>> it shows how the ranks opened up based on talent. just recognize this has been an explosion of talent across the top leadership opportunities. last week, i had the fortunate

opportunity to testify before the senate arm services committee, and i say "fortunate," but seven of the members are women, 20 senators across the senate are women. just recognize that, again, this has been really a significant change, and our motivation, of course, is to reach the best and brightest, retain the best human capital we can find across the enterprise. can i have the next slide, please. same-sex benefits. this is an issue that, frankly, interesting time. i look at -- i look at how it's playing out in washington, and i think this is kind of showing me what's going to happen here ahead. you know, we had the repeal of don't ask, don't tell back in the fall of 2011, and it was pretty much a nonevent. people said, oh, it's going to be a change, it's going to be

significant, just an upheaval of massive social proportions. it's been known of that. we knew that. we knew that going in, that, look, the generation you represent, this is nothing. you all understood this for a long time, but it's not about who you are with, but about the quality of the person you are. we see that play out. it's been an interesting change to see the follow-up from that. not withstanding the don't ask, don't tell policy and opening of service, we still have doma. doma is the obstacle that remains that prevents the full integration of same-sex couples. a week from today, the supreme court hears an argument in the doma case. it's going to be an extraordinarily significant event. what i'm seeing right now is

shaping out in the washington media, and so this week i've seen an article on family choices of the supreme court justices where they describe the demographics of nine justices, some never married, some marrieded late, some adopted children, some have no children. it's interesting because the fundamental defense that remains under doma is the idea that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only vehicle in which you can have procreation, the appropriate role to raise a choild. that really is the strongest argument for those who would still seek to retain doma and the idea of marriage between a man and a woman of the only legitimate vehicle. in the post, this week, there's a series of articles designed methodically to strike down the idea that procreation is the only thing worth saving, and so we have the family choices of nine supreme court justices. we've had a poll of the views of

various citizens on same-sex marriage indicating 81% of those recently surveyed are in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. a profile of the same-sex couple at the center of the doma lawsuit to be argumented in supreme court next week, and another profile of a congressman, a significant republican congressman, who came out recently saying i'm in favor of gay rights with a child in college, and then today, nfl veterans -- i think, nfl? you have to bring in the national football league to justify same-sex marriage. we've just about lined up everything i can think of in support of this, but i see the effort ahead, and i -- i don't know where the court will head, but if i'm a betting man, i fully expect that doma will be struck down. i think the issue evolved so rapidly and gained such support across a broad range of

constituencies that if i predict, i'd say doma will fall, and that will be okay because we can move along from there. slide, please. the issue that i've seen some efforts on, and this is an interesting one evolving over many years. i came to the army in 1976, and i recall soldiers of the seek faith that served, and they had olive drabs for them, and if you know anything about the quality, wonderful soldiers that, you know, had always been served in british regimens. i said, okay, that's fine. this is neat. with -- we can live with this. some point along the way in the late 70s, early 80s, we no longer are going it allow people to have different grooming, different apparel or uniform standards. the idea that you could serve and honor your faith wearing a

turbine, that was denied. at some point, then, there was a supreme court case involving rabbi goldberg, and the idea was if you could well a yam cay under normal head gear, that would be okay, so under that decision, we then had jewish rabbis and others serving openly, and that was fine. that was the only accommodation made for grooming standards. then along the way, we fight a war over in saudi arabia, and following the gulf war invasion of 2003, the army said, hey, you know, if you're a woman serving in saudi arabia, you need to wear an abuy ya off base, that being a long cloak that muslim women typically wear in public, but we have an air force colonel who said, not so fast, i'm an

officer, serving the nation. my male counterparts don't have to wear special accommodations for uniform, i don't want to wear that m congress got into the agent and passed in 2003 in the authorization act saying no more. the statute was passed, and said, look, you can't force or encourage or persuade women to wear that who don't want to, and so then i saw that play out. interestingly, then, we've had since 2001, the operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. what's the first thing every one of the guys did? grew a big bushy beard. wait a minute, i thought we got away from beards. we did. we got away from beards in the navy. they were part of the warfare community, and a long tradition there, but the special operatives said, look, we have to blend in and have beards so we can better preserve our protection and get more credibility with the afghans in

whom we're dealing so the men wore beards. it's been an interesting thing to see then in 2009, and my current position, we had five religious accommodation requests for grooming granted. two with muslims who wanted to wear beards, two were with orthodox jews who wanted to grow beards as well, and then we had a woman who wanted to wear the hajab, the head dress, and the air force granted the right for her to wear that, but it's been a little of a challenge in the sense that when the congress passed the law that allows certain apparel, you couldn't affect the exterm view of the uniform or affect how the uniform appeared otherwise. the other services became very unhappy about this woman, and so she was then banned, only could

