, not today, not while i'm around, it's something that will catch on and the other person will get the same message. so just when i was doing that, i hope i can could somebody on the

s.a.v.e. or the s.a.v.e. or physician can help someone. s.a.v.e. works to do this by going out and promoting the word nonviolence. and the idea of nonviolence anywhere, i'd like to see the story about an experience i had reaching out. it was a time where i was doing, i was speaking in north to let it, raleigh-durham, and a young lady came to me, a younger girl came to me and she was like i have a person started as you start telling their story and i felt, i filled it in my heart because i had the same expense of one point in time in my life. and i could see her expression getting brighter because she knew that someone else was on her side, tedious, you know, had been to the same things i've been through, and she felt like i can help. and i really glad that i did not sing i was able to come to her rescue to help. and in my closing statement, for

being data is not about the token is not about a chairperson of even being on a board particular getting the message across from the young people up to the grown people. it's all about getting the message out that violence is not tolerated and shouldn't be tolerated. i mentioned grown people because some people have abusive relationships, and this is not a kind, that's another kind of violence they keep cnn grow up into the same thing, which i don't think is right. but as you say, just trying to work the situation. but if there had been somebody or some organization that could help them, and that's one more type of violence that we won't have to worry about some day. and if you're not part of the solution, in a major part of the problem. and am half of myself and students against violence everywhere board, would like to

thank you for having me today. thanks. >> dr. mccarthy? >> good morning. i want to thank the task force for this opportunity to speak with you this morning about ways to reduce children's exposure to violence and sure how we can work together. in fact, reduce the negative effects of violence on kids but i have to start by just saying a little bit about daunting and humbling ideas for me to be attempting to provide guidance to the assembled expertise that i heard introduced this morning, but i'll do my best. the casey foundation's work is guided by data and evidence, and research that we've looked at suggests that there are basically three factors that predict most rotten outcomes for kids across the board. first, whether they grew up in poverty with limited help in limited opportunities to develop all their talents and gifts. second, whether they have a stable, nurturing connection to a strong stomach a family that will be there for life.

and third, whether they live in a community that offers role models, safe streets, good educational opportunities and connections to a path for success. and all through these factors are also critical to preventing violence and lessen the impact of exposure to violence. my written test might have to make the case for addressing these three factors. and in my remarks today i will touch very briefly on each of those three, but i intend to spend the bulk of my time discussing the importance of reforming our reform schools. so first briefly the impact of poverty. we know that the root cause of most bad outcomes for kids is poverty was lack of opportunity. we also know that poverty and violence are closely linked. kids in poverty are far more likely to experience violence whether at home or in their '20s. but what do we know about how to reduce poverty and how to build a pathway for an opportunity for all children? we note that the pathway, the opportunity for a two generation, family economics. in other words, we must start by

investing in opportunities for young parents to build the skills, find a stable family supporting jobs, take the lead vanish of income and other support they need to make ends meet and start down the road to build assets they can pass on to the children. so we've got to start with today's parents to build a future for children. at the same time we must work to ensure that every child is on the pathway to opportunity through education success, using the important benchmark of reading proficiently by the end of third grade, going on to graduate from high school and sicker a post secondary certificate or diploma or skill certification. i need to say that it's especially disturbing when you look at the data and to realize that over 80% of poor children of color reach the end of third grade without being proficient in reading. this is the point where learning turns from learning how to read the reading how to learn. it's very difficult to catch up

if you're not reading proficiently by the end of third grade. in addition to the foundation's work on reducing poverty we also invest considerable time and money in various approaches to promoting strong families. including our direct services work in new england and maryland what we provide foster care to young people with high age and help find a permanent family for like it would also work to promote responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. we support teen pregnancy prevention programs and work with child welfare systems across the country to improve outcomes for kids and families. and, finally, promote more effective prevention and early intervention programs. our approach to committee rests on the belief that families rely on strong communities and strong neighborhood supports to raise their kids. to have places with our safe streets, good schools, quality housing and access to economic opportunity and access to employment. and engaged writing community knows the work together with law

enforcement divide neighborhood policing offers positive used to government activities and anti-violent interventions that can reduce violence and promote pro-social norms of behavior for both adults and kids. now in the time i've left out like to highlight the negative consequences of this country's current approach to challenge the jewel to link with the. an approach that i believe is singularly ineffective, hugely wasteful and a contributor to violence rather than ineffective response to violence. whether we call them retain cash to retrain schools, juvenile schools our youth prisons can these large hard security institutions too often have become places of poor treatment and abuse, rather than rehabilitation and hope. recidivism rates are dismal, suggesting that these institutions fail to protect public safety. abuse and poor treatment are rampant as evidenced by the

absolute shameful prevalence of course cases, reports of substandard conditions, and violations of basic rights going back decades and sadly, still prevalent today. there can be little argument that we over related on these institutions as response to the language. the chant eight locks up -- the united states lots of kids at approximately seven times the rate of great britain. and 18 times the rate of france. states with relatively low in gaza ration rates do not suffer from high juvenile crime. in fact, their juvenile crime rates are lower than states that lock up more kids. and state such as california and louisiana and alabama and texas that have greatly reduced the number of incarcerated kids come in some cases by over 50%, have not experienced the rise in crime. the sad irony is that as many as three-fourths of young people incarcerated in this often brutal facilities have, in fact,

themselves been victims of trauma and violence in the own lives. and following their incarceration they are more likely rather than less likely to commit violent acts. you would be hard-pressed if you tried to design a less effective response to a child exposure to violence and to lock him or her up in an overcrowded, loud, the pressing, frightening conditions with a large group of other children with similar problems, little or no privacy and no sense of personal safety, and then fail to provide a decent education or an opportunity to build skills, neglect to address the mental health, substance is accused trauma and family issues, and then release him or her to the streets with little hope for a future of promise or possibility. this is not a recipe for success. .. as well as

supporting the development of more effective models that do require some form of secure care to ensure public safety. if we are successful, we together can close the last door on the last training school in this country. while foundations and nonprofits can help develop and demonstrate effective interventions at the program level, taking the most effective programs to make a difference for whole populations of kids and families requires public investment, which means redirecting resources from the failed approaches of the past.

we need to find the public will and the political courage to abandon these failed strategies that use so much of our limited resources and to invest it in things that work. chance to change the future depends on it. thank you. >> thank you, dr. mccarthy. >> good morning, everyone. however, what i suppose does make me worthy of participation in this hearing is that i have, lived the experience to children who lived in violence in their homes and their communities. when you grow up in a household where domestic abuse is a regular occurrence, you see things you may heal from, you may remember forget. i remember laying in bed as i heard an argument brewing in my

parents' bedroom. only to be shocked by the deafening sound of my mother's jaw being crushed. i remember watching in horror as my mother's head lay on the chopping block of our kitchen counter while my father held a large butcher's knife to her head. she talks about how i stopped an argument by telling my father, stop it, don't make my mom cry. i was 2-year-olds. that incident kicked off a pattern of my believing i had some control over and some responsibility for the situation. for years i tried to fix the family problem. my mother was a first generation grant to the united states and did not read or write english very well so from the age of 7 i tried to convince her that we can make it on our own that she could work and i could read and write for her. for a while i did fill out job applications and began considering a checkpoint when she considered stashing something to leave with. inevitably, my hopes were dashed

when her belief that we needed a father would begin to override her ability to see that our living situation was much too harsh for any of us to come out unscathed. by the time i was 10 years old, i had grown hopeless. although i knew the only thing that kept my mother alive was the fact that she had children to live for. my best laid plans to save myself began to become more and more of a reality to me. i knew i was too young to get a work permit so i saw running away to new york to become a prostitute was my only option but on the day i was to leave, i found i couldn't. not because i was afraid for myself. but because i was afraid for my mother. i collapsed into a heap of tears on my pillow because i knew if i left it would crush her, that she would feel as though she had failed as a mother. what would she do to herself? who would protect her? i was the only one who called the hollow eyed cops who at that time were good-for-nothing but interrupting the madness for a moment. eventually, i gave up on believing that there was a sensible solution to my problem. i began to obsess on the only

solution i felt was available. that i had to kill my father. i spent weeks -- trying to figure out how to get my hands on a gun but i had no success so i resorted to a new option after reading in a magazine how a popular r&b singer of the day had been scalded by a hot pot of grits. my last attempt to save myself and the family came one day when i was washing dishes. i washed myself calmly, take the biggest pot we had, fill it with water, put it on the stove to boil and go back to doing the dishes. i now know that when i began to watch myself as i was outside my body, i had disassociated. once the water boiled hot, i walked slowly into the living room and i stood over my father as he slept on the sofa and then i saw us without him. i saw myself happy and free in my home. i saw laughter on the faces of the rest of my family. i stepped closer to the sofa. just as i was about to throw the

water on him, a horrifying thought suddenly jolted me to consciousness. the singer did not die. this pot of water was not going to kill my father. suddenly the pot seemed to shrink in my hands and so did i. i began to see myself as a tiny child i was a wave of grief and sad physicals in rushed over me, i stood there growing smaller and smaller until i felt completely insignificant and totally useless. within a couple of years my contempt for the entire family in this crazy situation had poisoned the only thing that gave me any real validation. doing well in school. now all i wanted was to survive the next eight years. i my bridge to finding some kind of joy when things felt unbearable became getting high. my childhood and part of my cool. hood were completely lost to the effects of living with violence in my home. the story i'm telling you about my childhood is playing out right now in the homes of children right here in baltimore. within a mile of where we're

sitting, there are children who live in the midst of violence and fear every day when they walk outside their front door and onto the street, they often face still more violence. growing up with verbal and physical abuse all around you means much more of this violence is carried into your social actions with others, out onto the play ground in school and the streets of neighborhood, another threat to your safety that you have to learn to handle begins to corrupt your thinking even more. for many children living with this type of violence participating in crime becomes a way of creating safety. if you can illustrate how tough or how daring you are and fight someone through verbal and physical assaults then no one will challenge you. for a while at least. inevitably, there will always come a time when your last victorious fight or daring act will be forgotten. someone else will challenge you and the cycle begins again. you fight every time for that brief period of what feels, of safety and it's not. when you live in a world that is never safe, where you feel

abandoned and uncared for, numbing the pain and finding some kind of support becomes an essential survival skill. this is how i became and how many children today become easy prey to pedophiles. this is why our young people create the nurturance they desperately they need by forming and joining gangs. this is why so many children enter into the drug world at an early age. this is why the sex trade begins to seem like a viable option and this is how we lose our nation's future. without resources to deal with trauma, numbing your pain with drugs and sex and creating an illusion of family by seeking support on the streets become your coping mechanism. you will take what is given easily and freely oftentimes these children end up in a pattern of using these self-destructive acts to escape the smallest of discomfort never engaging the proper struggle. they end of having sex to find emotional support and may become very young parents. the effects of the violence they live with just add up in layers.

burying them sometimes literally. we have generations of people living in this country, not some third world country overseas. this one right here suffering from the effects of trauma, abuse, and violence. the problem is so severe, so large that it threatens to overwhelm us. we wonder what we can do. particularly, for a youth who have already entered into a life of crime and violence, oftentimes society has simply given up especially on the older ones. there are so many challenges that these young people face, they face obstacles inside their own minds as well as outside and it's the desperation that keeps them trapped in their own minds that we deal with through rewire for life, our program for high risk youth who have been involved in the criminal justice system. the objective of the rewired for life program is to make personal transformation in the hood cool. rewired for life focuses individual success, it uses the arts as a tool for healing, some of the young people who have

gone through our program have changed their life goals they are working and go back to school. they have lead the life to drug-dealing and excel of law-abiding employment. less money, less of a certain kind of prestige in the neighborhoods they come from. but they are safer and less violent and gain more self-respect. we are all here today to ask ourselves what we can do to contribute to the change that must take place. as adults, as professionals, as human beings we owe it to these children to give them more. kids in this environment must have easy access to tools, other than drugs and unhealthy associations to keep them out of survival mode. and we cannot forget or ignore their parents who effectively address children's exposure to address, we must address the needs of the families and communities they live in as well. i'd like to close by saying that my family of origin and to a much smaller degree my children have suffered from the after-effects of the environment

i grew up in. and though we lost my brother to homicide some years ago, my family has come a long way, including my father, who has realized over the years the causes of his past behavior. today, i am thrilled to say that we enjoy a healthy family life. so from me to you, i know what it takes for a family to heal. i know what is possible. i know there are many paths to inner peace and healing and it is an individual process and a lifelong journey, no matter who you are and where you come from, though, the path may be more difficult for some than others. and i also know that no one can find that path on their own. that we as a society must come together to be the support and cornerstones for each other especially for those who cannot mount a support team when they are living a life that is always in a constant state of crisis. i appreciate the efforts of those who are here today to

share their testimony and the defending children's task force for the work they are doing to stop this vicious cycle of violence that has affected our entire society. i'm grateful for the invitation to testify before the task force and enjoin you to help change the lives of our nation's children. thank you. >> thank you. i'd like to thank each of the panelists for your testimony. at this time, let's open it questions from the task force. >> hi, i want to thank all of you for sharing your personal and powerful stories and for your commitment to this very important issue. i'm very impressed with your leadership. oftentimes we talk about how we're going to address gang and youth violence without actually asking the youth. we as adults sometimes take it upon ourselves and say we know best to define the problem and we know best what's going to work and what the solutions could be without including you

as equal partners. it's like groups like yours and like save and i guess the question i would have for you would be, how can adults or grown people as you say be able to better support organizations like yours? >> there's a saying -- i would say from the bible, train the child and train your mode of child when they start younger, you know, that can get them some kind of support backbone and lead and not going to that gang direction or going to that path that a parent would want a child to go into. but if people don't -- if parents don't do it as a -- as the child is younger, as always you can talk to them. you can show them the worst case scenario that can happen and just talking to your child can make a whole lot different in their life. >> i thank you to all the

panelists. i wanted to ask dr. mccarthy a couple of questions is about what you're seeing in the rural areas. i think a lot of times we tend to focus on youth and violence in an urban setting so i'm curious to see what you found in the rural setting in indian country if possible and then what do you see are the biggest gaps in the research right now. you've done some tremendous work but if you were able to redesign a research for these gaps for the things you don't know, what would that look like? >> you'll probably have to remind me of the second question after i take a shot at responding to the first. we do a fair amount of work in rural communities although most of our work? urban communities. and what we found in rural areas -- the combination of poverty which actually is higher proportionally in rural

communities than urban areas. the combination of that poverty and isolation can lead to the kinds of challenges that again in turn lead to violence, whether that would be alcoholism or substance abuse or the general sense of disconnection from the labor force. we supported travel communities in a variety ways. we not focused on issues around violence. we focused more on raising up the general issues that are affecting tribal nations as well as child welfare issues as tribal nations take on more and more of that responsibility themselves. i have to say that although the particular pattern, the values, the norms, the preferences of different groups, it's going to vary, of course. my own family is different from my wife's family. i mean, our families of origin. and it's always interesting at thanksgiving to watch mini cultural clash so there are

differences. but i actually believe whether you're talking about rural families, urban families, or families who are native american origin, european origin or african origin, that this notion of families working together to raise their children and relying on themselves as a group but also on families outside of the immediate family, that's the pathway, i think, for kids to be successful. i think that's true whether it's the rural areas or the urban areas. so we do have to take account of the differences that are very real. at the same time, let's not lose touch with the fact that we all grow up in the context of family. you asked about the gaps in the research, it's one of those interesting things from my point of view. i actually think we know a lot more than we use. and so there are huge gaps in research and understanding all

the dynamics and we don't have anywhere -- nowhere close to a magic bullet or a set of magic bullets is probably a bad solution to resolving issues of violence. but we're not using anywhere near what we already know, so it seems to me one of the biggest gaps in research is figuring out how you go from effective program level interventions and there are many with lots of evidence behind them -- how do you go from that to scaling them up largely -- large enough that they actually can help whole populations of families and kids. for me, that's a huge investment that we ought to be making because, again, we got to continue doing the basic research to figure out what works, but if most of what we know sits on the shelf, and the bulk of the resources we spend are, in fact, going to towards things that not only work but actually do harm, that's not so smart. >> dr. moran? >> i thank all the panelists --