be in the air force area, but in the pentagon, she had to remove it. that's not exactly good personnel policy to implement so we're fighting through now what's the way we're going to deal with these religious accommodations, grooming, and apirl requests? that remains as the last frontier. this plays out in another area as well because not only do you have the grooming and apparel issues that we have to work through, but it's the idea of free exercise clause, so if you're a -- if you're a chaplain in the military with the add vent of the same-sex benefit or the demise of don't ask, don't tell, and the right to have a sexual orientation of your choosing and to serve openly, what is your role as a military chaplain? we have chaplains from each of the faith groups across the dod, and so you might be a rabbi, and, yet, you're chaplain duties

require you minister and take care of the spiritual needs of everyone in the unit, not just your own faith group, and so if you got a requirement to perform councilling to a couple looking for councilling, a same-sex couple, what's your role as a military chaplain? we said, essentially, you're duty is a chaplain, judge advocate, civil law assistants. the job is you provide legal assistance needs of everyone, and you don't discriminate based upon the nature of the issue, and so we're seeing some of these issues play out with the roles of chaplains and civil ceremonies, and we have essentially said you don't have to perform a marriage or marriage equivalent ceremony if your faith would not support that.

we're working through the issues and how that plays out, but judge advocates, as far as i'm concerned, meet the legal needs of everyone who has an issue, so that's what we see right now. lasted sly, -- last slide, please. so this is the last issue that i think is particularly fundamental right now because we are seeing a number of sexual assaults across the force that i think are inconsistent with the idea that we truly made the integrations of women our instates. this was last week. we had a panel of all the judge advocates, general of the armed services committee, inquiring about, you know, our courts marshall system, and how we handle sexual assault. it's interesting to me because

this system we have, it was really a creature adopted in 1950 following world war two, and those who are students of history, may know in world war ii, we had 16 million men and women in uniform, americans in uniform. from that number, we conducted 2 million court marshalls, a fair amount of indiscipline in the ranks, a fair amount of issues for commanders to resolve inned goo order and disblip, but the follow on, the consequence of the experience was the passage of unj to reign in discretion to handle acts of indiscipline, and so then general dwight eisenhower testified before congress in 1948, and collins testified as well and other senior leaders talked about what's different about the system, and what does it mean for good order and discipline, and how does it play out? that's ultimately the result of the ucmj. that system now is under attack

because of what critics say that there's no longer a need for military justice separate apart from the military court justice system. you provide fooch a role for commanders and the abuse of command discretion in how you handle the problems. that's how it's seen on capitol hill now. our allies got away from a command driven justice system, in large part, european convention on human rights, the dchr, directed their militaries make the evolution in part because they looked at the commanders as having too much discretion to abuse the rights of soldiers. we get the opposite in the system now that our commanders are not adequately enforcing the rights of victims, and that i think with that narrative, to me, the fundmental issue here is if we achieve full quality for women in the ranks, that's because we opened up all of our

assignments to women, we have set conditions for them to serve in every capability, we have ended restrictions on sexual orientation as anything to do with your ability to serve professionally, we have set the conditions to end sexual harassment in the ranks because we think the harassment is a precur surf sexual assault, and we have adequately made a culture that detours sexual assault. when we've done those four things, we'll achieve an environment where we all serve equally in the armed forces. with that, i thank you for your attention, and i'll take your questions. [applause] >> we inviet everyone in the audience to pose a question, and

i particularly encourage the students to ask questions, okay? >> all right, ben. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> the question was what role does public opinion play? i think public opinion plays this role. first, we had dc -- back in 92, the policy, don't ask, don't tell, if you may recall, president clinton came in, this was when the objective

of the administration, powell was strongly apposed, then chairman of the joint chiefs, but there was a sociology at the time from northwestern, well respected, had demographic data and research to show why this policy was appropriate and why america had not yet evolved to the point at which open service by hom osexuals was sufficient. the idea that the younger generation, the 18 to 29-year-olds grew up with the idea that it's not a matter of choice. it's not of matter of choosing not to be gay. it's not about that. this is about allowing people to be who they are. i think what we have seen is public opinion both drives that ship and follows the ship to provide greater evidence that impacts an changes policy. we have not had -- we have not had any change in the legal

regime, frankly. if you look at title vii of the civil rights act, it still doesn't provide sexual orientation as a social class, but it's been pronowfnsed, and, frankly, it's the pace of change that struck me as significant since 1992. >> [inaudible]

>> what i wonder is how the military -- [inaudible] >> okay. the issue here is really what was the military, what was the uniform military role in response to those conditions that ultimately enhanced interrogation techniques, culture, water boarding, whatever you want to call them. why i wear a third star now is, frankly, the results of senator graham's emphasis on allowing generals to have a seat at the tail when the policy decisions were made that influenced the actions of the administration right after 9/11, and so the thought was that the uniform judge advocates saying, waiting minute, we have good experience in applying the law of war from the geneva convention. that voice was not heard as it needed to be within the

policymaking apparatus that was considering these changes after 9/11, so as a three star in the pentagon, you have a voice, you get a seat at the table. we have never changed the law of war manual, you know, the fm27-10 is the law of land warfare published in october of 1956, the rules have not changed much. the geneva convention has been around for awhile, and we understand how to apply those. i don't think it was ever any passive approval by the uniform military establishment of those techniques that ultimately have been questioned, and, frankly, it's affected us fundamentally in terms of perception of credibility with the international community. look at the ongoing challenges in guantanomo, and yet we can't get beyond it.