[inaudible] >> i wanted to thank you in particular for making our work harder. you have given us such a brilliant personal but one is generalizable in terms of the complexity, what we really mean when we talk about exposure to violence. and you remind those of us in the behavioral health and health fields that the issue of what for whom is a major, major issue but i'm grateful for you making our task harder by reminding us of the complexity. i want to focus on one issue and i have a question for you and for dr. mccarthy. you describe this incredible sense of being small and going back and forth between planning and plotting and action to remedy your situation and being

defeated and the subsequent feeling of absolute helplessness and being small and then you made the link to the kids that you're working with now, who have had similar experiences, who find the antidote in that smallness in all the things that you so beautifully listed and i won't list them again. but the what for whom also goes to how and who can reach those kids especially as you point out the older kids, because it makes a difference, doesn't it? i if you could share some of your experience in that regard. >> from my experience, the older kids need to know that the adults who are reaching out to them really understand where they come from. so generally speaking, from my

experience, those older kids begin to open up when they hear the stories of the adults who are facilitating a program with them, and they see that there's some similarities. you know, during our pilot session, the cofacilitator was a gentleman who -- who had spent 20 years in prison and, you know, had the whole story and after a couple of weeks, the young men in the class began to open up and listen. and our conversations went quickly from defending the young people, defending their actions out on the street, to -- through the brilliance of this facilitator by using his own life to the young people then

starting to question their former actions. so i would say with the older kids to find adults who lived the lives they live, it can make a much quicker transition. >> a question to dr. mccarthy and thank you very much. one of the issues we know all of us as human beings that one of the hardest things to tolerate and acknowledge that, in fact, we were helpless and small. dr. mccarthy, in your disturbing and dismal account of our current system of reform and training schools or whatever, you pointed out that the real underlying behavioral health issues, along with opportunities that are not addressed -- are you aware of any programs where

the combination of necessary external controls, for example, via probation, court orders that address a particular group of kids with whom i think which miss sohn has some experience with them as well. >> sure. i'll take an opportunity to make a couple of points along this line. i suspect if you ask the average person on the street whether youth crime has gotten worse or better, the answer you'd get it's gotten worse. oh, my god, youth violence is much worse than it was 15, 20 years ago. if you look at the data, it's absolutely untrue. in fact, youth crime has gone down by at least a third in the last 15 years. that's a fact that people don't pay attention to as they think about build more prisons, less prisons, et cetera. you asked the question about, what do we know that's effective that blends addressing mental health substance abuse, trauma-related problems together

with the necessary controls and response to adolescent misbehavior, 20 or so years ago, we had the combination of a series of articles that warned us about a coming wave of super predators. you remember that? super predators who bourne of the crack epidemic and the collapse of the family in urban areas were going to overwhelm us with delinquency. and as i said, not true. accompanying that notion of super predators was a very widespread belief backed up by some data that, quote, nothing works. in other words, folks who had done careful controlled study, studies of lots of interventions in juvenile and adult criminal behavior concluded you know what? it really doesn't make any difference if we do these programs or not, so to protect the community let's lock these kids up. 20 years later, that is a very different theme. we now know at least four very

strong evidence-based interventions that, in fact, do exactly what you asked about. and three of them have terrible names, i think. apologies to the developers of these wonderful programs, but one is multisystemic therapy, the other is functional family therapy, and the third -- ready for this, multidimensional treatment foster care model. those names all build around the fundamental notion that the way to help kids is to strengthen their family's ability to work with them, family defined very broadly and to provide these young people with a path towards hope. whether you look at recidivism, mental health scores, job attachment, all of these programs have much greater success rates than just leaving them alone, which is the one alternative and much, much better than locking them up and these people have felony level and violent offenses, some of the toughest offenses and this

research is not just anecdotal, it's not just stories, this is controlled scientific research replicated multiple times, not one shot research but replicated multiple times. so when i say we're not using a lot of what we know, that's an example of what i mean. in addition, however, for those young people -- and i'm not as pollyannish as i do cough, for those people who need a period for secured care for their own protection and the protection of their own community, there are alternative approaches for providing that secured care that leads to much better results, probably the best known is known as the missouri model where about 30 years ago, a friend of mine mark stewart began the process of moving from these large hardwired, hard security institutions to smaller, still secure but smaller treatment-focused dorm-changing focus, i would suspect, using a lot of the kinds of approaches that father boyle uses with gang members working to change their expectations about their future while still holding them

accountable. whether you look again at recidivism rates, the recidivism rates for young people coming through the missouri model are much, much better by a factor of two or three than young people going through much more expensive by the way other interventions. so you put that all together and we just don't have any excuse anymore. we don't have the super predator excuse that was total -- what's the appropriate word, malarkey. it's total malarkey. we don't have the excuse that crime is going down. it's going down consistently for the last four years and we don't have the excuse that nothing else works. the only excuse we have the lack of courage, the lack of political will as the adults in this society to stick up for our kids and do better by them. [inaudible] >> i'm encouraged on this issue. dr. mccarthy if i could just an issue you raised that i don't

think gets enough attention in our society, and that's the issue of literacy by the time a kid leaves the third grade, i've seen that throughout the course of my career in dealing with kids going into gangs and kids going down the wrong path and it seems at 9 or 10, kids come to a crossroad particularly in america where they're encouraged by their ability to do well in school and then stay that path or become disillusioned because that her not getting positive attention in school and then start to look for it elsewhere. that elsewhere too often is gangs or crime. in looking at that issue, what recommendations would you make that you would like to see this panel address as a remedy to be able to start moving in the direction to deal with those issues at that age group? >> sure, we have lots of evidence about with a works, not everything we know but using more than what we're using. if you think of it is the child

reading by the end of third grade? what are all the things that need to happen for a child to be reading well by the end of third grade? you have to start prenatally. preventing teenage pregnancy. having the conceived, having the child get the right prenatal care so they have a right start. in the first three years of life, much of the neurological development, not all of it, by the way, let's be clear, but much of the neurological development that takes place over a course of a lifetime begins and gets accelerated in those first three years of life. it's a critical period of time. we, in fact, know about effective home visiting programs and early childhood interventions that start children on the right path especially those children who may be growing up in families that don't have the opportunities to provide them with the kind of cognitive stimulation and emotional and social supports that children in more well-to-do families may

have the opportunity to experience. we know that high quality early childhood and preschool makes a big difference. there is ample research, not all early childhood programs, let's be clear. there's a lot of things that don't work but we do know what does work. and if we can take that to larger scale, then we can put the child on a path. we tend to think of preschool and then there's like this little membrane and all of a sudden they're in school, if we just tear away that membrane and recognize that from 0 to 8, it's a critical period where the transition from those early childhood programs into preschool, into kindergarten, into the first elementary years need to be lined up and that each step in that path we need to be providing the most effective interventions not only for the children but, remember, parents are their first person, their children's first teachers through the parents and to the families. that's the pathway to success. just a quick story. i have four kids, one of them

has a pretty severe learning disability which we didn't discover until fourth grade. and your prediction of what happens to a young person. here we are, we're a well-to-do family at the time living in a suburb, you know, we're white. we have all sorts of supports. people expect us to do well, et cetera, and i want to tell you that when my son was not doing well in school, he began to exhibit all sorts of behaviors that stuck with him until he was in high school and his sinap sis connected and he made it but he very easily could have gone down a very different path certainly if we were in an urban area, if we were treated differently because the color of our skin and we didn't have the financial resources to provide him with the supports that he needed. this is not anything but opportunity that we're talking about here. my son had it, most kids don't. >> again, thank you all for being here. this question is for sonia. it's the emphasis here because

children are so vulnerable that how do we shield them and protect them from the effects of violence, but i'm curious as -- give us is window on your father because even in earlier testimony, you indicated -- you start to get hopeless about the ability of an anger management class or what -- what would you have delivered now given your, you know, adult as a perspective on what was his profile? you mentioned in your written testimony about he is a veteran and so what could have helped him and shielded you in the process? what would we have delivered as a society to him that would have prevented any of this from happening? >> that's a great question. i think that's the question in so many ways. and i have to tell you, the first answer that comes to my mind there's nothing. there's hardly anything that you could have done.

i think there's only one thing that could really surmount the insurmountable problems that i faced as a kid -- my father was mentally ill. i later found out that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. he was on lots of medication. my father is a brilliant man. he had moments of brilliance as a parent. my father -- there were phases in our life where we tried to have sunday dinner. now, it might have been a tyrannical nightmarish affair at times but there were times when there was laughter at the table. my father thought he should teach us all how to play chess by the time 6 you knew how to play chess. he had these moments of brilliance. but he had these -- there came a time when he just, turned into a monster. and this may seem very

pollyannish, i think we underestimate the power of love. i think the answer that i gave you, you know, what i failed to say is that not only -- these children or these young people don't simply respond to people who come from the same backgrounds they come from, that's helpful for sure. that will knock the door down quickly. but they're also very moved by people who continue to show up when they disappoint them. they are moved a consistency of presence in their lives, whether you come from -- because a lot of times they will sort of -- they'll discount your history because it was so long ago. you know, sometimes it takes -- but i do believe, father boyle, surely, you know this. that all of us have the ability

to affect, you know, these children's lives, you know, whether your specialty is through policy and being a part of this task force or not. i think that, you know, mentoring and having a young person in your life and your showing up on a regular basis despite whatever challenges that come, despite the fact that they may get locked up again or something else has happened or your heart is broken. they, you know, disappointed. they continued to show up. you know, consistency -- you know, that kind of consistency, you know, and that kind of support, you know, that's nurturance, you know, those are the components of love. and i think, you know, we should not forget that just the power of the human spirit and the human heart when we're doing our jobs -- i mean, we're when interacting with people in general, children, especially. >> thanks again for all three of you for sharing your stories

with us. i want to ask a question and only because i share your same story. i come from an brant family. my father is a very rigid man, highly disciplined. also an army soldier. so he was brought up in that particular segment and he was absent at a time and very abusive to the family. but my question to you in terms of your project here, you know, i know there's going to be similar organizations that deal with domestic violence and youth programs, but have you thought -- resources are kind of a premium today. and i know you're probably not getting a lot of federal funding or state funding of things of that nature. but have you thought about partnering with other organizations that have a similar mission, similar objectives, similar target population that you're dealing with? >> well, we do in small ways. our organization, you know, has

a pretty broad mission. one is to help these young people who had been affected by violence. and who live in these underserved communities, and the other is to raise awareness through our association with the media. right now our efforts in baltimore are all focused -- are out of the village house which is our community -- a community house we started here in east baltimore. and over there -- you know, we could not do what we are doing without the help of zion baptist church and pastor marshall presentis who for the first year gave us is place and continues to give us is place to operate out of. we are working with the oliver community center which is just around the corner from -- where we're located. they're providing space for some intergenerational programming. it's a small operation. and we do have our partners. we work the police department. there's the eastern district

commander, major melvin russell is an amazing man who actually has his own nonprofit called the transformation team. and he's been -- and he and the neighborhood services unit that is a part of the police department have been particularly helpful to us, helping us to renovate, helping us to provide security for events. they have -- some of the offices have come and done facilitated the d.a.r.e. program for some of the smaller children so that's how we are partnering with the community right now. yeah, i'll leave it; right there. i'm still thinking about father boyle's question -- if i could go back to it quickly, may i revisit that? you know, i know it sounded sort of hopeless that i don't think there was much anyone could have done. i mean, the scenario could have played out a number of ways.

there were times when i thought about, you know, going into foster care but, you know, with the situation with my mom and feeling like i had to protect her, that would have given me a lot of stress had that happened. and i thought i could survive maybe that way. when i was 12 years old, i wanted so badly to be sent to a boarding school. i thought that would be my ticket. but when all my teachers sat me down -- because i intentionally failed all my classes. i was an honor student. i was the president of the student government. i had great promise. they knew my test scores and i could read and most of my friends couldn't read and i was a pretty smart kid and when my teachers sat down, what is going on? i was trying to get somebody's attention. i could not speak and i was going, can't you see in my head that i want to go to a boarding school. i shrank in that chair and i

cried and i wanted them to ask more questions. i wanted them -- because i could not find a voice for it. so, you know, but what kept me afloat -- let me tell you what kept me afloat. why i'm here besides, you know, my decision at the age of 27 to stop doing drugs and to really, you know, get some help -- what kept me afloat all those years there were some families in that neighborhood -- most of my friends were sexually abused, most of them witnessed violence in the neighborhood, you know, the whole neighborhood was traumatized, you know, that's why we were fighting all the time. but what kept me afloat i remember -- and this is the inspiration for the village house actually. across the parking lot from where i lived was a couple, mr. and mrs. cook, allison. miss alice had a glass eye and

she was physically challenged. they were always happy and they were jolly. they had adopted a son and they were always home. and in the summertime, they had a u-haul in the middle of the parking lot where they had bicycles and for a quarter, you could rent a bicycle all day. and if you didn't have the quarter, of course, you could have a bike. they taught you how to patch a tire. and they ran a little sno-cone out of her kitchen. they were the boy scout, cub scout, brownie leaders. this couple who had all these challenges, were experiencing challenges themselves and some people thought they were dysfunctional in their own way but they were the bright spot of that neighborhood and they kept us going. there was another couple down the street -- there was one fully functional beautiful family in my whole block and i became -- they moved into our neighborhood when i was about 10. i became friends with the daughter. mr. and mrs. braxton.

she was a stay-at-home mom and he worked at the fish yards. there was food on the table at the right time. there was a parent at home. they took me on family trips. you know, i would go to their house as a respite because it felt warm. it felt fuzzy. and it was -- i had bright spots like that, you know, that kept me going. and i happened to be a kid, and i think, you know, what we're also leaving out here is emotional intelligence. is that regardless of how smart you are, how well you can read, or how little you can read, if you are -- if your emotional intelligence quotient is very high, you can -- you know, the likelihood that you're going to make this out of this thing alive and somewhat functional is actually higher despite all your challenges. and though i think we had some genetic predistposition especially where my father came

from and my mother had a completely tragic story, i happened to be someone who was born as a kid, as a 5-year-old i knew i was born for a purpose. it was something i knew more than anything in the world. and i just spent my life looking for that, even in all this darkness and all this pain and at a certain point when i started decided to start using drugs, i was just -- i can't be miserable. like this is hopeless. i can't change it. i need something that's just going to bookmark me and hold me right here and those drugs weren't a great idea but they were all i had. you know, people couldn't get inside my mind and figure out what was going on and immediately service me. but i also, you know, had the ability to say, okay, where is the light? where is the positivity? i'm going to find that. and so we need to find a way to nurture that in our children, the ability to find positivity and find light in your life. despite your circumstances, where -- where can you be great? you know, where do you have --

[inaudible] >> let's not just crowd them with all this information of what they don't have. and let's not totally treat them as victims. let's treat them as champions and as people who can and will overcome the circumstance. >> how do we the task force translate that into a policy recommendation? it's clear -- those are the saving graces. those are the tools that children need in order to survive really difficult circumstances. but how do we translate into a policy? >> that's a big question. and i'm sure that i will have a lot more to say about it once i leave her and process it. [laughter] >> you know, but, you know -- and i -- i just -- you know, i have to say what i think a lot of times is unspeakable in forums like this which is, you know, we don't -- you know, there's not a lot of programming out there that focuses on -- you know, one of the reasons why we

use the arts in rewired for life is because, you know, we want to nurture, you know, a child's ability or a young person's ability to create. and what -- i know what creativity can do. i know what happened to me when at the age of 30 i started acting and i know that some of my healing tools came through the techniques i learned from acting. and i know that my fellow, you know, cofounders of this organizations who come from very similar backgrounds that i do, that i come from, understand the power of creativity and creativity, you know, is very closely linked to spirit. if we can find programs that fosters creativity and opens up the window inside a young person to their own heart and the power of their own spirit, then, you know, we can -- then i can say that we'll be on a -- you know, we'll be adding, you know, to that track. but in terms of policy, you know, that's something that i'd

really have to think about. i'd actually like to talk to you about that on the side. [laughter] >> i'd like to hear your ideas consideration, you know, what i've said, you know, in terms of policy. a policy these days is a tough one, you know, all around no matter what subject we're addressing. >> folks, we're nearing the end of this panel. i have one last question that i would like to ask dr. mccarthy and it bears on the overall issue of money. it costs 150, 60, $70,000 a year to send one child to secure confinement in the state of pennsylvania for one year. over $150,000. why is it -- not speaking of pennsylvania alone, but why is it that states find it so hard to listen to the evidence that has been developed on why many of these placements are not successful with the kind of costs that are involved when those costs could be shifted to

a program to the ones mr. cox is talking about, the one that ms. sohn is talking about and hundreds of other programs that are viable and effective? why is that? let me start by saying thank you for not asking me as tough a question as you asked ms. sohn. i greatly appreciate it. you know, i think there are a number of answers to the question, one if we're just talking now about the huge investments in juvenile correctional facilities. >> correct. >> let's start with that. you've got the problem of some costs. i used to run a juvenile correctional system and i ran these facilities. i've been inside the belly of the beast so to speak but i had a key to get out. the marginal cost of putting one more young man in that facility was close to nothing. when you say something costs $150,000 a year, it's not that

every time a young person gets on that conveyer belt towards the institution that if you grab them off that conveyer belt you would have 150,000 to send them to harvard for a doctoral degree over the course of time. that's not how it works. so that's a big challenge. fortunately, you know, we're actually starting to see in again places like new york and california and alabama and to a certain extent even to pennsylvania and louisiana and texas -- we're starting to see partially drawn out of the fiscal crisis, partially drawn out of a commonsense consensus that cuts across ideology in other words the conservative point of view, the progressive point of view, kind of coming together and saying, this is just dumb. it's not making any sense and we can't afford it anymore, that people are finally in a lot of these states taking steps and how are they doing it? in places like california, they just changed the incentives. it used to be that if you were one of the counties in

california and you had a young person who was a felon, you could send them off to the state and it didn't cost you a dime. if you kept them in the county you had to provide services. so the state basically changed the incentives. they said if you're going to send them to the states it's going to cost more it will cost you more. so if you really need to send them, but you're going to have to pay more of the freight and lo and behold all these children couldn't survive any place else behind bars, all of a sudden it wasn't such an attractive option. so there's the financing. we're experimenting with ways where you can basically figure out the financing you need to do to flip these systems. in other words, and that's where i think foundations actually can be helpful. foundations have huge endowments. we can use those endowments to do bridge funding so that during the period of time where you still have to invest in your high cost enterprise 'cause you can't just close it one day and

open everything else the next, we can bridge to more effective intervention and thereby close the pipeline down and then at that point the states and the cities, et cetera, can close these institutions or greatly downsize them and then continue things on. so that's another piece. do you know at the end of the day, the end of the day, this is only a little bit about money and all that technical stuff. at the end of the day, again, it's about political will, you know. the reality is, the political will emerged in these states that i rambled on about. the political will emerge, people rose up and said this is just wrong. it's too expensive and it's not working. we got to do something different. and that's when it changed. that's when it changed. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank our panelists for your testimony. at this time we're going to recess until 1:00 for lunch. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

♪ all i want is to see you smile

♪ >> it's been 20 years since bill clinton ran for president he launched his 1992 little rock presidency. this 40-minute event took place outside of the old state house in little rock. ♪ ♪ yesterday's gone ♪ yesterday's gone ♪ don't stop thinking about tomorrow ♪ ♪ don't stop ♪ it'll soon be here ♪ it will be better than before ♪ ♪ yesterday's gone ♪ yesterday's gone. ♪ oooohhhh ♪ don't you look back ♪ oooohhhh ♪ don't you look back ♪ oooohhhh

♪ don't you look back ♪ oooohhhh ♪ don't you look back ♪ why not think about times to come ♪ ♪ don't look back at the things you've done ♪ ♪ if your life was sad for you ♪ ♪ just think tomorrow will do ♪ don't stop thinking about tomorrow ♪ >> thank you very much. [applause] >> first, thank you for being here. i want to thank my friend for so

many years, amy lee fisher for introducing me 20 years ago and again today. and thank you rodney slater come the first of the year, we will have been together for 30 years, for his service in arkansas and in washington. thank you, james carville, for getting our heads straight for today. and for keeping your eye on the ball and never quitting when people told you i was a lost cause. i want to thank chicago for playing for us and for playing for us again tonight. [applause] >> i want to thank fleetwood c macma macfmac for don't stop thinking about tomorrow. nick fleetwood sent us a combination and i want to thank al gore for calling in, for being the best vice president this country ever had.

he was great. [applause] >> i'd like to thank my daughter who was here last night and had to leave this morning for that great film. and for a wonderful lifetime of reminding me what politics is really all about. [applause] >> and i want to commend president obama for appointing the best secretary of state i can imagine. [applause] >> you know, i've had a great time these last 10 years being a has-been and watching hillary be a senator and running for president and being secretary of state. when we met many, many years ago, 40-plus to be exact, as soon as i got to know her, i thought she was the most gifted

person in my generation. i still feel that way. and i'm very proud of her. [applause] >> i was doing really well till i watched those films. and in spite of what carville said, i feel just a little nostalgic as i look at all of you here. george washington said once that he had gone blind in the service of his country and had to use spectacles, so have i. i want this anniversary weekend more than anything else for those of you who were a part of it from the beginning. to be a day of thanks from me to you, of gratitude on our parts of the chance we had to serve, to do something for our country

that has done so much for us. and for the young people of america of reassurance and rededication to the idea that we absolutely can get out of the fix we're in and be better than ever. [applause] >> i am very well aware that the videos you saw and especially the litany of achievements at the end would never have been possible without my family, my friends, my staff, my fellow arkansas, andans and people i have known for years. someone said to me, i may have only been the person in the history of republic to have been elected president because of his personal friends. and i took it as a great compliment.

i thank you all from the bottom of my heart. [applause] >> 20 years ago we sat out on this great journey at a remarkable time knowing that after the next presidential election, whoever was elected would be the first to serve a full term in the aftermath of the cold war. that cast a pall over america and what people in america and over the former soviet union did in organizing their lives for decades. it was obvious, as you saw in the films that we had to re-kindle the american dream. we had to build our economy in a way that would give us is bridge to the new century. we had to do it in a way that would keep america the world's leading force for peace and prosperity, for freedom and security. and we decided to go forward

with some very simple ideas. the most important of which was that we should put people first. that the idea of opportunity for all, responsibility for all, a community of all americans was way more than a slogan. it was in direct opposition to the idea that government would mess up a two-car parade and you would be better off on your own where the winner take all strategy. it didn't work very well then and it hasn't worked very well since. [applause] >> we believe that investing in economics was better than trickle down economics. [applause] >> we believe that even if those of us who have it, had to pay a little more in taxes, balanced budgets were better today than burdening our children with debt

for generations to come. [applause] >> those beliefs gave us is whole new direction in policy. a budget that actually reduced the debt while cutting taxes on lower-incomed working families. so no one would ever have to work and raise children and still be in poverty. and that one budget lifted more than 2 million children out of poverty, the very first one. we believe -- [applause] >> that we had to dramatically increase our investment in education and information technology in science and biomedical research. we believe that trade could be a positive, not a negative for america. after all, we only have 4% of the world's people. we got to sell something to somebody. ..

>> if you fail in a the one you're going to fall the hide and be disappointed. it's a very important principle we need to work for again. we believed in children's health insurance policy and installing the inflation and medical costs. those eight years with the only time in 30 years when health care costs have not come up at three times the rate of inflation. we actually increase the number of people who have medical insurance before i left.

[applause] and we believed you could improve the environment and the economy at the same time if you did it in the right way. and i still believe that. [applause] i think it's a good thing, not a burden on the economy that 43 million more people were breathing clean air when i left than when i started. it struck me as a pretty good thing. [applause] and we believed we live in a world where we need more friends and fewer enemies, so we build all these networks of cooperation with the asia-pacific region with her nations in latin america, expanding nato to take in our former adversaries. all kinds of networks of cooperation. all we basically did was what we were supposed to do. for 235 years, things have been change and americans have confronted new challenges and

pages sort of saddled up and did what they were supposed to do. with barely any preference, anywhere in the world, our founding fathers actually created a democracy that was strong enough to meet the challenges of each new era and limited enough to avoid the kind of abuse of power that our founders were running away from. we survived a civil war, a great depression, two world wars, the relentless way of social and economic change and hard social conflict, to emerge just as the people who started this intended, a more perfect union. where we widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the meaning of freedom, strengthen the bonds of our community. every year it seems that more and more people we used to think

of as two different to accept become part of us, and are no longer part of them. [applause] so now the big challenge to our more perfect union once again is a terrible economic crisis. more different and deeper and more difficult than the one i faced. and it's about way more than money. i'm looking out at some people i see i've known all my life. most of us didn't have much when we were kids, but most of us never doubted that no matter what happened, we could support ourselves. no matter what happened, even if we didn't have a big trust fund, we could make a living, put food on the table, feed our kids, send into school, have clean clothes on their backs. this is about more than

economics. this is about human dignity. [applause] i think that's really important. so when you have one of the so-called recoveries were gdp grows at 90% of the game goes to tempers of people, and 40% goes to 1%, and every year there are more and more people who are robbed of that dignity, that is not the american dream. [applause] i was thinking of the day, i tried to make a list of the thing i'd ever done to earn money. and my memory is not what it used to be. i mowed lawns when i stole. i went to work in a grocery store when i was 13. the guy i was working for let me set up on the side. i sold all my used comic book. how stupid. they would be worth $200,000 today.

[laughter] i made about 30 instead and felt i was the richest fell a new. by the time i got out of law school i done a dozen other things to earn money. and i've never made much money at any other jobs but but in something from everyone. i learned something about the work. i learn something with people i was doing busy with -- doing business with. it was all part of dignity so when i went out it didn't lost if i lost an election, i thought i could make a living. too many people have been deprived of that dignity. i'm not just our fellow americans. it it has been almost 300 million people around the world today are aggressively and desperately looking for full-time work. so that they can support their children. i say that because i think we face a momentous choice today. if we want national prosperity and personal dignity, we have to

decide whether it can best be strengthened by yet one more assault on government as the source of all of our ills, or by building a partnership between our private economy and a smart government to build, share prosperity. you know where i come down on that today. is not a single example on our planet today, not one, not one where an antigovernment strategy has produced a vibrant economy with strong and broad-based growing prosperity. [applause] but we had eight years in the united states where a smart government in partnership with a private economy produced a lot of shared prosperity, and it can again. [applause] that's how we had 22 plus million jobs, and a 40 year loan

in unemployment, and a real increase in income for middle-class americans. and most important to me, in the second four years when the labor markets got really tight, the first time in 30 years with four years in a row where where the bottom 20% of working families in, come in percentage terms, rose as much as the top 20%. and 100 times as many people moved out of poverty in those eight years as in the 12 years before or the eight years after. because we had a partnership. [applause] now, it's tougher now. for one thing the financial collapse that occurred in september of 2008, was the tail end of a bad economy, not the beginning. the day before that collapse, this economy had only produced in seven years and eight months two-and-a-half million new jobs. the day before that collapse, median family income after

inflation was $2000 lower than it was the day i left office after health care premiums have tripled and college costs have gone up 75%. then it turned out that the economy, which bottomed out basically in the middle of 2009, when lower than we knew. the president was in office for more than another year as the sting this package had already passed before it turned out that instead of an almost 4% attraction in the economy it went down 7.5%. so, what does all that mean? it means to get out of this fix we've got to do three things. we need a short-term growth strategy, even if we have to borrow the money to do it. total government can borrow money at less than 2% today. you know i hate debt, but you

cannot get blood out of a turn. you cannot balance the budget in a stagnant economy. [applause] and so, we need a short term growth strategy. we need a long-term plan to do with the debt when growth returns. and in the middle we've got to clean up this housing mess or we're never going to get the show on the road and return to a full-time economy. full growth economy. [applause] now, whether you're republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, one thing is indisputable. the present is offered a plan for short-term economic, he is offered proposal to make the housing crisis less severe. and he is offered his first down payment and it's a big one, to reduce long-term debt by $3 trillion but it is now up to the united states congress to act on those plans but if they don't like them, to come up with better ideas. [applause]

one thing i'd like to ask all of your ideas on is this. it became clear to me, first when i was governor, keep in mind, you all kept reelecting me when our economy was lousy. [laughter] until the year i ran for president we only had one month when our unemployment rate was below the national average, but you knew we had a plan to change it. we were bringing back manufacturing. we went on a state in the country that group manufacturing jobs. we lead the region and job growth, and in 1992, coincidentally, and i did know it was going to happen on october the first, the third way of standing here, we ranked first or second in the country in new job growth all year long. but it took a long time. we had a strategy to do it. you have to have a source of new jobs in a big country like this. every five to eight you did eight you did my personal favorite is changing the way we

consume energy in a way weight is good business because if you can create jobs in every town and every small community and every big city in the united states doing that, the opportunity is not limited by party philosophy or geography. i like that. i also think a commitment to rebuild our manufacturing base will. i take a commitment to increase our export will. we can do better, but we have to do that. and there is no example of a country in the fix we're in that can balance the budget without a combination of spending cuts for people can afford it pay more and growing the economy. and if you don't have economic growth, there is no common nation that can get blood out of a turnip. [applause] so, why am i saying all this? because we made a decision here 20 years ago, all of you through

your lot in and come, let's face on that day my mother was the only person thought i was going to be elected president. [laughter] hillary and chelsea were undecided. [laughter] though leaning positive. we just made a decision that the country needed a new kind of politics, a new kind of economics, a new commitment to get it to the next entry with the american dream alive and well. a commitment that would restore the middle-class and give people who were poor a chance to work their way into it. and we decided to stop the politics, pitting one american against another, by race, by ethnicity, by gender, by income, but anything else. we decided we tried all that for a while, why don't we just work together and see how that works out? [applause]

and i'm so glad we started here. in 1977, in january on a very cold night i held my first reception as a public official here when i became attorney general. in 1979, as governor, with the help of rose, still out there, still has the scars to show for. we began the effort to restore the old state house to its original condition. and many people who have worked on that and identifying job of giving us what we now treasure. [applause] and it symbolizes our past, our present and our future. not 30 years after this building was built, well, a little more than three years, right after the civil war, when most white

males who are the only people voting back then were disenfranchised as a result of having thought for the south, we had a governor's race here. between a man named brooks and a man named baxter. and it was not clear who won. at least it was close enough that they were shooting at each other. [laughter] and one group was over there by the capital hotel, the other group was trying to lodge here at the capitol, and they were shooting at each other. the president of the united states was ulysses grant, and having been a commanding general of the civil war, his authority was so great he finally just said, baxter is a governor, get over it and stop this mass. [laughter] president grant then came to the capital hotel, stood on that balcony, you can see today, the arkansas river was, came very close to our street, and they

had a grand parade going by because they figured we had to stop fighting and get the show on the road. so i will tell you, folks, in memory of one of the most important moments of the old state house is history, we had to stop fighting and get the show on the road. [applause] when we walked out of here, we started his seven-day week, 24 hour campaign, our first headquarters is in the old paint store over on seventh street, i drove by here today just so i could see it one more time before i came in, then we move to the arkansas gazette the building. the cassette has recently closed. but in its glory days it was one of the greatest newspapers in america, and one of the most progressive voices for civil rights and human rights in history of the country. [applause] and i kept hoping that the ghost

of this progressive past somehow would sprinkle angel dust on our campaign and give us a good break. the journey begun here worked out pretty well for america. and i'm grateful for all you have done. i want to just do two more things. first of all, those of us here are not alone in this effort, and those who couldn't be here today, were not alone. i have signed some 600 letters of condolences since i left the white house on the passing of people who helped me become president, or who worked in one or both of my administration's. it began in the campaign when we lost my mid-atlantic fund-raising chairman and incomparable paul tully, and in

my first term we lost ron brown, whom i loved like a brother, and may still be the greatest commerce secretary we ever had. [applause] and it has continued to the last two months when we lost maria haley and da rudolph. [applause] when china is going to be a good governor in 1979 when i took my first trade mission abroad with maria haley, and we went into hong kong and we stayed in some high rise hotel. i thought i was somebody. i had never been anywhere before. [laughter] and i was with bill and kelly and they said you know, there's a bar upstairs with a band and if you want to go up, and i, you know, have a drink and listen to music on one time before you go to bed, we can do it. we walked in and the band stopped playing and said hi, maria.

[laughter] so i figured arkansas may be a landlocked state, but if the ban and hotel in hong kong knows my director's name, we are all right. [laughter] last night when i got home at ththe suggestion of some who cae up to me and told me, i'd went into the apartment, in the executive suite at the library, and i started opening the drawers and da rudolph had left me a note there. just a couple weeks before she died. and all she said was, good days, i was glad i was along for the ride. [laughter] so in honor of all those people, i would like to ask for a moment of silence and gratitude. thank you.

now i want to say something to the people who are here. you know, i have a lot of times to stay was going on in america. i'm home alone a lot. [laughter] my wife has a traveling job. [laughter] so i keep reading all of these surveys that say young people in the united states are getting discouraged. they are afraid they won't have a better future. at one level i understand that because things were pretty good for a long time and now they are not. but too often people i would say look, it's all right to be realistic. but to be discouraged about your future is a decision in advance to be disappointed. nobody has the right, it has to be earned. nobody has a right to a life free of challenges. it would be boring anyway.

at some time or another, every people are called upon to re-examine the premises of their nations life, how people treat each other, what rights are extended to what people, and what they do to make a living and create a brighter future. to be on today and live in a time of uncertainty and difficulty, but also a time of enormous opportunity, a time when you had the responsibility to reimagine the future. the uncertainties of the current moment do not have to exist a decade from now. it will be determined by the decisions that we make, beginning with how we answer that big question, about whether government is the problem or a

necessary part of the solution. but first, you must make the decision not to give up. [applause] not give up in politics, not to give up in economics, not to give up in life. harry and linda thomason, who couldn't hear today, made a bunch of great movies for me, but my favorite was one cataloging all the people and all the time people said i was better than a door nail in the two campaign. [laughter] -- better than a doornail. i was declared dead so may times i could swear they're going to say i was the person buried in grant's tomb. [laughter] if you doubt what i say, go home

tonight and watch the replay of today's razorback game. [cheers and applause] now you're all cheering. i watched it and i was ecstatic, but come on, what chance do we have come we're playing with the greatest offense against america. we had 18 points at halftime. we can't stop anybody. the line is pushing us five yards off. not a shot. somebody forgot to tell the players to give up. so they kept playing the game. and every young person here should remember that. pessimism, cynicism, may save you a lot of time, you don't have to go through the effort of trying to change things and you get to be disappointed right away. [laughter] but if you really want to restore the american dream come if you want to rebuild the

middle class, if you want to give poor people their shot again, if you'd like to live in a country where immigrants are not enemies but can be a part of our common humanity again -- [applause] you've got to play the game. at the core of this country, there has always been an idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you get a chance to live your dream and give your children a chance to chase there's. no guarantee, but a chance for all. in order to do that, we have to believe, we have to think, and we have to act. that's what we tried to do for eight good years, and for all of you who took me through those two campaigns, our earlier days here in arkansas, and those eight years in washington, i am

profoundly grateful. now, i know the president is facing similar challenges -- now, a new president is facing similar challenges. i will say this. i suppose i am going harder for them in choosing such a good secretary of state. but i would be pulling for him regardless. it has underlined those challenges is the same old debate. about whether government is the problem over we need smart government and a changing economy, working together to create the opportunities of tomorrow. for all of you who have helped me, i'd like to in this ceremony by just giving everybody a gold watch. [laughter] some of us are old enough to earn it. but america has never been a

retirement party. and it isn't now. america is a constant invitation to suit up and play again. [applause] and so, if you really are proud of what we did, help a kid stay in school, hire somebody if you can, started business if he can, make your voice heard. and remind people that conflict is necessary in life, and somehow can be great for a political campaign, but america got to this point through cooperation, through striving relentlessly, repeatedly, through all the disappointments and all the setbacks and all the difficulties for the more

perfect union of our founders dream. maybe i am crazy, as i age. but i am not pessimistic. i still believe in the promise of this country. i still believe that every place -- [applause] every place in america can be a place called hope. [applause] and if you really believe in what we did here all those years ago, if used are still proud of it, and most important, if you wanted to happen again and give your kids and grandkids, and for some of your great grandkids, what you know in your bones they deserve, play again. god bless you. [cheers and applause] ♪ don't stop, thinking about

tomorrow they note don't stop, it'll soon be here of ♪ ♪ it'll be here better than before ♪ ♪ yesterday is gone, yesterday's gone they note the ♪ ♪ ♪ why not think about times to come, ♪ ♪ and not about the things that you've done they note if your life was bad to you ♪ ♪ just think what tomorrow will do a ♪ ♪ ♪ don't stop, thinking about tomorrow they note don't stop, it'll soon be your ♪ ♪ it'll be here better than before ♪ ♪ yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone the ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all i want is to see you smile ♪ if it takes just a little while ♪ ♪ i know you don't believe that it's true they note i never meant any harm to you ♪ ♪ don't stop thinking about tomorrow they note don't stop, it'll soon be here they note ♪ ♪ it'll be here better than before ♪ ♪ >> president obama travels to chicago this afternoon.

he is heading up a fundraiser at the university of illinois. the money would be split between his reelection campaign and the democratic national committee. >> second debate here in washington nbc studios, nixon gets control, so he brings the level of the temperature down to 40 degrees. it's a meat locker when kennedy arise. wilson goes racing down to the basement and finds the guy and front of the thermostatic there's a nixon guy standing guard on the thermostat and he says if you don't get out of the way of the thermostat, let me turn that thing up to like 65 or

70, i'm calling the police but they had another stand up and had to compromise on the temperature. they get it back up to where nixon, the whole it is they didn't want nixon to sweat. they had seen sweat profusely in the first debate and in this it will not let this happen again. they all knew what was going on. this was about who's going to rule america by the way, this stuff is going on. >> sam donaldson interviews chris matthews on his new book, jack kennedy, on afterwards, saturday night at 10 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> live pictures from the pentagon this afternoon. we are here for defense department briefing with press secretary george little and media operations spokesman captain john kirby. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. we will open up with a quick preview of the secretary's trip to el paso but as you all know he will be headed there tomorrow. will spend part of the day on

friday in el paso. also visiting fort bliss. is looking forward to meeting with troops at bliss. and their families. he looks for to thinking local community leaders for their support of the military, and thanking them for their efforts to reintegrate the returning veterans into the community. with that we will take your questions. bob? >> george, on the matter of the assassination of the remaining nuclear scientist, -- iranian nuclear scientist, wondering whether there is any anticipation of escalating tensions in the gulf as a result of this? has there been any added u.s. or u.s. forces being added to the gulf? >> united states played no role whatsoever in the killing of the scientist. and as to the broader question of tensions, we have been very clear that we seek to lower the temperature, our tensions with

iran, and we think that things have calmed down a bit in recent days. >> there's been no change in the gulf region as a result of this incident. >> deny many carriers are in the gulf region at the moment? are there any in the gulf? >> just recently left, the wrinkle. he is still in the fifth fleet aor. as well as the ships of strength but are there others in the aor? >> there is -- what's that? yes, there's another strike inside. one other striker. but not in the gulf proper. [inaudible] >> no. the numbers of carrier strike groups that are attached to the fifth fleet and to the senate oir changes all the time. but right now, it's

inconsistently that way. they have had a two carrier presence for quite a while. this is not the fact that there are two carries in that aor is not indication of anything specific with respect to iran. >> is that an increase? >> it does fluctuate, yeah, but -- >> so for some time wasn't? >> i mean, it's not like there's always a given number there. as you know, carriers rotate, come and go. so you'll have a time when, if for instance, you are trying to keep two carries around in that region we might get down to one just begun one has to go home and it may take a little while before the next one comes to believe it. so it does go up and down, but it is based on overall broad requirements in the region that the central command commander sets and establishes, not necessarily driven by a specific incident. [inaudible]

>> right now there are two. >> if i could follow on that, and you say the tensions of calm down at it which is great, but the iranians have made threats of what to do if they carry it again goes to the strait to the straits of hormuz which is an international waterway. has a decision been made, and if so, when the carrier will transit that just for a right of passage? >> well, you, we don't get ahead of ship schedules with respect to this i'm not going to get into speculating our commenting about when the next passage through the strait will be by a u.s. aircraft carrier. that said, tom, as you know it is an international waterway, it is a key point, particularly for the flow of oil in and out of that region. and the united states navy has and will continue to remain a force in that region to help protect the free flow of commerce in international waters.