it's a problem. i have a brigadier down there, mark martin, wonderful officer, the chief prosecutor in guantanamo doing everything he can to show they are legitimate proceedings, transparent, and follow the rule of law, and, yet, the commentary he'll continue to receive from anyone involved in the issue from 2001, he just candidate fix it. can't fix it. we need the attention. it's not guantanamo, it's not afghanistan, where is it? chicago? columbia? is it new york city? there's got to be something. >> general, i have a question about your professional identity. the american military always employed people who were professionals in other sense. you have ordained clerics, doctor, and lawyers. i'm wonders to what extent you've seen your identity as a lawyer ever intention with your identity as an army officer, to

what extent values and traditions and roles you play and have been trained to play and faithful through your whole life in the legal profession, sometimes pose difficult cop flicks in the very different cultures of being a distinguished member of the armed services. >> oh, that's a great question, mr. president. i'm very proud of the fact that i'm a member of two distinct professions -- the law and the army, and i take professional pride in both of those designations. there are times when i think that my role as a legal professional is not fully appreciated by my client, the commanders i serve who say, you lawyers get in the way, why do you just keep saying no? how about help me do what i can do? frankly, that's supposed to be the approach, and that is the desired approach, but the idea is that as the legal professional, ultimately, i have loyalty to the client, and that cleept might be bradley manning,

a client might be robert bales, and if you got -- if you're a defense counsel, you got to fight your ethical obligations that are clear. a little less clear in the legal profession is who my client is as an army officer, and it's clear under my code of professional responsibility that my ultimate loyalty is to the department of the army, and not any individual, and so the commanders i advise sometimes don't like that particular tension, and what they say is, hey, wait a minute, i thought you were my lawyer, and my response is, sir, i'm not your lawyer. my client is the department. the only oath i took was to the constitution, and sometimes that oath is necessarily in conflict what you ask me to do here. i think that's one -- >> a great answer. >> that's one thing. >> other questions? one over here. >> thank you, again, for being

here. you mentioned [audience boos] -- you mentioned, and i wondered if the traditional military culture has sexual assault in the military and what's done to prevent that now and in the future? >> there's two fundamental issues, and sexual assault is the first one. second one is suicide. i'm not going to talk about suicide, but to answer your question, here's what i see as part of the challenge, we we come into the military, we try to abandon your personal identity so you adopt the sense of being part of a larger team, an adentty that's the collection is more important than the individual. in many cases, sexual assault occur in the first 90 days of service with 18 to 25-year-old crowd, binge drinking, and then

we see something. that's really the common side effect in so many of the cases, and so the idea is, wait a minute, i came into the army thinking i was joining a team, a team to take care of me, look out for me, and now i got this cop flick in reporting that a fellow teammate assaulted me. there's a red sans to report and notification to the chain of command that's trying to bring you into the values that are appropriate. we have to get beyond the hesitation to report. this is an act of assault on a teammate, and i -- i can't be anymore plain than that. if there were 19,000 reported assaults over a year across the department of defense, 19,000 estimated, 3,000 reported. 70% to 80% of assaults were not reported. how do we change the culture so that people understand it's my

duty to report this? this is a criminal in the ranks. he or she doesn't share the values that i have sworn to uphold, and so we got to change that culture to ensure we get the top reporting to enable us to rest pop. >> absolutely, thank you. >> hand over here. >> sir? >> general, what's the differences between civilian law enacted and military law? what are some of the major points? >> okay. we have under yiewn forcode, a series just like any state court, federal court, there's a criminal code. we have the same code. we have a series of procedure roles in the same way every jurisdiction has procedural rules. we follow the procedural rules of evidence, the military rules of evidence. they are the same numbers and evolve to keep pace with the

federal rules of evidence, fre. that's not a change. what's different is we have a role of commander as the cop veining authority. in a civilian system, there's no role for the mayor of the city or the governor to have pardon capability or the president to pardon of the there is no role for an elected official or boss of the organization to organize the military justice procedure. in our system, i, as a judge advocate, would take a case, would have a pretrial investigation, i would take that case in to the commander to say, commander, this case deserves a general court marshall for a lesser form of court marshall, and the congressmanner could look at me and say, judge, i disagree. i don't think the evidence is here to support that kind of a disposition. i have not had that happen in my professional career, but it did happen here recently about three

weeks ago in italy. we're paying a price for the decision by a commander who ignored a verdict from a jury, who ignored the ruling of the judge saying the trial was properly conducted, ignored it and said, boss, on trial, and that commander set the verdict aside and released an officer who was serving -- actually, shaw, charleston, who released four month ofs after serving a one year sentence. that's the case that generated, in part, a trip to the hill and questions from congress about, hey, you know what? we think it's time to remove the convening authority from the process in total. they are not legally trained. why defer to their command authority in a case where we think the trained lawyers ought to be making the decisions. what's different about our capability versus any of the allies with whom we deploy? i visited our allies in the u.k. and in australia, all of whom