>> to clarify, when was this ordered to defend? >> this was a long stint people and i couldn't give you the exact date, but this is routine. her deployment to the area is routine, long planned. she worked up and prepared for it. there's nothing unusual about this. >> the recent tensions -- >> absolutely, absolutely. >> having to carriers physical in the oa are now requirement since the drawdown from iraq, is that a new requirement? [inaudible] >> is it a requirement? either going to be teachers in the region sort of permanently now, for the indeterminate future. that's a we are operating, that's a posh were operating under right now. but it can and probably will change over time. it desperately. i have seen us have a one

carrier presence for lengthy periods and then it will go up to one and a half, and now we have too. but i mean, it's not, it's based on requirements set by the combatant commander and what he believes the needs are. pics i mean, i'm not going, i wouldn't stick to it about how long we're going to that kind of a presence, because it could change within months or it could not. >> any plans to go to -- >> none that i'm aware of the. [inaudible] going to repeat, but given the recent tensions with the carrier, will they stay longer in the aor in the previous plan? >> i don't know any plans or came to her deployment schedul scheduled. >> isn't it in fact two carries in the gulf, you say it's the requirement, but wasn't this something like bureaucratic 1.5-1.7 and that was the requirement and now it has been

upped? went did the general get approval to go to to carry? >> i don't know. i don't have that. [inaudible] >> know, again i don't know when the decision was made. i will try to get you better clarity on that. but i think, look, it's important for everybody to understand that we have long maintained a naval presence in that part of the world. let me finish. and that presence changes all the time. it fluctuates based on needs and requirements set by the combatant commander and approved by the joint staff and the secretary of defense. and as you all know, i mean, to get an aircraft carrier around the world takes time. they can take a lot of planning and training, months of advance work is done. it's not can i do want to lead anybody with the impression that we are somehow shooting to carriers over there because we're concerned that what happened today in iran. it's not the case. this is prudent, force posture

requirements set by the combatant commander. [inaudible] >> we are told that rather than the question being when did this come in, scorching, or whatever you said -- [inaudible] >> i'll get back to that, it is that it will stay, and will not turn over perhaps for many, many weeks to come. >> i'm not going to get into the individual ship schedules but i think you can understand why it wouldn't be prudent for us to do that. and again, these chips are available to the central command commander for his entire area of responsibility. it doesn't mean come it doesn't mean that they will be parked inside the arabian gulf the entire time that they are deployed. >> let's be clear, does the trend had a commitment to send a carrier back into them through

the strait of hormuz at some point? will you do that? >> we routinely operate our ships come all of our ships, or all of our types of ships inside the arabian gulf, and that will continue. >> john? >> yesterday admiral said the u.s. force posture in asia pacific wouldn't increase, which seems to contradict the latest strategic guidance. and then this morning the admiral said the u.s. naval presence would increase over the next decade. so one, are their assertions correct in terms of force posture? and two, how do you reconcile that with the strategic guidance as what they said was accurate? >> i haven't seen the admiral's comments, and we're not here to make announcement on force posture elsewhere in the world. but what i will say is that we will maintain presence in the

asia-pacific region. we are a pacific nation, pacific power and we intend to protect military leadership in the region. we have interest in the lines that stretches from japan to india, and will protect those interests and allies. we don't have any specific announcements to make today, about force posture, but, you know, that's something we will do in the coming weeks perhaps. >> you know, a focus on an area doesn't have to rely simply on fixed forced posture, at a number of bases or a number of bases or in number of troops. i mean, all of our forces are expeditionary and rotational, and i would fully expect that you're going, you know, we are going to shift the focus to the asia-pacific region and you're going to see, you will see that borne out and rotational deployments. and exercises and routine operations. that doesn't mean that you can,

you can still meet that requirement that the president made very clear without necessarily adding to your bottom line of troops that are actually living in the region. does that make sense? the rotational presence. >> on this strait of hormuz issue, to you think iran's ordering to close the strait of hormuz, i know the united states may be has capability to open, reopen the strait of hormuz. you know if iran has the capability to close? >> i say, i think chairman gensler said it well on face the nation sunday. they certainly have that ability to do it for limited amounts of time. it is, you know, look at a map and you can see it's not a very wide waterway. it is a narrow choke point which is why it's so vital. and so, using access denial capabilities, yes, it could be close temporary. but only temporarily.

we are very comfortable with the capabilities that we have and we maintain in the partnership and the commitments we have in the region. we are very comfortable that we will be able to meet those requirements and those commitments. >> you think they are serious about what they're saying? they are not loving? >> i think you need to talk to the iranian leadership about the seriousness of their intent. we take all threats to our partners and our relationship after commitments in the region seriously. >> to questions about pakistan and egypt, separately. pakistan, do you have any comment about the firing of the defense secretary, the second in command and military there? and the military's comments appeared in a statement on their website that this would lead to greater quote unquote grievous consequences? and egypt, has there been any further interactions with the

military there since the ngo raid earlier this month? apparently that issue is still not resolved. and has been server contact at the high here in the building with regard to egypt's? >> first on pakistan. i wouldn't comment on what's happening inside, you know, the pakistan the system with respect to jobs that are being left or taken. in terms of egypt, i'm not aware of any further contacts beyond those that occurred recently between for instance, the secretary and on the ngo issue but we continue to monitor the situation. and it's a very important one to get right. and we hope that the egyptians of course do the right thing. we understand that they have taken steps to improve the situation with respect to ngos and that's something of

importance to the united states in a cast of in any call, any further calls since the first week from this building i'm sorry, have there been any calls related to the latest developments there in pakistan and how concerned are you about the stability of the military structured there? >> my understanding is that chairman demsey has been in contact with general kayani. it was a productive and professional conversation. i'm not going to get into the details. but that call has taken place within recent days. you would have to check with the chairman's spokesman on that for specifics. but that is a call that happened recently. the important thing with pakistan is for us to continue that dialogue at all levels. we have an important military to military relationship with

pakistan, and we know we have hit bumps in the road over the past several months. we hope to improve the relationship and get back to a place where we can cooperate vigorously on a range of matters. there are a number of issues of common concern that we share, and to include counterterrorism. so, and a range of other issues. so we look forward to improving the state of our relationship with our pakistani partners. >> isn't this another bump in the road? is this a means of more delay and repairing that relationship? >> i'm not going to speculate on how this internal pakistani political development may or may not impact the relationship with the united states. we have relationships, you know come in many places inside the pakistani government so i

wouldn't want to suggest that one data point makes a trend. >> i would just say, i would just add, one thing i can say is it doesn't change our commitment to try to move the relationship forward. [inaudible] in have you sought or received any assurances from the pakistani military or pakistani military leaders that they are not interested? do you have assurances? have you sought any assurances of? >> i'm not aware that we have sought any assurances, and i couldn't, and i don't think we are aware that we had been given any. this is a matter for pakistani officials and government leaders, military and civilian, to work out. >> mike? >> comparatively short area time, two young u.s. army soldiers, both of them intelligence analysts, both

highly secured science community can have been charged with very serious offenses. one as we know was disclosing thousands of classified docs and the other was planning to join a terrorist organization. i wonder whether if you're concerned about the fact, number two, when there's in particular concern within the u.s. army the defense department -- [inaudible] >> i don't really have anything. >> i wouldn't comment on any particular case or instance, mike, but broadly speaking, you know, we do take very seriously the concerns about security and, you know, the potential of insider threats coming from within. that's something that we have taken, policies are in place, procedures to try to prevent these kinds of things from

happening, and we will continue to try to improve our ability to prevent security breaches, and to prevent behavior that's inconsistent with behavior that should occur inside the culture. [inaudible] >> i don't think that i can diagnose anything from this podium. >> with the start of the drone flight, do you see an improvement in relationship with pakistan? any updates on nato supply? and the second question, in the recent review presented by president obama and secretary, it was highlighted that you're going to help india incorporate, to become a provider of security

in indian ocean in the region. what exactly is happening on that? is it a financial cooperation, military cooperation? if you can get some details about that. >> first, i'm not going to comment on reports of specific counterterrorism operations in the afghanistan-pakistan region. what i can say is that the united states remains very committed to continuing efforts to damage al qaeda and its militant allies. that remains a top national security priority for the united states. al qaeda and its allies threaten the united states. they threaten our allies, and they threaten pakistan as well. when it comes to the ground lines of communication, those have not been reopened, but we do believe that we have sufficient stores in place inside afghanistan to provide

for a very successful war fighting effort in afghanistan. as you know, general al has been a terrific job working with his team to manage the levels of supplies. and, of course, we are the northern distribution network to use as well. >> anything to add? >> not at all. on your questions about india company, we have and certainly hope to continue a very strong relationship with the indian military. they are, they are, they are contributing to issues in afghanistan and in a very constructive way whether training or economic assistance. we certainly want to see that continue, and i think broadly across the u.s. government, we want it any to pursue a close relationship with india. they are a major economic power not only in the region but in the world.

and as i said, they add interest in what's going on there in south and central asia, we respect of interest and we want to continue that close cooperation. >> it was very prominent in mentioned in the review about this, so is there any, provider of security for what exactly was behind that sends? >> i think it's referring to them as i said, the role that india continue to play in the region, economically and from a safety perspective, but also in particular inside afghanistan. >> we have time for one or two more questions. jennifer? >> what are you going to do with the somali pirates who are on board right now? >> i do know. i think they're working through that right now. [inaudible] in is there any law or is it unwritten? >> they are working through the process right now but as you know it's a first time that we've detained in temporarily aboard ship. that's not a long-term solution here in the past we have looked

for and found some third party country willing to take them, and so again, they are working to right now, i just don't have a good answer for you. [inaudible] is that even under consideration? >> not that i'm aware of. not that i'm aware. it in the final question goes to louis. i would want anyone else of an army, marine corps, air force and coast guard. >> i just want to ask you about white house planning to send officers to south sudan. can you tell us, what will be the expectation of them, and are there plans to send more than this initial team? >> i'm unaware of any plan to send more than this additional teen. at this point. but these u.s. military officers have been assigned to a u.n. mission in the south sudan, and they are going to work in concert with international partners to try to engage in

peace operations in that new country. >> the nation is really to help, ask south sudan begins to stand its of up, to help with governance, rule of law, and civil affairs. and that's what these five individuals are experts at that kind of thing which is civil affairs, those kind of things. and that's, you know, right now that's the limit of the involvement of these five individuals. it may change over time. we contribute to u.n. missions in several other places all over the world, so this is not unusual. >> there was action as a result of request from south sudan? >> it's part of, well, it is our meeting our commitments and responsibilities to the u.n. is what this is. and again, this is not, it's not a combat mission whatsoever. these five individuals are there to help with this new country as they stand up. >> all right, thank you everyone, appreciate it.

>> president obama is in chicago this afternoon. he is heading up a fundraiser at the university of illinois. that money will be split between his reelection campaign and the democratic national committee. live coverage begins at 6:50 p.m. eastern on c-span. mitt romney is in south carolina today after winning the new hampshire primary last night. he is holding a campaign event in columbia. c-span will have live coverage starting at 6:10 p.m. eastern. so soft on this primary is in the we can have with florida's primary just 10 days after that. you can follow the road to the white house on our website, c-span.org campaign 2012. join the conversations are self on facebook and twitter.

>> if we begin now to match our policies with our ideas, and i believe that it is yet possible that we'll come to admire this country not simply because we were born here, not because of the kind of great and good land that you and i want it to be, at that together we have made it. that is my hope. that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 many ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders a lasting impact on american politics. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land, and not just prior to

election date either. >> these young people when they get out of this wonderful university will have difficulty finding a job. we have got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape, pass on the american dream to them being that go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders. >> today marks the 10th anniversary of the opening of the u.s. prison in guantánamo bay in cuba. the new america foundation held a panel discussion looking at the future of guantánamo and the political debates surrounding the closing of the detention facility. ..

since that is obviously the main question at hand is when the next wonton amo will close and how might that happen. to begin, we are going to have congressman moran who is serving his 11th term as u.s. representative from virginia's eighth district. he's a senior member of the appropriations committee. he has been a key critic of certain provisions of the national defense authorization act and a great actor of political curve it, carson of virginia voted against the authorization of the act. because of the provisions related to the detention of terrorism fax. we also have united kingdom, and the worthington, author of "the guantanamo files." he has done more work to

basically explain who exactly is in guantánamo, most any other journalist that i'm aware of. and then we also have kernel morris davis who is she and as i retired from that position, retired active-duty in october 2008. he teaches now live at howard. finally we have tom wilner competitive sherman and steer things and is representative wonton amount detainees in key cases before the supreme court, such as restful beat bush. so we'll start with congressman moran who has to leave to go to the house at 1:30 and we'll wrap up at 1:45. thank you. >> thank you so much, peter. and we thank all of you for being here and we have a terrific panel. i don't want to take too long,

but there is so much to be said. but we stipulate my position first. guantánamo should he closed as a detention facility. the supreme court has ruled that noncitizens have the right to habeas corpus, which is being denied to them currently. and so, you can make a strong case that the existence of guantánamo is unconstitutional. i feel quite strongly that it is undermining our national security and that it is -- it is

an ongoing compromise of our foreign policy and the ideals that defined the united states of america. as far as guantánamo continues to exist, it undermines our credibility throughout the world. i think most people would agree that it is america's idealists on has been its strongest asset in dealing with the rest of the world and in fact has primarily contributed to the economic military and political success in doing so. so guantánamo is a real problem. from a foreign policy, from a national security and from a legal standpoint.

and in fact, our current president ran on a position that he would close a puritan and so from that, you would have to believe that given the facts of the maturity of the american people that would accrue at the president's position. but it is soaked in an assay results of legislation that was just passed by the house and senate and signed by the president, i'm afraid that it will stay open indefinitely. without a very substantial pushback from the american people. which means it is a subject that we address in this presidential year and obviously every member of the houses in approximately a

third of the united states senate. so it should be addressed. it is an important issue. now when it began, there were 20 captains back in january 2002. that is why this conference is being held today. it is the 10 year anniversary of the opening of wonton amo. there have been about 800 people held out and get no. it's a little easier to remember, that there have been 800 people held at gitmo. about 772 were originally brought they are more recently some people who were taken on a we'll call but prisons in other parts of the world who are the

worst of the worst and it is some reason to believe that is the case that personified by khalid sheikh mohammed, they have been put there at guantánamo as well. but they are not typical of the people being held at wonton amo. they should come as far as i can and cannot be dealt with in the legal system. and the date that we have and we would challenge people to refute it but additionally, when 772 people were brought there in the early years, only 5% were captured by the united states forces.