got away from the system that we have, but known of the countries deployed 300,000 men and women to two theaters at the same time where there's a need for justice that can be imposed swiftly, and locally. that's different. the system has to be there, and we have to have that commander from my view remain in the system. we have to cop strain and restrain decisions promptly. what we'll have in the congress to help us is the idea that the commanders overturned the jury verdict or judge verdict without any basis. >> one question in the back i see. someone politely deferring to someone in front of them. how civilized. >> i noticed, i guess, in a previous question, you talked about how to increase the reporting on some of the sexual

harassment cases, which, of course, are under reported at this moment. [inaudible] >> yeah, so there's two prongs. there's the prong of prevention and that of response. so far, it's been on the response tong, and many of our critics say what you have to do is prosecute your way out of the problem. if you prosecute enough number of cases, you'll have deterrence, and the problem goes away. i don't think we can prosecute our way out of the problem. i just don't see that as being in the realm of feasible. we have to change the idea of prevention. what we do from the moment a new recruit arrives into our training base, we provide that training that says k look, either your values are of an army soldier. these are the mechanisms you

have to report inappropriate advances, conduct, whatever. we assign buddies. we have a buddy system. we have to make the dormitories the barracks, safe environments for young men and women to live in, and we have to figure out better how to have intervention. you know when there's a predator. you know when you set up somebody for a situation in which a predator can take advantage, and so it's that tension between roles at the chape of command can take in appropriately shaping the environment, and the idea that, look, we are all adults and can make choices, and, frankly, we're having a hard time with that balance, but i do know that we have to -- we have to reduce the number of overall incidents, and i don't know that, you know, i think some of the problem is on college campuses as well, but we are fairly transparent in reporting our numbers. we have a challenge in getting some numbers comparable to the jurisdictions. 18 to 25-year-olds are a different demographic. we see that, and, yet, we have

to be able to take steps to alter. >> general, as the time draws short, i'm going to take advantage of your being here to ask you one of the questions that's most intrigued me. it's one of the hardest questions that occur within the context of military justice, and it's the stuff of famous novels, movies, and plays. so, fortunately, rarely, can you describe that acute dilemma that occurs morally and legally when a subordinate is ordered to do something by a superior that is manifestly illegally, sometimes in a dramatic circumstance with a prisoner of war or something else. explain about the moral and legal conflicts that exist when issued an illegal order. >> yeah, so the question is what is your responsibility, what is your role in terms of executing an order that's clearly legal,

and it's a role that you sometimes exercise at your peril -- >> right. >> because you better be sure the order given is, in fact, illegal. each of us has an obligation to follow the orders of the officers and noncommissioned officers appointed over us. that's the nature of military discipline. when i get an order from a commander, initially, the presumption is that's a lawful order, properly considered, executed, and issued, and i should do that. soldiers' first duty is o beans. having said that, there are orders where you know they are clearly illegal, and some of the prosecutions we've seen over the last ten years involve law of war violations where, for example, in one case, there was a detention where the senior noncommissioned officer came back and said, i told you no prisoners. what did you not understand about the order? that's clearly an illegal order. you have to be able to take a

prisoner of someone who is willing to surrender or wounded and out of combat. they have to be brought in as a detainee. what's the roll? go back to the individual, say, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, tell me what the order was you gave me because i want to be clear about that i understand fully about what the officer expected me to do, and if i'm still satisfied it's illegal, i have an obligation to go above the individual to the next level of the commander to say i received an illegal order. it's not just the commander, but could be the inspector general, the judge advocate, it could be somebody else. it could be a different command, but you have an obligation to go forth and report that illegal order. there is no -- there is no buy for following an order. you don't say, that was my boss who gave me the order. i'm okay. i followed the order even ifs illegal. as a soldier, i'm personally responsible for the legality of

the orders that i execute on my open decision, and as a superior, you know, we got this standard where legally should have known the order issued was illegal, and that i got a duty to clarify that and will not follow. >> general, thank you for your service to our country, and thank you for the wonderful presentation this evening. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] live now in george washington university for the discussion on the current political system in haiti and the effectiveness of 2010 aide after the earthquake. speaking now is george washington university's bob mcguire. >> a working group, and the brand new website initiative called focusonhaiti.org. allow me the opportunity to recognize and thank my two colleagues in arms for putting together this important initiative on haiti. that would be scott freeman and

megan pierce. she's in the back. we will officially launch the website with a short presentation on it by may. over the past few years, the caribbean nation of haiti experienced a series of major events. a little more than three years ago, in january 12, 2010, it was struck by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake, which we all know about. in late 2010 and early 2011, presidential elections were held in haiti that ultimately, following a controversial vote counting process and runoff election, yielded a new president, a political novice named martelli, previously known as a singer and performer. over the past two years following the inauguration, haiti struggled with political tension between the new president and the opposition

parliament as it has also had to deal with the continuation of earthquake recovery towards the road of social and economic development. of late, it copes with the prospects of the judicial process involving john claude, the former dictator who returned to haiti in early 20 # 11, and, now, haiti's in the midst of a difficult process trying to move forward towards long overdue elections of one-third of the senate and all mayors and community governing bodies. concurrently, the vast majority of haiti he 10 million citizens, 80% of survive on $2 a day or less, continue to struggle to keep their heads above water. although haiti has not occupied the front pages of "the washington post" since the earthquake, it may be edging in that direction as tension over

rising costs of living, and unmet post expectations remain unfulfilled. tonight's panel discussion features three speakers who are deeply engaged with haiti sharing reflections on the topics and experiences in recent writing. let me introduce them in the order in which they will speak. our first speaker is mark l. snyder. mark joined the international crisis group or icg, a multinational nongovernmental conflict prevention organization in the spring of 2001, a senior vice president. his areas of expertise include post conflict reconstruction, nation building, u.s. foreign policy in the 21st century, and latin america and caribbean issues serving as director of the u.s. peace corp. from 1999

to 2001, and as the assistant administrator of the u.s. agency for international development for latin america and the caribbean. mark will base his comments from the recently published report on haiti by the international crisis group entitled "governing haiti, time for national consensus," and mark has kindly brought copies of that report available on the table by the door. sadly, however, mark will have to depart around 6:30 so he can meet his personal commitments for passover. mark will be followed by raymond, or joseph as americans say. ray distinguished himself in a broad spectrum of roles including theologian, diplomat, writer, lecturer, and social activist. from 2004-2010, he rose to

prominence as haiti's ambassador not united states. from 1990 to 1991, he was haiti's affairs in washington, and haiti's representative to the american states. currently a research and lecturer, ray has founded a retreat for haiti, a nonprofit environmental organization reg registered in maryland whose website is replanthaiti.org, and ray has brought pamphlets and brochures on that organization which are also available at the door. following ambassador joseph is john m. capps, the author of a new book called "the big truck that went by: how the world came to save haiti and left behind a disaster," and copies of the book are available in the back of the room.

a former associated press editor, he was the lone news correspondent in haiti in the 2010 earthquake. among other reporting accolades, he was awarded the 2010 medal for courage in journalism, national headliners in society of professional journalist awards, and finalist recognition by the michael kelly award for the fearless pursuit and expression of truth. he was also the 2012jf lucas work in progress award winner, and a 2013 barnes & noble discover great new writer selectee for the book "the big truck that went by," and, of course, i stole from that book, "the big truck," the title of this evening's panel. each panelists speaks for no more than 15 minutes. after all the panelists have

spoken, i willed -- i will moderate a discussion in which time we field questions from you. at 6:50, we wrap up discussions and turn the program over meg who gives the presentation on the focusonhaiti website. before we begin, i remind you to silence or turn out of you know cell phones, thank you. mark? >> thank you, bob, and let me express my appreciation to the school for this opportunity. big trucks, pop star politicians, and the politics developed in haiti. even more, i want to thank bob for educating me on haiti's reality about the past 20 years.

yesterday, we were on a pam on haiti as well, which had the title, can an election save haiti? the answer we sharedded was no. elections can want save haiti, but as i said then and again tonight, the failure to hold elections will doom haiti to permanent failed state status. elections which were due in november of 2011 for the third of the country's senate for all of its 140 mayoral positions in the country and local assemblies has not been held. without the elections, unfortunately, successful development is at risk, and, in fact, will not take place because in the absence of decent

government, legitimate government, and in the absence of the rule of law, haiti will not be able to maintain international support, and it will not be able to pursue the transformation that was called for after the devastating earthquake that occurred three years ago. even today, three years after the earthquake, 300,000 continue to be living in displaced camps around the capitol city. over the course of the last year, a significant number of those displaced persons have enforcibly been evicted from those camps. although the government initially carried out several successful efforts to move people from displaced camps to some organized housing, the reality is that still far too

many remain in displaced status. in the donor's meeting that took place in new york at the time three months after the earthquake, which i attenned as an observer, some 5.3 billion was pledged over the following 18 months, $10 billion pledged for the following temperature years -- following ten years to try and respond to the critical needs for reconstruction and transformation. private individuals, well, sort of private like former president bill clinton, really did make efforts to get private sector investments coming to haiti, and over the course of the next several years, there were new initiatives, however, the reality is that today after $3 billion has been spent, the situation in haiti remains one in which the country is a 106 of 197 countries of the u.n. development countries, human

development index, haiti remains 161, and over the course of the last year, it actually fell three spots on that human development index. haiti has the highest level of infant and child mortality in the americas and lowest level of literacy in educational achievement. unfortunately, during this period, the introduction of cholera added to the misery of the poorest haitians, near 8,000 dead from 650,000 sick, and no end in sight. if you want to know what i personally think should have happened, the united nations should have apologized because even if there's no legal proof that the contingents that was housed near the area where the first evidence of cholera occurred, it's clear from every study, every study, that there was inadequate management of