86% were arrested either by pakistan of the northern alliance and then turned over to u.s. custody. this is at a time when the united states offered large bounties for the capture of suspected enemies. it's very little scrutiny when these people were turned over. we know a lot of the action at the pakistan military has taken have not been consistent with america's policy or its national security. and yet, these are the people we accept prisoners from and we ask that their word that they were terrorists. but the majority of the detainees have not been determined to have committed any hostile acts against the united

states or its coalition allies. only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al qaeda fighters. 30% were captured because they were members and amusing quotes here, potentially hostile or potentially hostile organization , almost to tears. 60% were associated with such an organization. associate said with a very broad term as you can imagine. we have some of the top people in the government and certainly in the washington establishment working with mek, for example, which has been labeled a terrorist organization. i only throw that out because these identification searches loop's.

they were inconsistent justification to detain people for an entire decade in some cases. now, the majority of the 175 that are still bare have been cleared for release. i could give you the actual numbers. the 17136 are subject to criminal investigation or prosecution. 48 are considered to be such that they should remain in preventive detention without criminal trial. and the remaining detainees may be transferred, either immediately or eventually to a foreign country. now, this is a result of the

conclusions that the guantánamo task force. this is what its final report said just about a year ago now. now it should also be said civilian courts that prosecuted successfully more than 400 terrorists. and yet, i'm going to review legislation which was just passed by the congress of the united date and time into that with the caveat that the president. i want to make one more point before i go to that legislation. not only is this the least justifiable facility controlled by the united states for national security purposes, but is by far the most expensive prison on the planet.

their 1850 u.s. troops and civilians that maintain a compound that contains 171 captives. you can do the math. that is over $800,000 per year per detainee. and at the 171, only six are currently facing pentagon tribunals that may start a year from now after pretrial hearing in discovery. so here we are with all of this concern about reckless excessive spending and some of the very people who have raised the greatest concern are maintaining a facility where the majority of people have been cleared for

release, but are nevertheless being out under what the supreme court has suggested as unconstitutional detention without the writ of habeas corpus. i note tom wilner will address that in a few moments. and yet, the new numbers this year will bring them closer to a million dollars per year per detainee. how can you justify it? now, let me tell you the legislation and its costs for the greatest discouragement. the national defense authorization act, which as i say was just fine for the first time in the united states history, x is currently allows

the president to indefinitely detain without charge and a suspected terrorist who is captured even within the united states. this can include u.s. citizens and u.s. persons. with regard to u.s. citizens, a provision sign into law does not expressly exclude their detention without charge or trial. that section 21 of the national defense authorization act of 2011. the current authority of the president, which is what people say he would not affect the unfortunately is very unclear. not those who argued on the floor of the house and the senate that civil liberties are the united states, i don't think fully consider the implication

that many of you in subsection he is 1021. because it says the law should not be construed to affect existing law authority relating to united states citizens, but the reality is the current law on the scope of the president's authority is unsettled. it's not clear. it doesn't affect it -- but doesn't affect the lot that has not been clarified. in fact, the u.s. government in the padilla case as well as the honorary case almost as recent as 2009 claimed that the president had the authority to detain a terrorist captured in the united states indefinitely without charge or trial.

the claim of executive authority captured within the united states has not been tested here at the state the law is unclear. that's very important to say because people need to understand that not only is guantánamo a foreign policy, but it has profoundly undermined the constitutional protections about the united states citizens. the subsequent session, section 1022 forced the military to change anyone with al qaeda associate of forces or anyone suspected of planning or attempting a terrorist attack. the keyword is suspected. that language 1022 doesn't prohibit detention of the united states citizens. fbi mueller says he fears that this is going to severely,

severely compromised the ability of the fbi and our civil authorities from being able to conduct their response abilities. now this may seem somewhat legalistic, but the legalism we are talking about is a basic constitutional protection. so in the interest maintaining guantánamo justifying political positions to members of congress and the senate have taken that we will not allow any terrorist from guantánamo and to the united states. we have seriously eroded something that is intrinsic to the constitution of the united states. now let me just say -- wrap this

up with some pain that i know a little more about than the constitution. although this should be clear to all of us who have to vote on measures that should be consistent with the constitution. and that is the politics. the reason why we have this situation is not for the president of the united states. i can tell you from first-hand knowledge and experience, the problem is the united states and the fact they have operated within an echo chamber of conservative media that has hammered away at what is really not a clear and true statement that people like one time about are the worst of the worst.

many of them should not have been picked to. most of them should not have been detained. the vast majority of them are not media credits to the security of the united states. just look at the numbers of nearly 800, 600 have already been released. but we held them in detention without giving them the ability to defend themselves or even to know what they are accused of. in the early years, many were abused. i would suggest that he now under forest without being able to contact your family or defend yourself is abusive. now, the majority of the congress today is not prepared

to close one timeout. they are prepared to provide whatever money is necessary to keep it here the majority are not prepared to allow the detainees at guantánamo, even the worst of the worst i.e. khalid sheikh mohammed and others we know has been involved in clear and direct threats and actions against the united states. they are not prepared to allow them to be tried in our civil justice system. the problem is while 400 terrorists have been prosecuted in our civil justice is done, only six have been successfully prosecuted by the military system of justice because of lack of evidence. and so, i think one i think one time and i was going to remain open for the indefinite period of time until the majority of the american people say no.

we now understand what is going on. we now understand the majority are eligible for release. we understand that despite the language is as that basically prohibits them being transferred to other countries. we understand they should be transferred to their country of origin. and we understand the roadside in the united states should apply to guantánamo as well. so thank you for being here. thank you for your interest in this very important issue. and peter, do introduced the next speaker? [applause] >> hello, everybody and thank you very much, congressman moran. he said so much they are not sure what is left for me to say. it was very excellent. i was going to talk briefly about the men who are still held to approve her transferred by

the task force established by president obama coming these 89 and because i think those are the people that we all should be able to agree to be released and we need to find a way to reach a point where that can happen. these are men who the task force consisted of career officials at lawyers from our government departments and intelligence agencies who said we have no interest in holding these men forever. they are still held. now two thirds of those men are from yemen and the reason they are held is primarily because of the hysteria that has by umar farouk abdulmutllab you try to blow the plane on christmas day 2009. these mandatory military detention provisions in the national defense authorization act come from the same hysteria that arose. if we recall that, this is a man

who is registering the rights, interrogated in a course forcibly by the fbi and ended a few months ago been successfully prosecuted and convicted. he spoke. he spoke openly about torture being used. there were people in high positions of the united states who wanted him to be sent to guantánamo, the same cheerleaders for torture in guantánamo are still spreading this violence, un-american and unconstitutional message. and what happened as a result of the capture this man and this hysteria was the people demanded that prisoners were not to be released to yemen. and actually, congress has also later impose restrictions on the rights of these prisoners. so the yemenis are stuck and we need to deal to say, this is not acceptable not to release anyone to yemen, that the u.s. government doesn't want to hold because there is some other unrelated incidents involving a lot of men whose nature he in

yemen doesn't make sense. that is guilt by nationality. i think people would find that extremely unfair. and we need to find a way to put pressure on the government and on the congress and say any to stop this restriction. i think they have to be shocking to americans. lawmakers got together with great exceptions and lawmakers have said that the defense secretary must use certify to congress that if they prisoners to be released to a country, then he must be able to certify they cannot engage in activities against the united states. i feel that it's actually impossible to do. that isn't quite as bad as another twist, which was lawmakers saying that the

defense secretary must not release a prisoner. the government must not release a prisoner if there is a single alleged incident of recidivism that somebody having returned to the battlefield and taking actions against united states from a whole country. we are back to the same issue of criminalizing the entire population of yemen. the same thing happening with entire countries. the analogy i use for this is imagined it the state of colorado within the u.s. domestic prison system, somebody is released from prison to colorado and commits a crime. lawmakers that this country get together insane future, no one must ever be released to the states of colorado because of this war criminal. that's the analogy. that's a real analogy. i think if that were to happen in the united states, people would understand that deeply unfair. but it's one of the things that has happened with the way the

hysteria has built up with one timeout. so i think those are the really big issues about how research works secure the release of prisoners. and the yemenis is the big case, to be able to say to elected representatives, this is going to stay open forever this person unless some action is taken. and there may be short-term political maneuvering that require people to not do anything about it on the short-term. the short short-term becomes the long-term. and when history when it comes to the back on this period, when it is present in the history books that the united states government and congress presided over a situation for years, years and years in which people in the government didn't want to hold remains held in the prison were not released. that is not going to go down that way. that is going to be a bad

legacy. but i'm trying to work out how we can get you to point to say to people with a position of power and responsibility, that legacy will be yours unless you act. what is it going to happen? next year, the year after, five years, 10 years? last two prisoners to the western conference. they died there last year. plugging prisoner was released a year ago. more prisoners will die and will even coffins. as it stands at the moment, no one is sleeping through any other means. i'd like also to mention to people who may not know that the process of habeas corpus, which congressman moran mentioned where the prison a security habeas corpus rights for the supreme court by something that's been undermined over the last year and half by judges here in washington d.c. and the circuit court who have fought back against decisions by the lower courts to release prisoners because of a lack of

evidence. and for reasons i can only describe as ideological reasons are saying the government doesn't really need to present anything in the way of evidence, that the evidence shouldn't really be challenged. it should continue to be held. what has happened in the last year and a half is after successes for the prisoners and release for the prisoner from the last 11 habeas corpus petitions have been lost in five other successful positions have been neither vacated or ruled against by the circuit court. it is not possible to get out of guantánamo through legal means. after all of those years of struggling, judges and the d.c. circuit court have eliminated habeas corpus as a remedy for prisoners in guantánamo. and i think that is an aim that should come as well. i don't want to carry on for too long because i want the opportunity for my colleagues to speak as well.

i do just want to mention that in the hope of keeping the conversation alive throughout the election year about the need to close quintana mo, tom and nine other people have set up a website and the campaign called close guantánamo. www.close guantánamo.org. we are encouraging people to senate so he can show the president, show lawmakers to show judges how much there is in bringing this closable tenures to an end. there is a white house position was set up in the we the people website to encourage the president to respond to the request to close the prison. we hope you'll be able to sign up and join us. we'll be providing information throughout the year. we just want to make sure that we all live in a time with the new cycles move very quickly. just this week people are talking about quintana. i next week, people may have well forgotten.

we want to keep this message going throughout the year, telling important stories to print stories to the public, mainly from the lawyers themselves to visit the prisoners in guantánamo who can humanize these people because pretty much everything has been done to keep these people dehumanized. as was originally intended by the bishop evisceration. as i mentioned, these are people who don't have family still. however much guantánamo is more humane, these people under like any other prisoner does not have the rate of family visits. these are people who effectively are still preferred an exceptional category of human being trip to by the bush administration protections of the geneva convention and were not taught as criminal suspects. the bush administration called for an illegal enemy combatant. they still are unique category that doesn't have proper rights than we really must work hard to

bring that to an end because otherwise i'll be here next year, i'll be here in five years, i'll be here in 10 years. a shame that this will only build over time. it is not going to go away. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you. we've got to quit meeting this way. i was looking at not just the panel, but the audience. i recognize some faces that were here last year. hopefully we'll meet you and look at one timeout as an historic footnote rather than an ongoing chapter in her nation's history. mitt romney on the campaign trail is taken to quoting passages from america to dutiful. i remember a passage from the star-spangled banner that is the land of the free and home of the brave. some reason of the past decade we've become constrained and

cowardly. i join the military in 1983 because i believed in the land of the free and home of the brave as i took my country back, the one i signed up to serve. we've had fear mongers that is played to fear and torturing people is the worst of the worst and turning our backs on the law and running from it for the past decade and we are still here today on the 10th anniversary of on time and no. last year when i see we went to the history of one timeout from 1494 when columbus landed to the present. i won't worry you at that again. it's on the website if you want to look at it. i was chief prosecutor from 2,522,007 and i resigned when i was pressured to use evidence of torture. i think people can argue whether enhanced interrogation techniques, what most people call it torture intelligence,

this certainly doesn't produce a reliable evidence to be used in an american criminal proceeding. when i told president bush that did not use torture, so who are you to decide if we do i resigned. it wasn't popular in republican circles and i did that, but fortunately i hired work for congress and is the most optimistic person on president obama that of the 19,009. in the military you can participate in political activity. so i just retired from the military for the first time that to participate in the fall of 2008 could i put in obama sign in my yard and went door-to-door. somebody came in my yard and set my obama sign on fire, so i went gutting other. as extraordinarily optimistic when he took office and extraordinarily disappointed when he caved in on his promise to close to one timeout and in military commissions. was working for a concept of time and wrote an op-ed that site is double standard just is. the democrats were pleased and

the republicans. i got tired the next day. detainee rights and i don't think kobe will find of my first amendment rights. but we'll see. i'm very thankful to work stations that continue to fight the fight after a decade. you know the major organizations or groups for human rights, national religious campaign against torture and others that don't give a. never, never, never quit. hopefully americans remember that, too. i'm thankful to curt smoke at harvard law school forgiven me a job. howard's mob was leading the fight for social justice. looking back at thurgood marshall and what he went through to lead the fight for civil rights, i think human rights and humanitarian law: the same category. if you think about guantánamo, from a year ago, exactly a year

ago today to now, and there's 171 people at guantánamo. there were 173 last year. in a years time with the two people die, one person convicted and we've had congress passed the national defense authorization actinic guantánamo a permanent fixture. other than that, nothing has changed in the course of a year. think about these words. falsely imprisoning people, holding for long periods, trying in appropriate circumstances, conducting proceedings are secret. inadequate legal counsel, confessions obtained by coercion. does that sound familiar? does have a pressing it yesterday from the state department spokesperson victoria mewling talking about conviction as a mere 90 in iran. we condemned iran for use in most procedures. i'm thinking this sounds awful familiar to me. there were hypocrites for

holding ourselves up for being a standardbearer for the rule of the in humanitarian treatment, yet what we can for us those working on for others. how did we get there? shot and you did an article in "the wall street journal" a week ago where he reviewed a couple books. as you can imagine he wasn't particularly thrilled with shepherds and let shawcross. i think this explains how we wound up who we are today. he said, america's response to 9/11 caused outrage among intellectuals precisely because it proved so successful at preventing further attacks on the united states, eliminating osama bin laden. and the weakening the overthrow of caring regimes in the middle east. bush administration rejected the intellectual international network of activists right groups of courts in favor of the

best unilateral response that drew upon traditional sources of state power including diplomacy, economic sanctions and military force. america's response was so effective in haiti because of his eye on national sources of power spurred on by great people's belief in its own exception history, taking advantage of superior economy and military, the united states had a worldwide campaign to protect the security bring democracy and capitalism to lands they barely knew them. that was the mindset that led to guantánamo bay. i think america is an exceptional country, but we can't use exceptionalism to claim we are an exception to last that apply to everyone else on the planet. liam shawcross, which i mentioned in an article the next day talked about the current administration. as i've said, i've been extraordinary disappointed in the lack of leadership from president obama. that creates a difficult progress when you got a congress

against it. dick cheney and that she needed a very effective job early in the administration of going on the offensive and pms is either you are with us or you're with the terrorists. rather than stand up and call their bluff, the president chose to spend his political capital on health care reform and the economy and other areas, but we need to get back to who we are in the land of the free and home of the bravery to hold up the ideals others to do. shawcross talks about the use of terms, which again is an interesting phenomena were president obama didn't just embrace the policies he kissed on the tomlinson ran away lips and ran away with it. particularly with the drone program. putting shawcross but the decision to sutro to kill american citizens in yemen was a remarkable trying for a politician who criticized almost every aspect of the war on terror reached by his predecessor in the oval office.

by the fall of 2010 it did not, such as the price. a bomb had also authorized military trials he once condemned to take a few guantánamo which he promised to close. but mr. bush, mr. obama had to learn the hard way this theologian neighbor warned quote, we take and must continue to take morally hazardous actions to preserve our civilization. again i think that is the mindset that led to a decade of guantánamo and turning our back on the rule of law. as i said, it's unfortunate when we criticize others that we can't hold ourselves exampled. as a military person if you think back to 1991 in the first gulf war, we invaded iraq, the war was over fairly quickly with minimal casualties because the iraqis put down their weapons and raise their hands when they saw american soldiers because of her reputation for humane treatment following the rule of

law. it is in our national interest to have that reputation. think about the image of america today. same soldiers put their guns down and raise their hands and surrender if they thought they were going to be tortured and indefinitely detain. from a military perspective and national security perspective it's not in our interest to maintain this façade that guantánamo needs to continue indefinitely into the future. as i mentioned in the case of a mayor cannot be, we don't have a real strong leg to stand on when condoning the same process in guantánamo. i was driving on a couple weeks ago and hold a story on an pr and i turned on the radio in the middle of the story that is talking about a person being detained in cuba and how unfair it was. this'll be a story about guantánamo.

there's a story about alan gross has an american base in and prosecuted and is being detained in a cuban prison in the state department was condemning holding him in the keeping prison. and thinking on the other end of the iowa sky 171 people that we are doing the same thing to. again, i think it is unfortunate we found ourselves in the situation. i always enjoy seeing him be, but i hate to see him once a year here when we look at the ongoing saga at guantánamo bay. i am hoping they get back to arrest him in the campaign is over -- it's amazing to me on the campaign trail since he can't be enough and can be hateful enough, you watched the debate. if a person doesn't have health insurance, will let them die. we've had more executions in texas than anywhere else. it's time for portable go back

to it. that is that the american public, at least a segment of the american public reacts to. so i appreciate you taking time out of your day to come out here again this year to mark the 10th anniversary of guantánamo. i hope you go back and talk to your friends and your neighbors and remind them that we are americans and we are better than us. [applause] >> well, at first i didn't know what is going to santelli or the other bright people here saying something. i am struck that this is the third year in a row that andy and i have done this in the second year with no and nothing has changed, which is probably the biggest. i want to talk about more of what people can do to change this. i really do first want to acknowledge two things. we get very depressed in our

democracy today about the lack of clinical courage. i just want to say that really since day one, jim iran, i think would've been politically easy to be the other side. but he stood up on this issue from day one. we work together. he was the guy sponsoring the closing of autonomy when it was terribly unpopular in voting against the national defense authorization act to northern virginia is a of an act of political courage. so we still have heroes. though davis resigned as the chief prosecutor because the use of torture. so there are still people in our country to stand up for what's right. [applause] i'll just say a few things about one timeout. it is extraordinary to me, security experts of the country

have unanimously said that is to the secretary of defense, national security adviser, head of the military, head of the fbi. everybody said these policies and guantánamo don't help our security, they hurt our security. those facts are ignored. the reason they hurt our security and jim marion mentioned it very well about the greatest asset of who we are. ronald reagan, a republican hero put it very well in nominating the real george bush, the first bush president for second term. you know, he said her greatest strengths is not our wealth or power, that our ideas, our ideals of individual freedom, justice and the rule of love. guantánamo clearly violates those principles of america. they are not who we are.