human waste and sanitation in that camp. in addition, the international community should have supported and still support a rural vaccination campaign because that's where the most -- the poorest haitians and those of least access to health services live, and, finally, it does not have to accept legal responsibility. pass me the water, would you? in order to provide company sages for the families of the 8,000 victims. the former u.n. rap tour for human rights in haiti who resigned last thursday made the same point. the united nations and donors should provide compensation to the victims, and, timely, the

u.n. itself should make greater efforts to ensure a $10 billion investment program put together by the health organization, the world health organization, and to establish clean water systems 234 haiti over the next decade. it needs to be funded. now, throughout this period, what haiti has not had is a functioning, effective government. there's been too much corruption, too much narrative partisanship, and absence of any semblance of national consensus. those facts underscore why their salvation will not come simply by holding the 16-month overdue elections. however, until the election is held, the government will remain in gridlock, and in the absence of clarity of whether there will

be a constitutional government, new private investment is going to hesitate to make long term commitment, and there's a danger, particularly if the elections for the current ten members missing from the 30 member parliament is not held, and the next election which is also due this november for the second third of the country's senate is not held, there's every indication that the executive branch miegd tend to decide it should rule by decree because the parliament is no longer fully formed. if that occurs, i can only assure everyone that the international commitment to recovery is likely to wither, and if the president's hopes for a successful presidency will be buried amid the failure of the elites, political and economic, to reach any consensus on meeting the nation's monumental

challenges, the first of which is to hold these elections. that's why the international crisis group published the report that bob jengsed, governing haiti, time for national consensus, tracking the failure of will over recent years by a broad spectrum of haiti's leaders to reach some common view of basic minimums in every area of the development needs beginning with governance. the most recent triumphs of partisan over national interest was the failure of the president, parliamentary leaders of all parties, and the business community which is behind a lot of thee parties that exist to implement the governance agreement signed on christmas eve with the facilitation of an ad hoc religious group, religions for peace.

that pact would sidestep a catch 22 # situation, where the absence of a third of the senators stylemied the legislators from naming their coup sill. instead, there was an agreement for a transtore yal electoral college reached in the agreement. the problem is, now three months passed issue and the agreement has not been implemented. this past week saw the first sign of movement. the legislature sent three new names to be appointed. they have to name members and name his open executive branch members, and they all have to be sworn in. at the moment, that has not occurred. they have to be credible and

acceptedded to the broad spectrum of haiti's political class and haiti's population. the secretary general in the reports of the security coup sill just a few weeks ago concluded in the report the original members named by the president last july to what was going to be a permanent electoral council were widely considered illegitimate. that cannot be repeated. haiti still has no members for the electoral body, no calendar, and no electoral law. local government remains under mind because the mayors' whose term also ranked out a year ago, that is the mayors in the 140 communes, the local assemblies, again, the term ran out, currently, the executive branch

named new people appointing them to the 129 of the 140 communes, entirely unconstitutionally. the constitution provides for mayors to be elected, not to be appointed. when i was in haiti in december, i spoke to the technical people who put together the elections once you have a law in place, and they said it'll take six months once you have a law calendar and credible council. we're still looking at a significant amount of time before elections can be held. let me just note that the lack of decisions on holding the elections reflects the zero sum game political culture that prefers destruction of the opposition to any form of compromise. for development to take place,

there must be a national consensus on moving forward on governance and then on the key issues that haiti faces. crisis group noted, and when i was in haiti, everyone said the same thing. there's a deficit, and there's an exclusion of a majority of haiti's citizens from my real say about the future. that really must change. the content of the national accord has to be the issues that have plagued haiti for decades, and the president's proposed five e's are a good example of those, employment, education, environment, energy, and the rule of law. i added an "a" yesterday, which is in our report as well, and that is accountability in

transparency in each of the areas, by government for the people. now, there may be views on what should be done in the areas, but that's precisely what a national accord process does, and, bob noted that at the community level, there's already a significant amount of consensus about what has to be done, and those voices need to be heard informing a national consensus in a national govern pact. the elite must recognize their own responsibility to shape the national consensus, and it must include their paying all their taxes in order to provide state with the resources it needs to fund basic health, education, and infrastructure. you know, haiti remains a country of great contrast. the families who live in the estates and those in the gullies alongside the roads leading up to the estates, the contrast is

also in the investment of $3 billion in three years, yet, haiti has dropped three spots on the human development index. another contrast relates to citizen security. haiti now has 66 -- 6684 military troops and 2614 fleets in the u.n. peace keeping mission and also has 10,000 fleets within the police force; however, there's a 33% increase in homicide in the last three months of 2012 compared to 2011. kidnappings up by a third. rapes rose from 33 a month to 40 a month in 2012. the report from the secretary regime noted, and i want to emphasize this, that over the course of the past year, the