it hurts us every day it remains open. what can we do about it? i found them very depressed because i've been involved in this now for nine and a half years in things don't seem to get better. but i want to share something. a few weeks ago i went to the robert f. kennedy awards in new york and one of the awards was given to al gore. but that my gosh, why is al gore getting this? but he stood up and made his speech, which encouraged me and i think gave guidance on what we could do. he was talking mostly about the environment, but other things in our democracy today. he said people come to me and they are very depressed about what's happening to our country. he said, i am reminded about martin luther king said in the early 60s and supporters came and said if it's not going to get better, we depressed and giving it. he said that's not so. things will get better because though i cannot order in the

united states are too great to allow it to. that is inspiring to me because i think the only way that a life can exist is in the of truth. i am struck every day the people of don't know the facts. jim type about this echo chamber in certain areas of the country where people -- people simply don't know of the 171 people at guantánamo, 89 have been have been cleared you people don't know. if you say that, people are shocked by it. i encourage you to say it to everyone you know. every party goes to say, juno on the security experts in this country, including republicans have said this hurts our country because it's a recruiting tool for terrorism.

do you know that more than half of the people down the have been cleared for release? get the facts out. that is the most important thing he think you can do. in that regard, as andy said, we are setting up a website, which is going out now, which is close guantánamo.org. go on it, participate, read it, give it to your friends. i'm not there will be an opening to a white house petition. a petition to the white house to close guantánamo. i'd agree this is a very difficult thing for the president of the united states with the congress the way it is. and the last election, both john mccain and barack obama were foursquare for closing guantánamo. what happened afterwards? you know, other things are more important vp. they seem important people, but i encourage you not to use the

time to really get the facts out and work on it. i think that's the real canoe. thanks. >> thank you drama should the panel and he can also for putting himself out there. tom wilner took these cases when they were not popular and had a great deal of success in andy worthington with american citizens really highlighted the people in one timeout, so i want to thank all of you. we have time for questions and answers. because it is on c-span, wait for them i can identify yourself. paper leak encourage you to ask a question rather than a statement. >> hi, my name is todd pearson. i'm a defense attorney for some

guantánamo detainees. years ago it seemed pretty evident to people who comment on the patient's issue by john yoo and delahanty and how close a resemblance they had to cross that and people mention occasionally. it seems like bad manners to point out they rely upon legal theories. but now lately we have had books written by avian romeo and your posts are your toes because of "the new york times" talking about why we need to keep on top of open. but why isn't anybody taking notice against the question of the fact, in the two different books and articles come right out and say that we need to go back to carlson and. it is not a legal opinion, legal theory to figure out how to work in a state of emergency. and they go right along and say we need to suspend the constitution.

we can afford civil rights on and on and on, which is a total subversion of the u.s. constitution. as long as they let them have the veneer of caring about national security instead of looking at their real motive because it seems to me they are trained to treat an authoritarian state that is so anti, un-american that you don't even want to think. >> thanks for ignoring my statement about questions rather than statement. >> why are we a military officer is recognizing our duty to defend the constitution recognize we cannot allow the ideas to be a gangrene and our legal system? >> military officers on active duty pretty much have to keep their mouths shut other than writing scholarly articles in that type of thing. i think the other side has been very effective in convincing the public. they bought into the narrative the worst of the worst and they

pander to fear. people are concerned about safety. i guess was francona said if you give up your liberty for safety, you don't deserve either. and we've done that. we've become so afraid that the bomb going off in times square on new year's eve and the people who are blind to give up who we were prior to 9/11. there've been military is officers. on about this because i speak the first, not of the detention camp at wonton amount, whose army officer said on time and the needs to be closed. it doesn't serve any useful purpose. paramilitary folks that have stood out. we need our citizens in general berlin to pay attention to this issue. >> let me ask you a question about the yemeni prisoners because i think andy mentioned that abdulmutallab had a part to play. i think the real problem is the escapes from the yemeni prisons

on two occasions and there is discussion that perhaps the saudis to take yemeni prisoners and that didn't happen. what concrete they might -- have you solved this problem particularly now that the problem is much worse. the three civil wars going on and it's not as clear to the government is and who returned the detainees do. so what concrete steps that the government take to remediate without proper? >> i agree with the gentleman's contention and i obviously agree with colonel davis. and this is all within the context of the politics of fear and bigotry. fear of the unknown, and bigotry against muslims. i do think that is a principal elements of this. with regard to some of the legitimate concerns though and there is a seemingly legitimate

or that the military says that as many as a quarter of those released have gone back into the battlefields as they say. and that is that peter is getting a. how do we ensure that they don't go back into activities that might jeopardize the security of the united states? but i think it should be underscored. first of all, 60% of those who were imprisoned in the united states are recited this. so clearly there is some element of recidivism. but when you look at the specific people that have been cited as having returned to the field of battle as they say or some activities related to terrorism, it is about 6%. it was about 4% you could identify and went up to about six. the increase of 2% are really russians and chinese are the

russians considered most chechens to be terrorists or potential terrorist in the chinese considered the weaker is to be terrorists. if you look at the conflict, the uighurs were the chechens would be on the side of individual freedom consistent with america's struggle for independence, but i won't get into that although i think it is suspect to which it is said they are actually terrorists, that they reject are not in any way consistent with what is a security threat to the united states. in terms of yemen, when you release people, you follow them. as with the saudi's do. you can make a strong case that since we know their background did we know everything about them, if they were going to go back into the field, first of all they would be suspect,

working with us possibly. they are people that have been cleared so they are not terrorists. and it seems to me that if they were going to go back, it would be propaganda tool, achievement for al qaeda in the arabian pennant. so we hear about much easier capture. now if they are engaged in terrorism because we know so much about them. i don't think it is a compelling argument for not releasing people. it certainly isn't a compelling enough argument to cause us to act inconsistent with their most fundamental principles of democracy and rule of law. >> i just want to say briefly that i thought the questions related in a sense that the fundamental problem at the heart of the bush administration's war

on terror was equating people involved in military conflict with people involved in terrorist activities. a short time ago, the worst of the worst remains because people have been encouraged that everyone who is in guantánamo is a terrorist that depends on acts of international terrorism were they to be released, whereas that's never been the case. only a small handful of the people held up on time no have ever been accused of involvement with acts of international terrorism. there were many innocent people. there were people who were involved in the military conflict with the taliban against the northern alliance. these are the people we are talking about releasing. we are not talking about releasing terrorists. but somehow we have not been able to make the case that the complete shifting of language and the concept ever undertaken by the bush administration has lodged itself in people's consciousness.

so they think went on in those terrorists. these are not people who are going to fly a plane into a building. people that were released to yemen, these were minor, insignificant as soldiers in the conflict that was over a long, long time ago. we need to be looked in the decades in a rational basis. but unfortunately, we are in an arena or rational explanations are not popular. >> let me push him not because there's a factual thing we have to consider, which is the two leaders of al qaeda are people who were released from wonton amount with through the saudi rehabilitation program, probably people who should have released. it is more complicated than that you just present anything. what is the answer to that complication if any? >> well, i don't know, peter. one of the things complicating things is the recidivism rate. you actually have done research to demonstrate it's considerably

less. i understand what you're saying about there being a potential for some of the bearing so well against the united states and the messages sent in about it, but prior to clay, how can we have easier activism possibility? the only way that it's happened is to say everybody must be locked up forever and nobody can ever leave. and then get into preventive detention. that is a very alarming situation to be in because you can see how that plays into the authors thomas talking about who indefinitely detain people, whether committed crimes, but who might. >> go ahead. yes. [inaudible] >> -- clearly not a terrorist. and he is a recidivist. after he was a young guy, guantánamo turn came. and there is no doubt in my

mind -- >> tell the story. that's the kuwaiti? abd al-rahim al-nashiri was a young guy picked up in pakistan, had gone down there. he was a very naïve, young katie was not a terrorist and not even a salad. and we saw in the course of the time that we went to guantánamo, the sky turned into basically in that hand. he was released by the government. we had nothing to do with it. we were shocked because he was a behavioral problem down there. renting that guards and everything else. when he got out it was interesting because he went home and no one -- he couldn't find a girlfriend as he had been in guantánamo. the only place that he had any worse was in the sort of radical element and he went out and pull up that u.s. soldiers, iraqi soldiers in iraq.

i'm always late, what is the benefit of holding people. clearly they are harmed. and why also do we need to be the policeman for the world? there are other places that can hold people also if we had been hearing about them. and what andy said is true. i always think, you know, can i get one more kuwaiti extent of when we repair? ..

>> the supreme court is saying that these guys have the right of habeas corpus seem to be a big victory, we heard today from congressman doran that the circuit and appeals court have kind of pushback against that but why isn't the supreme court getting these cases i can? they must not feel that they can be usurped by circuit and appeals court? >> maybe i should take that when. we won the right to habeas corpus for guantánamo detainees actually twice. in 2004 in the rasul case, detainees have the right under the habeas corpus statute the habeas corpus but the habeas corpus statute passed the first

judiciary act in 1789. in congress, with the great republican majority revoked habeas corpus for those people. in 2008, we won, is a constitutionally guaranteed rights of congress can't revoke. what has happened since then is honestly the d.c. circuit has interpreted the standards for habeas corpus and it's become clear now so, and yet even with these difficult standards, most people bring habeas corpus cases have one. but the d.c. circuit which disagree with the supreme court's decision and has made it clear, has put in standards that basically say if any evidence is presented by the government that this person might be and acted with terrorism or talibans, they can be held for effort. even if the evidence says he could've been a cook for the

taliban. that's the standard now. we have sought supreme court review for those cases. we're in a very difficult position with the supreme court because justice kagan recuse herself from most of these cases because she was in the justice department while their first coming out. so you have a divided court with no ability right now to get review. we are hoping that there will be reduced and in any case and that justice kagan can vote on granting surgery to review it, and to review it. one thing i have learned, and we brought our case for habeas corpus in me one, 2002. i thought that this case, this issue would not be resolved by the courts because they take a long time and that the college would come to a consensus, and as a policy matter, stop this silly prison. that hasn't happened and the fact is the courts are very,

very, very slow process. eventually it will probably be cleared up. but a lot of these evil be dead or broken by that time. >> in front here. >> on that i'm a sociologist at my name is alice day, and the filmmaker. i like to ask a question of all of you your we are in an election year. i had just left a meeting of people who are very sympathetic to president obama, where it was said that let's not bring up anything that might challenge him or make it look as though the people on his side were disagreeing with what he has done. what do you say to groups like that when there is a great injustice like this being done?

and he is partly responsible for it, because his leadership, or lack of it. >> i will do it, but i know that congressman moran and i probably have a different view. i would say, the worst places in hell are reserved for those who stand silent in the face of injustice. >> for me, as i said, doing time in my adult life i've been able to produce the in the presidential election process, i aggressively campaigned for president obama and have been thoroughly disappointed. but there's no one on the other side that i see as a bible, it's like having to pick between vomiting and diarrhea. i don't want either choice. i would like to have something more -- will be unafraid to take the lesser of two evils. >> when we are not, argue this issue on the committee and then on the floor of the house, i was very frustrated because we were

not getting any information that i thought was helpful to our side, and the president's publicly stated position out of the justice department. talked to them, heated conversation. he knew how i feel. i don't know why they didn't fight the language more vigorously. i don't know whether it was political policy, or simply that they didn't have the people in place at the time that they needed. there was a lot of restructuring going on. so that was a disappointment, i grant you. but one thing i did not say and should have said when the president signed this legislation. he made it clear that these objectionable sections from my standpoint, objectionable sections, that he said that if a

number, and encoding of a fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority and transfer detainees to a foreign country, and hinders the executives of the to carry out its nutri national security and foreign relations activities, and would under certain circumstances violate constitutional separation of powers and principles. now, he did take exception in the signing of the legislation but i don't think he had -- it was clear he was going to do. he wasn't going to build two salvage it because he didn't have sufficient support in the senate even let alone in the house. so he was forced simply to let it go, but with a caveat that president bush employed many times to say he takes exception to these sections. he wants to close it. he has said very definitively, as had attorney general holder,

that these people should be tried in civilian court. that's the only times where we have successfully tried terrorist has been in civilian court. there's been six prosecutions in military courts, but more of them were plea deals for shorter sentences. it was really not a full trial. so our only success has been in selective caching civilian. he hasn't changed his position but he has except the political reality and political reality is that unless the american people become better educated about this, and far more forceful in terms of caring about it within the context of the democratic process, it's not going to change. >> just briefly. >> i would say that if people interested in both president obama and care about his issues than they should say to people who want to go blindly along with it, we need to be able to say to the leadership and we

need to be able to say to the president, maybe we'll vote for you but you need to demonstrate that you will take these issues on board to commute to demonstrate when i difficult it is but if you win and in january 2013, you're going to act. we're going to see you do what you did not do and did not fulfill from their promises before. i think that's a fair deal but i don't think there's any reason why people should blindly accept if they don't criticize you make it difficult to i don't think that's appropriate at all. >> what i said, i think it's right. i don't think you can stand silent in the face of injustice. but more than that, i really need to say, i think president obama's greatest failing is not that he doesn't believe the right, but he doesn't show leadership in mobilizing public support to get them done. the fact is, he showed tremendous ability during the campaign to convince people that

is, what the bush administration was doing was not in our public interest, and used to say it every day. we're going to close guantánamo, stand up for habeas corpus, protecting our securities consistent with the principles. we are stronger because of it. he needs to do that again, and we need to push him to do it. we need to push them to show leadership. we can't, we struggle to get out the facts. he has the bully pulpit. he should use it. >> congressman, i know you have to go in a minute. a minute or two. >> this lady here. >> oh, for me? hello. hello. my name is cynthia from new york, and this is for all you folks up there. would you agree that one way to let our president no how we stand on this issue is to

encourage every person, everywhere, to call out four, five, six, 1111, which is the white house line where people, citizens can call up and give your opinions. last time you remember, not some of you were never, but dark friday when nixon, when the attorney general, elliot richardson and the rest, you know, resigned, the telephone at the white house was ringing off the line. and when enough people in this country, about a million people, or whoever, keep that phone ringing off the line, and the other one is to call up shows like on npr, dianne reeves show, and ask these questions and tell the facts, and really -- >> okay, thank you much. thank you.

[inaudible] >> this gentleman over here. >> thank you. mike hager, retired, or glitzy resigned a lawyer. my question is really for mr. wilner and it picks up from last question in terms of what can people do. now, i think the panel made a very persuasive case for being with guantánamo as guantanamo, as a single issue. but what if, even with a longer-term perspective, we were to look at guantánamo cannot in isolation but in a broader package of what i would call a legitimate activity. we can say drones, torture, preventative attacks, political assassinations, maybe some other things can be put in that nest. but what if we're true try to get the and get what i would say is accountability?

>> well, i will give my take on it, which is going to be terribly hardheaded practical. i think it's more a political question than a legal question. i think you're absolutely right that guantánamo has become the symbol of overreaching by the government. and a symbol of a reaction to fear-mongering, and appealing to the worst side of people than their better site. another thing reagan also pointed out. i would like to use, i don't appeal to your worst fears but your greatest hopes, is what we could do. i don't want to frankly now, so congressman moran put this has not, just on guantánamo. the national defense reauthorization act as he pointed out allows anyone suspected of terrorism to be picked up and held by the military forever. it's extorted. it's extraordinary.

but guantánamo is a symbol of that. i don't want to tie to the drones now because i think that's a very troubling thing. there's also, there are also other issues that i think i think all these issues should be debated. it's extraordinary to me, we never really had a public debate about torture in this country. people assume it is good because you today president bush, he knew is good because he used to watch the tv program 24 and he saw that it worked. that's the doubt ever study of these issues. i think it is a symbol, i think we need to be careful in picking, it doesn't stand for every injustice and some are more complicated. i'm sorry, diffuse answer. >> i think your point about accountability is a key partner. as i said, we're great preaching to others around the world about rule of law and candidly. right now we're prosecuting sarge or passionate sergeant frank for the massacre. but he is at the bottom of the total. nobody at the top has ever been

held accountable for creating the environment that permitted, the closer often with each year -- the geneva convention, to keep us safe with you. but the convention against torture, president obama is turning a blind eye. the convention says there's no justification whatsoever for torture and there's a duty to investigate, prosecute and provide a civil remedy for victims. we have blocked every one of those in pretended nothing has happened. >> yeah, i'm going to have to leave, but let me say, well, why don't i stand for this? >> okay. [applause] >> thank you, but you're not going to like what i have to say. first, this by large is not a random sample off of america's street. where we have our own echo chamber here in terms of what people say about question. and tie it into drones and so i don't think is an effective

strategy but and i'm sorry, but i don't think calling the president is an effective strategy. in fact, the most likely opponent of the president has said he would double the size of guantánamo. and that's the position of what i fear is the majority of the american people. at least enough people that he can get away with saying that. and i think most of the people in a more random audience, is told, even one detainee at guantánamo has the capacity to go back and cause harm to the united states, then i want you to keep them all there. and they operate, the politicians who feed off this echo chamber, is primarily, predominate now an echo chamber on the television on the radio, and much of the main me. they feed off that. they know that's what when

people turn off the radio, that's what they're going to hear about. and they would love to president obama take the right position, stand on principle, because they know right now the majority of the american people are not with them. they are not with you. now, is this a reflection of lack of information, of knowledge? maybe some reflection, but that's where we stand. this is not a unique issue, although i think it is a much more important one that we oftentimes get credit for. i think. our best shot is to underscore what tom has said. asked people to think about this. we now pass legislation over the president's objection that allowed the military, no person in military uniform ever

volunteered, to enlist in the military for the purpose of taking action against american citizen. it's to protect american citizens. and yet the law, as we read it, says the military now has the right to detain indefinitely without writ of habeas corpus people are suspected of terrorist activities. suspected. that is a fundamental erosion of everything we stand for as a nation of law. so people need to know, this is in your interest. this is in the interest of your children and grandchildren. we can't allow this to continue. we need to understand and then you need to speak out and change it. i think that's what i appreciate all of you being here, thank you. [applause]