government has fired seven of the chief prosecutors for the department which is port-au-prince and removed two inspector generals for the police force. those are key roles in trying to move the country towards greater transparency, greater justice, and greater responsible government, and the international community needs to demand that there is progress with respect to justice reform. let me just note one thing, finally, i know the time's up. in the last session of security council march 20th, they agreed, everyone, that haiti has to quit stalling and hold these elections. it was underlined by the donors refusing to attend a government called donor's conference last wednesday until there's a credible electoral body and

electoral calendar, and electoral law. again, for highway tee to succeed in moving up the human index, it needs more than an election, but a national consensus on public policy aimed at improving the lives of 10 million haitians in broad growth that prioritizes employment, energy balanced with environmental protection, education that extends quality as well as access, and the rule of law. guarantee justice for alllations, thank -- for all haitians. thank you. [applause] >> good evening, and it's a pleasure for me to be here, again, with my fellow colleagues here who were here yesterday,

and it's a pleasure for me to be here and invictimsation of a friend of a long time professor, thank you very much. i'm also feeling sort of at home here having spent six years from 2004 to 2010 here, and i see at least one haitian in the room. thank you very much for being here. when the earthquake happenedded in 2010, i made one remark. i said now the earthquake taught us a lesson. haiti should decentralize. because the earthquake hit only

one fifth of haiti's land mass but caused economic damage of 80% of gdp, and, also, it caused nearly 300,000 deaths. why that? because we had put all the eggs, so to speak, in one basket, port port-au-prince, and i said back then, we should rebuild, but we should not rebuild the republic of port-au-prince, but the republic of haiti, and i encouraged, back then, that the aide to the people who were displaced and who went back to the countryside to the other cities, i had suggested, in fact, urged, that the aide be

distributed. that's not what happened. most of the aide, if not all of it, was distributed in port awe prince and surrounding so the people came back and mori came back with them, and so, today, port-au-prince is more populated than before. there are no statistics, official statistics of that; however, just look around and see the shantytowns springing up all over. ..

a few things have. i say, 1.5 million. today the only route has anything to do problem. not good enough for me.

300,000 in 10th three years later. where are our priorities? that's what they think is the problem. 300,000 in 200. a new paved road costing $10 million could make the top kids cause in the mountains about 25 miles in port-au-prince this new paved road connects the little village below. they receive hotel, a development they are. beautiful place.

i was there last year. we spent two hours last year in a four by four with a few friends. at that time i sent the script needs to be rebuilt or built. the road had been built. as he told you, costing $10 million. 300,000 people are still it tents. why do they bring this? will bring us this beautiful area in switzerland. that place belongs to the in-laws for the minister to reason. the criticism and the internet have seen, this is that you or

the old corruption? claims of the conflict did about this because right now i can get to the low in 15 minutes. but there's still because people in the towns country tents. i contend what is happening right now is pete typefaces, and leadership do not understand priorities. are they not paying attention to priorities. a major priority as mark schneider said was the holder election. elections are held, we'll have legitimate people ruling the

place in the international community will be more inclined to support and more claim to command. so when they came out with the election although they are putting up money for it, they have money to do other states with their own interests. i see that he needs to look our priorities. and putting the emphasis on the election because mr. schneider, i don't know if you know what happened yesterday. in the town of hee hee, i'm quite sure you heard that

they're port-au-prince people arrived yesterday. they rioted because the central government was going to change the leadership they putting their own people as mayors. two people got shot. others got one big. real major travel. mr. schneider had if the elections are not held this year and we keep having interim executive age of instead of elect mayors and local officials, we'll have a trouble. situation in haiti will be ugly

and we will not know how it will end. that's the reason i am calling on the government who say that sent the election turned away. this is another priority in haiti. the priority of saving the country, saving the lien. if you look at the literature, haiti only has 2% recovered right now. and i can 10 if we did not start a major refit story shooting campaign right now, he will become a desert soon.

the president at january 1st address the nation said 2013 is the year of the environment. tahitian carnival come as commitment to enable this at all list the carnival of the environment and has a very catchy slogan. one haitian, one treaty. but i ask you to take a look at the government budget. and i live etu. you can take a look at.

w. w. w. dot mefh pd. i'll repeat again. www.mf 80.gov. these are the next documents. you will see what the priorities of the government are. really think about refers nation in the environment. an environment that $150,000. take a look. i don't have time to break it down. if you look, that's what you will find.

that makes me think of the most interesting and most popular song this year for the current bull. it means orally. this government i am saying is very prolific and putting on a cremation. but i say what they to see them put their money. if they do that, in haiti will a chance. let them put their money and resource station.