>> okay, we have -- [inaudible] a lot of people would respond. >> we have about 10 minutes left, so jennifer, just to your immediate left. >> john mccallum from the fund for reconciliation, ngo. want to put in a cube concept a little bit. it was a tremendous reaction in the white house and the congress and the media when one cuban hunger striker died, justified reaction. how many suicides have they been in guantánamo? how many people are currently being forced fed to prevent their suicide, force-feeding itself has highly questionable human rights aspects to it. but is there any figure on

suicides? and force-feeding at this point. >> six people have allegedly died at guantánamo bay committing suicide. two others died of natural means. the number of people who have been on hunger strike and have been force-fed, i don't know. you come in 2005 when he was the biggest congress -- hunger strike, it was reported be a third of the people who. at any one time there are people on hunger strike. there are people on hunger strike in and they're being forced fed and the force-feeding process is pretty brutal. you know, that's the kind of, you know, the nasty end of was still going on, but i do think that fundamentally what's wrong with guantánamo is that it is outside of every other detention system. and i think congressman moran just been was illuminating that and with reference to the fundamental unfairness of holding people in military

detention indefinitely without charge or trial. and the model for that is guantánamo. the thing that still applies at guantánamo and the thing that i don't know how we get a message of compassion outcome of fairness and justice. when asked train six said, summing american people are on dick cheney's dark side essentially still. the people held at guantánamo that are held without charge or trial, that have been there for 10 years, they're going nowhere, what has been the effect on them? this uniquely aspect which is the open-ended nature. they have no idea when, if ever, they will eat it every morning they can be waking up thinking, well i go home? now, in the domestic prison system everyone is sentenced, but they are told what their senses. this doesn't happen at guantánamo. and in 2003, in october 2003, a man, "the new york times," sartre spoke to in your tank at

houston the international committee of the red cross, isn't supposed to speak out publicly about what they seek. the red cross particularly spoke out publicly during the bush administration. he said what troubles about guantánamo is the open-ended nature of the prisoners, and its ruinous effects on their mental health. that was over eight years ago. those ruinous effects on the mental health of the prisoners still apply, and i just wish that i could find a way that we could, we could have compassion or something, people could identify with this. and would understand. that's unfair and the lawmakers have recently decided they want to expand, remain fundamentally unfair. if you have a case against somebody, charge them. otherwise, don't maintain this idea that by being brutal and unfair you're actually somehow doing the right thing. >> if you could talk kim kardashian into hearing a

detainee, then america would pay attention. [laughter] >> hello to my name is kimberly, and i was one of the founders here in washington of the washington regional campaign against torture, and we worked very hard and got no traction at all. so when, you know, media didn't -- congressman moran was great. so i, too, started to work for obama. i thought he would actually deliver on what he said he would. and, you know, went door-to-door to start a new venture. i have now decided that since he hasn't done that we really can't depend just on presidents. that we are going to have to work to try to unseat every person who voted for this law. and that what we need to do is to get out into states and

districts and make it precarious to interference in our human rights in this manner. so what do you think? >> by all means, challenge all the lawmakers who voted for but i think while doing that make sure that people know that guantánamo is the root of the idea that it is okay to sling people in a prisoner throw away the key. i'm a british citizen, and i will they're talking about this. and you're the guys who threw the british out because he opposed tyranny of king george iii. you can i say something? you know, i think there's a danger, and congressman moran said it, that when people of like minds get together they disagree and they fight on the other side. this is a liberal cause, close guantánamo. and the other people say well, i think a lot of people badly say

well, don't we needed? what are we doing? this is a terrible -- of terrorists around that we haven't do with them before. i think it's an obligation to go further than just closing. it's to get the facts out. it's get the facts out that security experts have agreed it doesn't help us. that it does cost 800,000 or $1 million per year per person. that 89, more than half of them have been cleared by an interagency task force made up, task force made up of the top security and law enforcement officials in the country. that's amazing that people don't know the. why are you holding people? why are you holding people have been cleared for essentially, although they don't see anything, are essentially innocent? why would we do that and pay $800,000? so, i wouldn't do in the sort of liberal, you know, things. i just try to get the facts out. as i said, just sort of made it up, but really, this, flies only

exist in the absence of truth. i know some here is from the "national journal." you know, the "national journal" years ago at the same time that seton hall did a study, did a study about who are these detainees. and it was terrific. you know, as in effect they were not picked up on the battlefield. they were picked up -- we need to push the press to get the facts out, too. we can really do much more on that. i'm trying to make justify my own existence because i get so depressed by it. some kind of thing what can we do. tell everyone you know whether it is your brother or your sister. here are the facts, do you know them? make people answer on the facts. >> hello. my name is daniel enemy with a group. we are on day eight of a 10 day fast. solidarity with none of

guantánamo. tomorrow we'll be holding a rally, hopefully saying get out the facts and rally public support with us. just a quick question but it seems that ideas of indefinite, suspending habeas corpus is a central part of our policies. i'm wanting to know how the detention center at bagram has been with all of this, alleged allegations of torture and things happening there. >> is that a sort of guantánamo beach? >> i can answer in a legal sense and then overall. when we did the last supreme court case in 2008, we didn't come of me, this is a very legalistic answer to go is one way to indicate the guantánamo is like the united states, so they should be entitled to habeas corpus because of that. we avoid that with great dissension among the lawyers who said look, when the united states hold someone in a place

secure from a battlefield, where you have time to do, people should be entitled to a fair review. in fact, justice kennedy wrote that, the decision in that case, the boumediene case, a doctor that arguments so he didn't cut it to guantánamo being different. he said in the circumstances you look, people can't be held without process and less the battle and everything prevent it. the circuit court has determined that since there is still an ongoing war in afghanistan, bagram fits in with the extended seize of battle and the court shouldn't intrude. and that has not been reviewed by the supreme court, and in the time the case was made, the afghanistan battle was heating up and, in fact, the bagram base was attacked. so it's a complicated issue. our feeling is that the united states cannot take people to offshore prisons and hold them

outside the law. there will be times and more when you need to hold people and they don't have the right to lawyers or judges looking at and and. but certainly when you hold people for years in a safe place they've got to have review. so i hope that answers in some general way. >> i mean, to me that graham is a place where, demonstrates, if guantánamo is a place where the specter of terrorism was controvert bunch of people have nothing to do with terror, bagram is the prison with the geneva convention ceases to exist for prisoners seized during wartime. detentions in guantánamo is the authorization to use military force passed by congress the week after 9/11 attacks. in 2004 the supreme court said you can hold prisoners until the end of hostilities. thereby creating some parallel world to the geneva convention but i think at that point the geneva conventions were unilaterally discarded and then it dictates how everything

happens. bagram is a prison where communal, under president bush the only review the press had with her able to make a statement before they were told they allegations against them. that was very bad. when president obama was challenge she said will bring in the review process that we use at guantánamo. i'm following this and saying whether this fits in the geneva convention. it doesn't. so what happens is people are held for at least a year at bagram on average before their are given a review process which was brought to bagram from guantánamo, the same process the supreme court found inadequate. ..

what would happen if american citizens were captured by some other country and were held in a wartime on the same process. held for 12 or 14 months ended some kind of review process. how would that play in the united states? we all know it will play very badly. >> final thought. >> i agree. for better or worse, guantanamo is the public symbol that is just the tip of the iceberg, that in -- and there are many, many times more people being held by the u.s. and other places. what little attention guantanamo gets is much more than anywhere else. >> take you very much to our panel. [applause] >> sir, if everyone would like

to take a card that is interested. [inaudible conversations] >> mitt romney is in south carolina today after winning the new hampshire primary last night he is holding a campaign event in colombia. c-span will have live coverage at 16:00 p.m. eastern. meanwhile, president obama travels to chicago this afternoon heading up a fund-raiser at the university of illinois. the money will be split between his reelection campaign and the democratic national committee. we will have live coverage at 6:50 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. see video of the candid appearances and join the conversation on facebook and

twitter. >> chris matthews on the attempted political maneuverings and a second kennedy-nixon presidential debate. >> second debate here in washington, nbc studios. nixon gets control. he brings the level of the temperature of the rundown of 40 degrees. is a meat locker. again, my source on this story is the tv guide. wilson goes racing down to the basement and finds a guy in charge. there is a nixon guy standing guard on the thermostat. he says, if you don't get out of the way, let me turn that thing up to like 65 or 70, i'm calling the police. they have another standoff and end up compromising on the temperature. they get back up. the whole idea was that did not want nixon to sweat. so nixon people have seen him sweat profusely. they said, were not going to let this happen. they all knew what was going on. this is about who will rule america. >> this weekend abc news sam

donaldson interviews chris matthews on his new book. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span2 book tv. >> in this episode we will take a look at rick perry's surprising comments on climate change. >> i think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data. >> what i'd do is i wage different comments on all what or scale. if you say something really outrageous that is completely inaccurate you will get for pinocchio's. did he say something slightly misleading or out of context you might get as little as one. >> in his "washington post" fact checker : glenn kessler evaluates and the rates the truthfulness of political figures. >> whether or not they are deliberately lying, i do think that if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when the has been pointed out it is untrue, they know

they're saying something untrue. they're just going to say it anyway. >> the "washington post" glenn kessler sunday night at 8:00 on c-span q&a. >> the country with the most secure nuclear arsenal as australia. with the united states drinking 13th, and north korea and last place. those are the findings of the nuclear materials security index, a joint report by the nuclear threat in asia to of and the economist intelligence unit. former u.s. senator sam nunn presented the report, just over an hour. >> i wanted just thank everyone for coming today and for your interest in the release of our nuclear threat initiative nuclear material security index. the end t i index is a country-by-country assessment of the status of nuclear material

security conditions around the world. this type of in-depth index has not been produced before. it takes a broad approach in defining nuclear material security, it is comprehensive, and they will be public. this is the publication. all of you, of course, will get copies. our distinguished panel here will be going into some at least broad outlines, and then we will take your questions and answers. we hope that the nti index will help spur debate, dialogue, and deliberation that together helps to begin to define the long-term path toward a more in-depth comprehensive nuclear material security around the world, which we think will lead to a safer and more secure world. over the past year, our c-span2 team has been working in close

cooperation with the economist intelligence unit. leo is representing that unit, and you will hear from him later. in addition to insure the project is -- has maintained an international type perspective during this entire analysis and survey. did we have sought guidance and help from experts around the world which includes an international panel of highly respected nuclear material experts from nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states and countries with and without materials and from developed as well as developing nations, so we tried to make the expert panel really representative of the world, but we certainly wanted to get experts. that was the number one requirement, and we did. why did we need the index? we must start with the very real threat of nuclear terrorists. today it is clear the elements of a perfect storm are gathering.

that material spread around hundreds of sites, and too much of it is poorly secured. there is also greater know how to build a bomb widely available , and there are terrorist organizations determined to get the material and to build a weapon if they can. it is not a piece of cake, and we don't want to pretend that it is, but it is far from a possible. nuclear material security is the number one defense that we have to prevent nuclear terrorism. we know that to get weapons usable nuclear materials a terrorist must have, in order to build a weapon, a long pole in the tenth, there will go where the material is most vulnerable.

we have a global challenge, and we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. it is pretty revealing, a comment made a couple of years ago by it the former director-general of the international atomic energy agency. as he noted, a large percentage of materials reported as lost or stolen are never recovered and, perhaps even more alarming he added, a large percentage of materials which are recovered have not been previously reported as missing. so if terrorists succeeded in blowing up the city somewhere in the world, the result would be catastrophic. the human toll of hundreds of thousands dead and injured and the disruptions to global commerce and confidence and long-term environmental and public health consequences and end probable new limits on civil liberties worldwide. what can we do to prevent it?

we believe we are giving an important part of that answer here today. we hope this index will help individual countries as well as the international community to set priorities and determine what steps must be taken to better secure the materials that could be used to build the bomb. we start by taking a broad view of security, working with the independent group of international experts that i have alluded to, we identified key factors which fundamentally affects the state's nuclear material security conditions. then we assess their relative imports. these factors in broad terms, number of details under each, but in broad terms we asked the questions, how much weapons usable material does estate have , and in how many locations? what kind of requirements for protection of are in place? what international commitments related to material security has

the state made? what is the ability of the state to fulfill these international commitments? finally, could a given country is societal factors, for instance, corruption and governmental instability undermine its security commitments and its practices? certainly we do not expect every country or every expert to agree with all the assessments. we don't expect everyone to agree with our set of priorities we welcome debate on these central questions. we also welcome constructive suggestions are improvements and certainly we all the knowledge that improvements can be made. here are some of the highlights of what we found. very general, brief terms. first, good news. we see clear signs that governments are becoming more and engaged on this issue. there are a number of international initiatives, and

most of them are set forth here in the index. initiatives that can be credited for galvanizing actions by governments around the globe. as an example, today in 19 countries, plus taiwan, have completely eliminated their stocks of weapons usable nuclear material. i also want to give president obama and his team credit for elevating this issue to the heads of state level through the 2010 nuclear security summit and to all of the people who love been working hard to make these achievements possible, and there will be a follow-up meeting in south korea in march, again, at the heads of state level. so, i want to start by noting that progress is being made concerning many of the progress in the former soviet union were a remarkable amount of corporate activity has taken place. other countries that have been

helping in this effort for some 20 years. however, we are concerned there is not a shared consensus about what security measures matter most. of the lack of shared priorities undercuts the ability of government to take urgent and effective action. even it basically is a disincentive to government taking action when there is no sharing of our priorities. most importantly, to build a framework for insurance, accountability, and action, and that is a we are calling for the route the world. government leaders should determine and must determine robust ways of doing the following. one, create a global dialogue and build consensus on a new security framework for the protection of nuclear materials that are weapons usable. it too, holds states accountable for their progress and build a practice and transparency that

includes declarations and peer reviews. i want to make it clear that we understand in some affirmation must be protected. specific security practices at individual sites. we do not go into that kind of debt, nor should we. there is a lot of the permission that will be shared with the public, and certainly other governments have to have confidence. only by sharing information will that confidence be possible. and also, we think that sharing information can help inspire actions by other countries. when we brief government about the index, and we have reaped a number of them, as will be talked about by our fellow panelists here, some questions consistently. first, we have been asked, our governments cooperating? the answer is a qualified yes. in developing the index we offer briefings to 32 countries with weapons usable nuclear

materials. twenty-eight us up. more than half of those countries also validated the data collected by a leo and his economist intelligence unit to assure that it was accurate. we also have kept south korea informed, fully informed as the host of the summit in march and in the future we hope more governments will be more engaged fully in this process. second question we ask frequently, why did you ask the 144 countries that don't have weapons usable materials, and we did. the answer is coming even countries without weapons usable nuclear materials must avoid becoming safe havens, staging grounds, or transit points for illicit nuclear activities. every country can and must do more to help protect these materials. third, can you -- do you expect or can the index of the nuclear security, -- summit in march in

terms of their process and deliberations. the answer is hopefully from our point of view, yes. we hope that the nti index will help shape the discussions at the march summit and more importantly help guide the international community and individual countries as they work to set priorities beyond the summit. the summit is important, but the follow-through is even more important. this is up to the governments of the world, and they will make that decision. let me add one more thought before we move on to our other presenters. i want to be clear that this index is not, although we do great countries, no doubt about that, but it is not about congratulating some countries and chastising others. instead, it should be used as a tool for initiating discussion, analysis, and debate as well as beginning to help build a consensus, as i have mentioned, on the prairies and imperatives. the bottom line is, the world is to succeed in counteracting

nuclear terrorism all countries can and must do more. we believe this is a tool, a very powerful tool. it is up to governments to decide that, and if so to act on it. the in t i index challenges governments worldwide to respond to the threat by taking appropriate steps to strengthen security conditions. as citizens and leaders we need to ask ourselves this question, if we had a catastrophic nuclear terrorist attack, whether it be in moscow or new york or to leave or jakarta or any other city in the world, the day after, what steps would we wish we had taken to prevent it? securing weapons usable nuclear material is the most critical step, and we hope the nti index can make a significant contribution toward this imperative cool. in closing, i would like to thank the funders to have

supported this project, the foundation, the foundation of new york. and, of course, most bank warren buffett, who makes nti and our work possible. i would now like to introduce -- from the economist intelligence unit to give you more background on how they constructed the index. page stoutland, vice president of nuclear material security program will then give you more permission about our approach in the index results. then he will be followed by deepti choubey, senior director of nuclear and buy a security. he will talk about findings and recommendations. we think all of you for your interest and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, senator. my name is leo abruzzese with the economist intelligence unit.

if you're not familiar with the company at work for, i will take a moment to explain what we do and how we can to participate. we other research arm of the economist group which is the publisher of the economist magazine. so we are a sister organization to the magazine, but we do a much different kind of work. we are research-based, and we mostly work on behalf of governments, corporations, or non-governmental organizations, mostly doing public policy research and other economic projects, also in fields like environmental science and security. we have gone quite a bit of work on indices and made a specialty of hours and have done projects like this for the world bank, the gates foundation, and for quite another -- number of fortune 500. with that background, nti approached as a little over a year ago and told us of their plans to put together a nuclear material security index and asked us if we would be

essentially advise on the project, the technical consultants to help them build an index that was credible. we were very happy to do that. one important point we always like to mention on this project, this being washington, there are a lot of places doing studies, and more than a few of them have certain biases, biological, preordained conclusions. when we work on projects we have three goals in mind, which we insist on. independent, transparent, incredible. if there are any results that are established ahead of time, we don't participate. we were happy to find out that nti wanted us to gather data it as objectively as we could end up the conclusions fall where they may, which is what we have been doing for the past year. now, this is an interesting project. with nti we have built an index. it is not obvious that you would want to build an index to measure nuclear material security.

we do that for a couple of reasons. one is, this provides a framework for looking at the subject. you can look at anything in a number of different ways, and we try to be as objective as possible. by building an index, looking at indicators and categories in a structured way it allows you to have a system that you can repeat overtime. we have done this with nti for the first time being released in 2012, but should we want to do this again a year from now, two years from now, five years from now, we have a way of going about this. there is a structure and level of organization and a good element of objective ready. secondly, it makes it easy for countries to see where they have done well and where they have not. we are attaching scores and ratings to these, so it's very easy for country, for example, to see progress over time. when we build these in the past, we have seen countries that, perhaps, did not do well in one particular area, actually change laws or regulations so that

there were score better the second time around, so that is another element of an index that weighs very well. how do you go about producing an index like this? especially on a topic like nuclear material security. this is a subject that almost by definition has a heavy element of secrecy to it. the senator pointed out that we don't want to go into areas of security at specific facilities. that would actually rule against a whole goal of trying to provide security. at the same time countries can be transparent. they can do things to reassure the international community that they are at least playing by the rules.

with that, i'm going to turn it will tell you a little bit about the history of the project. >> thank you, leo. i would like to discuss very briefly the project's overall approach to provide the index results themselves. let me begin by reiterating that despite progress important gaps

remain in our ability to set priorities for progress on nuclear material security. so, to address this we have developed the first ever comprehensive framework for nuclear material security that does two things, provides a basis for dialogue and priorities and is a framework against which progress can be measured. let me quickly summarize the five categories, including some of the indicators as well as why they are importance. the first category includes a quantity, a number of quantities , sites with weapons usable nuclear materials that includes the classes themselves and whether they're increasing or decreasing. this is important because it affects the overall potential for theft in a particular country. the second category are the security and control measures. this includes the specific

physical protection measures, accounting practices, and whether or not security personnel are screened. these actions directly affect security materials at a given site. the third category is what we call global mourns and includes the relevant international legal agreements, voluntary commitments, and the level of transparency shown by country above material quantities and security practices. all of these measures affect the international confidence in the way a country takes its security obligations. the fourth category is domestic capacity. this is above the national level implementation of access, for example, whether or not a country has an independent regulatory agency that oversees the security practices. the national level implementation is required for effective security programs. the fifth and final category, what we call the societal

factors, includes the levels of corruption as well as the political stability, among other things. these measures provide an important backdrop to the specific security practices. taken together these five categories comprise what we call a country's nuclear material security condition. a brief word about the scope of this project. the scope of this inaugural indirect -- index is weapons usable nuclear materials specifically highly enriched uranium separated plutonium, including offsite fuel. it does not include in rich uranium as is used in the nuclear power industry are radiologic materials such as are used in hospitals or the industry. finally, countries with less than 1 kilogram of weapons usable materials or even no weapons usable nuclear materials were evaluated against a subset of categories in order to assess

their contribution to the global nuclear material security agenda key actions would include joining relevant treaties and taking actions such as criminalizing possession of weapons usable material so as not to become a transit point or storage ground. i know this charge may be a bit difficult to read, but shown here as well as on pages 14 and 15 in the written report are the overall scores and rankings for the 32 countries with greater than 1 kilogram of weapons usable nuclear materials. pages 16-18 are shown the scores and rankings for countries with less than 1 kilogram or no weapons usable material. let me briefly review these six columns. on the far left is a column that shows the overall ranking in scores for these countries. the five columns on the right show the scores and rankings in individual categories, starting

with quantitative sites and global norms, then the security and control measures, global norms, domestic commitment and capacity, and the fifth and final column is desirable factors. these -- these five categories contribute to the overall score based on their relative priorities determined by a c-span2 and ei you in conjunction with the international panel of experts. we will not take the time here to comment on individual rankings. rather, we would like to do is call your attention to a couple of examples i help you better understand the index. australia is the top-ranked country. ranked sixth or higher in every category, benefiting from small quantities of nuclear materials, strong societal factors, and high scores in the other categories. for the other top-rank countries as well, consistently high

scores in all categories. for comparison, the united kingdom also scores well across the board, but its overall rate is lowered to tenth overall by its large quantities of weapons usable nuclear materials that are -- and the fact that the quantity of these materials is increasing in the civilian sector. if the quantity use of nuclear material was not included as an example the united kingdom would rank fourth overall. there is a similar situation for the united states. the united states is ranked 13th overall, but if quantities and sites were not considered if it ranked second overall, indicating that it has high scores in all the other categories. a distinction between the united states and the united kingdom as an example is primarily due to this course and the global norms category were the united states has yet to ratify to important trees.

the four countries have a particularly low levels of transparency. specifically israel, north korea, india, and china on materials and material security. this most directly affects the scores and what we call the global norm category. for example, if india were as transparent as the united kingdom, it's right in the global norms category would move from 26 to six. appropriate levels of transparency are critical because independent of the specific security posture on the ground, it affects the international confidence in country's nuclear security material conditions. finally, for the lowest ranked countries the index shows that these countries with the exception of the materials and sites category generally have low scores in most, if not all of the indicator categories. providing these countries many opportunities for improvement.

at this point, let me transition to my colleague, deepti choubey, who will present the findings and recommendations. >> thank you. let me share with you today a selection of our key findings and recommendations from this effort. encouragingly, one of our key findings is that government has become far more aware of the threat and the need for urgent action to combat it. there are, however, far more troubling findings. for instance, although there is agreement about the importance of nuclear material security, there is no global consensus about what priority should be for achieving security. furthermore, there is no agreed international system more global the accepted practices for regulating the production of, is use of common security requirements for weapons usable material. you might think this is a job already done by the international atomic energy

agency, but the iaea only has the authority to oversee materials and civilian programs and not used for military purposes. as such they do not have the mandate or the resources to oversee a comprehensive system covering all weapons usable but clear material. instead we only have part of a system that we need to tackle this problem. another finding is a deliberate lack of transparency makes it very difficult to hold states accountable for their security responsibility. many details around security, as several of a subset, should be protected so that they do not become a road map to -- for terrorists, but other information could and should be made public to build international confidence and they all address exactly what we are recommending. also worrying is that several states are particularly vulnerable to insider threats, such as a corrupt or disgruntled

worker accessing materials without authorization. nearly a quarter of the states with weapons-usable nuclear material scored poorly on societal factors because of very high levels of corruption. of those countries, several also scored poorly on the process of political instability over the next two years. the combination of those two factors significantly increases the risk that nuclear materials might be stolen with help from corrupt insiders or in the midst of government distraction or political chaos. finally, the index also reveals that the stocks of weapons usable materials continues to increase in a few countries. seoul stocks in japan and the united kingdom and are increasing because of civilian use whereas total stocks are increasing in india and pakistan do to military programs. although there are no legal barriers have to the production of the new highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the production of these materials for weapons purposes is

certainly against the global warm, where all other states abide by a moratorium. there are a few other states that produce plutonium, but because of the use of the plutonium their current material inventories are largely. despite positive developments, these findings underscore the need for urgent action because no state can address the threat alone all states have a responsibility to work both individually and cooperatively. specifically, governments must work together to build and create the conditions for a system for tracking, protecting, and managing these deadly materials. done right, such a system could assure all of us that each state is fulfilling its security obligations. in parallel, there are steps that countries must take by themselves and without delay. let us first turn to how to create the foundation of a global nuclear security system.

how would we go about doing that? foremost, we must begin a dialogue that leads to a much needed global consensus on priority. the nuclear security summit process has the potential for being the right and possibly only forum for this discussion, and our hope is that leaders commit to an ongoing process to come to an agreement about what actions matter most. additionally, there should be a sustainable and effective way for benchmarking progress and holding states accountable to their obligations. our hope is that the mti index is a starting point in blaming -- framing the breadth of the problem and that it can be built on and improve as government provide assurances for more information. to that end states must foster greater international confidence we are recommending three specific actions. first, they should public -- publish and provide access to

their nuclear materials resolutions. currently 13 publish both their regulations in an annual report. second, they should declare their nuclear material inventory. there is no legal requirement for states to declare how much material they have for civilian or military purpose. however, nine states voluntarily declared plutonium, and product history is made public. more nuclear weapons states should do the same. and finally, they should invite regular peer review, which is a service provided by the iaea, of facilities that actually contain weapons usable materials. in parallel, there are several actions that states can take individually to improve their stewardship of weapons-usable material. for instance, all states should stop increasing their stocks of

materials, particularly for military purposes. over time, those stocks should be reduced to the lowest possible levels commensurate with civilian energy or scientific needs. one of the best ways to objectively measure processes to eliminate completely weapons-usable nuclear materials is that -- in as many states as possible. over the past two decades 19 countries have eliminated their material, and 14 of the 32 states with weapons usable materials have less than 100 kilograms. many could be good candidates for eliminating stocks. we should all look to the outcome of the 2012 net clear security summit to see which of these states commit to accelerating the cleanup of their materials. we know that has the most important steps governments should take to strengthen their defenses is to decrease levels of corruption and ensure political stability. the prescriptions for these

issues are beyond the scope of this project, but we do emphasize steps for strengthening security and control measures, including physical protection, accounting, and personnel measures of facilities and direct transport of materials. these are the first defense. today there is no agreed baseline defining minimal security and control measures which should be in place at all sites. states should routinely test their security arrangements, particularly if there are challenging societal factors that could undermine security. in the interest of time and will not review each of a recommendations, which are spelled out in more detail in a report but focus on one last one which is to target assistance to states that need help. the index has helps to easily identify 18 states that have provided financial regulatory or security assistance on a bilateral or multilateral basis.

the index identified states that may be in need of assistance. our hope is the index can be used as a resource to match those who need help with those who can provide assistance and vice versa. no matter whether a state is ranked at the top or bottom of the list, all states can do more to improve. thank you, and i will now hand it back to page you through whar website offers. >> let me just highlight a few features on the website. on the website you will find electronic versions of the entire report. you will find tell mobile versions of the model, the excel spreadsheet that has the complete functionality. in addition you will find all of the most frequently used

features of the website itself. there are the overall ranking scores, as shown on the projector. the next slide will show the example of a country profile. there are specific pages that detail how each country did on all the indicators. and finally, there is a function where the user can change the relative priorities to let the user engage with the index to see how the scores and rankings change as a function of the relative priorities of the specific categories and then the gators. please explore the website for access to all of these features. at this point at think we will take questions and answers. >> thank you. now we will have questions and answers and be glad to have questions from the media. back on the back left. if you want to directed to the

particular individual, do so. if not, we will feel that among ourselves. perhaps you could say what you think the club of countries that lies of the bottom, why did they lie there? >> what other countries at the bottom? >> i know from the objective standards. what are the common characteristics which need repair? maybe you can talk about that a little bit. i am curious to know whether any of the countries of the bottom of the list are among those countries that sought to the get briefed by you or whether they have ignored the results or the fact that the work was in progress. >> well, if you wrote down your suspicions a suspect there would all be correct. there is certainly a relationship between those at the bottom. generally speaking, and those that did not accept the briefings or have anywhere near

full cooperation. i will defer to my colleagues, but corruption, and stability. those are two factors, and lack of transparency. if i had to say what the three factors are, depending on which country they vary, but those would be the three that would be the most prominent. >> let me just briefly field your final question. in terms of countries that agreed to meet with us, 28 of the 32 did, including some that were ranked quite near the bottom. so we were pleased to see that so many were billing to -- willing to meet with us. i would second what senator nunn said. there are a number of crosscutting beans, certainly look transparency, not participating in a full range of what we call global norms, be they legal or political agreements, and that has been coupled with sometimes very challenging levels of corruption

and low political stability. those things came together for those countries, and it resulted in them being rent at the bottom. >> yes. >> thank you. a whether it would be you are one of the experts, but looking at all of the data that you collected, there have been scattered reports over the years that terrorists have some type of access or could be holding material and not using it yet. is there anything you found in this research that does help to clarify that? >> there have been a series of recent articles talking about what happened in terms of the last 20 years. there is a lot that has been done that has presented to the

prevented weapons of mass destruction from spreading. we have fed teams working together. we have had coordination between the number of countries in helping the former soviet union did control of their nuclear materials. that was were the largest stockpile was. kazakhstan has taken a lead in this regard. the ukraine has taken the lead. they give up all their nuclear weapons, which most people in the world though no. most people don't know about the fact that 10 percent of the electricity in this country comes from nuclear material that was formerly in weapons pointed at us from russia, ukraine and others in the former soviet union. 10 percent of our electricity is highly enriched uranium that was converted into nuclear fuel, and we bought it. that was part of the dismantling . a lot has been done. what is missing and whether there is material other no one

knows of, it is possible. some would say that i always of worry under the probably questionable but nevertheless assumption that terrorists, if they had napier material would try to use it. they would charge use it as soon as they could. of course building a weapon is not a piece of cake, but the longest bull and the tent is getting the material. our operating premise has always been and still is protected material as the number one way to prevent catastrophic terrorism. it is possible that there could be some out there we don't know about. there is certainly missing material and inventories, but we, with this index, helped establish a dialogue that would lead to some baseline about how much nuclear material there is. if there is no inventory it's hard to know when something is missing. that is part of this whole process.

>> -- i have a couple of questions. president obama has promised global cleanout in four years. he is using a different criteria , promising to lock down vulnerable materials. the work on this and next to any of you any insight into busy getting close to that? and the second question, which is securing was a very valuable because of the way it was very specific and pointed out quantities, locations and looked back over the last year at events like south africa. you seem to have now decided on a different kind of analysis which does not have that kind of

data. it i just wondered why you feel this is a difference -- why the shift? >> my answer on the second question, that bar none, to help us do the securing the blonde report was very much a part of our expert panel. it we felt we needed a deeper dive and let countries the what they could do to improve specifically country by country more the generically, which was the general approach. also, that ever started with a focus primarily on the former soviet union. still problems, as you well know, but i think it is now much more of a global approach. third, i would say that support of the u.s. and russia to work together for about 15 or 20 years under the non nuclear program, russia beings themselves more as a supplicant, and that kind of relationship, i

think, was wearing thin. i have felt that we need to have a partnership as well as with countries all over the globe and trying to address this problem. this is trying to take a much broader partnership type of approach and also i would say that we were inspired to start this index by the nuclear security summit that president obama had with 40 heads of state, and that, of course, will be followed up on with our friends in south korea. we felt this type of index will be a better tool for those countries attending that summit. finally, i would say we are not addressing radioactive material, dirty bombs. we're using a the index to look get weapons usable material, but the radioactive material needs to be protected. there are a lot of crossovers. the steps that would be taken here to protect against weapons usable would also help on

radioactive. that is not the focus of this index, but it needs to be part of what they talk about in south korea. so, all of those reasons are reasons. let me ask page to add to it. >> i think this report index builds very nicely on the great work. i think when you see the full report and particularly the website, you will find all of the specific details for these countries that will be of a lot of interest. there are a lot of specifics. [inaudible question] >> i applaud the goal. i would not bet money will be completed in four years, but we have made progress. there were two or three countries that we have been working on for a long time that after the last summit were willing and give up their highly enriched uranium. real progress has been made.

without a goal you're not going to get very far, and i applaud the goal. i would not bet a lot of money you will completed. you have countries that don't cooperate. if you're setting the goal to secure all nuclear material, that would include north korea, ron, pakistan, other countries that at this stage are not cooperating. i believe that this index, this may be hope, but it is my hope that this index will alert countries that have not cooperated in the international community in terms of sharing in protecting material and best practice and so forth will understand that they have addressed themselves and this is not simply doing a favor to the world. this is protecting your own security. countries that don't have good practices are also probably the most likely victims of material that would get in the hands of terrorists, whether it is a

dirty bombs or weapons-usable material, so i am hoping that kind of, those light bulbs will go off. i would not bet money on that. i think there is so pure. >> back row. >> please forgive my voice. firstly, can you discuss a little bit about how you gave way to different things like corruption verses nonparticipation in international treaties? did you decide one thing was more of a better indicator? second question, you've urged that it would be used to settle on global priorities. can you share with you believe those priorities should be? thirdly, can you share whether pakistan, india, and i run were briefed on the index and what their reactions were? >> let me start with leo.

we may want to shove off a couple of those other questions. >> this is a good one. when the bill that index like this there are a number of ways you can wait, you can start with the assumption that every indicator has an equal weight. we consider that approach, but decided at the end of the day that probably some of them were more important than others, but rather than topos -- was making that decision, we mentioned earlier that we had an international panel. reconvened that panel and showed them the results and essentially had a long full day brainstorming session where we talked to the panel members, pushed people, and what you have seen here is essentially the collective wisdom of about 15 or 20 people that nti especially among the peer panel. really asking people to judge from their experience. if you can our panel members,

some had experience of physical protection. others have worked in governments and nonprofit organizations. so this essentially, rather than taking a mathematical approach, we essentially put a large group of very bright people in our room and just went round and round until we reached a rough consensus. however, if you would like to try another one, this model is the tool. you can go into this if you would like. it does not change with our conclusions are. there would you see here, but for those of you that are disposed to have a go at this and see how they're changed, you can do that. >> okay. >> in terms of global priorities , the framework that we have put forward, particularly these five categories, to a large extent, that is what we are offering as the initial proposal of what we

think matters. what we are hoping to spark is a discussion amongst the government. of these the right things that we should be asking government to do better on? are there other things? we are looking forward to that conversation. of course there is the prioritization. we think all of those things are important, but we are also mindful, particularly out of the security summit, u.s. states that don't have materials are kind of scratching their heads about what exactly do you want me to do. more important to take care of physical protection at the facility with materials, or do you want me to sign the treaty? what is the relative order? and in terms of pakistan, india, and a run, again, we issued invitations. pakistan and india were briefed. i think it is very constructive, the conversation about what we were trying to do. all three countries received

david l. -- validation, and we know that those governments considered the requests but did not answer our data validation request. our hope is that we can work with these governments going forward in the next year, as they see how the index can be a tool for providing assurances and building international confidence in the steps that they are taking around their material. they will engage with us in using the tool to that end, and with the audience we issued an invitation. in new york several times. follow up. never received a response. there were also given the same opportunity to validate the data. again, we do not have a response from them. and with the north koreans we issued the invitation. it was considered for briefing them, and we offered to go to new york to do that. they chose not to, but there were also offered the opportunity to validate data.

>> to you want to add anything? >> one final anecdote, and that is this issue of prioritization. we have seen in our experience that by creating a framework it creates a space for a very productive discussion, so as leal mentioned, we had a day-long discussion about the relative priority of the indicators and categories. there were very vigorous discussions about the relative priorities of things that we all take for granted, the importance of international legal agreements. we think that this framework is going to be very useful in terms of sparking the dialogue amongst the international community. >> back row, right under the camera. >> my question is on russia. the russia is not been the top five, even in the top ten index.

it is actually ranked 204th in overall scoring. what are the major consensus regarding russia? you mentioned several factors like corruption or the lack of transparency. what other major concerns? >> in general i would say i think we have to put in perspective where russia was 20 years ago and where they are now. if you look where they were 20 years ago, the chances were pretty high that there would be some type of nuclear incident, if not disaster coming out of the huge stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, plutonium, and weapons. the fact that has not happened, we have to tip our hat to the leaders in the military, the laboratories, and others in russia who were dedicated patriots during a time of huge economic hardship where all sorts of temptations were put in front of them. so put it in perspective, while