they should have much more in the budget for that. in the next few weeks, and the next few months i want the other they will back their words with action. that is if they have time. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. i'm going to steal your boat. i wrote it i get to to take it. my name is straightforward. posted "the associated press" in 2007 until 2011 and i'm very honored to be here. i'm honored to be on the panel with both distinguished gentleman. i want to talk about "the big

truck that went by". let's talk about big trucks first. my book is your visual aid, "the big truck that went by: how the world came to save haiti and left behind a disaster." the title is not always altogether clear so we'll take a second and explain what they mean and what it means in the title here. i picked up a few things living there for three and a half years and what if everything can have at least two meetings if not her. the title has three. but it refers to is most literally the earthquake at south. there wasn't a distinct memory of earthquakes in haiti, even the port-au-prince had been destroyed twice by earthquake in its infancy. the most recent 1770, older than the creole language is that the

good popular word for which it's happening. some people called it the event, but one of the early things that came up was the big truck that went by. the reason is that was the sound many of his three-tier quake that we heard. we were still used today at hearing of grappling at 18-wheeler semi coming down the pavement on the street, delivering basic services. haiti is in many ways the libertarian paradise. everything is privatized. if you want to make sure you have electricity in your house, probably have a big generator

powered by fuel delivered on a big trap. if you are water, it's delivered by big trap. when relatives come in another delivered on a big trap. when food comes in, it's a big truck. because the construction was shoddy when they go by, it would rumble. i sitting on my bed thought that i heard a big subfloor at 3:00 p.m. when i was actually hearing the first wave of the earthquake. it was strange because the truck was from the wrong direction. the sound was coming from other than a couple seconds i realized i missed the. the more immediate inane but most people would have out sega cd is the implication of the image of the trucks that

cavemen. one of the ultimate points i am making is in many ways those are the same as the big trucks going by before. despite rhetoric to the contrary, despite promises made otherwise, we made the same mistakes after the earthquake that it could make for decades before. as best i can tell, those aches continue to this day. it's an important thing to keep in mind because it seems unfathomable given the promise of all the many pledged at the donors conference and the money spent on immediate humanitarian of the. i'm sure a lot of people were directly part of it weather underground are trained to raise money and awareness in the

states. how is that possible things have got better? the fact that the vital sense of haiti haven't gotten better is not a dispute. some of them are symbolic. 300,000 people living under tarps and tents. the first place, nobody knows how many people died. the government didn't have the capacity to account. now another 6,300,000 people, but that doesn't explain what the people who are living under the turks and tenants have gone out. most of them have gone back to the rooms reconstructed or repaired or never damaged because he didn't have the money to pay rent. those houses are in the same position if not worse as they were in the afternoon at

january 12, 2010 when they all fall down. some people are they being in a homeless encampment in the cities that haven't been found or can't be quantified. sometimes people have money. sometimes they are forced as a former independent for the united nations, but the secretary general's report is a major issue that unknown numbers of people have been forced to leave either at the of a policeman's graceful or the threat that would come soon, which doesn't say much for reconstruction for filling between put out for building back better.

again, mse restated point, which is spurrier rudy coming apart at of the reason it's happening it's priorities haven't changed and unnecessarily focused on putting everyone in the safe house in the businesses or sectors they were. they spent emphasis put on the position of the united states investing in a garment export industry. a lot of money has been spent for the anchor tenant is a south korean manufacturer they are because they are going to benefit a series and a couple of my recent ones with the help of former president clinton in bush junior. two without cramming 10 haiti to

be exported duty-free to the united states. there's a big hope by which basically wealthy haitians who own the factories, politicians in the united states, retailers to benefit from products coming in inexpensively or as an alternative from china because the shipping costs are much lower directly from haiti. it's not necessarily the priority of the message or the people in haiti. one of the reasons they haven't changed his it's easier to keep doing things the way they've always done them. it's easier to go around the government and going through. hillary clinton said at the donors conference in new york in march 2010 but this was essential, we needed to stop field with the business end of money so he can string in the capacity to deal with this crazy

and rebuilt the one that is very recent. it's easier to do things the way they been doing them. one of the other things we been doing is frankly not listening to people in haiti. this is true in many countries or people trade off of the road. one of the principal illustration came in the way the humanitarian aid was done. the cluster system that in a guarded compound of the united nations surrounded by wire and blue helmets for rifles. if you're somehow able to set us back to get to the meeting, you would have no idea what's going on because it is held in

english. a number of things came out of that. one of the things was going back to this idea of decentralization , which has been a dream for decades. the earthquake was the worst that could have come about, but did have an effect. 600,000 people decentralized in the capital to the countryside. the responders were in the rate of migration is happening it wasn't taken advantage of and everybody moved back and most of a lot of people who ended up in the camps. one might think came out of the cluster system. sean penn came to haiti 92nd the earthquake but they've are a new organization called tahitian relief organization and was in many ways through this process of humanitarian cluster meeting that he was able to rise to

power. yet a recognizable face, commanding voice and was able to get attention effectively about people commented that when it is very hard to see that some ngos would get the priority for things they were asking for and shot damask distantly they are and listen to it was able to impart rise to prominence through the cluster system, which again was no fault of his to the vast majority people who lived in the country. this is not only sean penn. is true of everyone who comes in as a foreigner with a been a while for power compared to the vast majority people is very easy to become a bull in a china shop or take on foreign responsibilities they probably deserved in the first place. i came into haiti.

i knew nothing. i was a correspondent for "the associated press." i had a tremendous audience. i was able to go where i wanted to do what i wanted and had a considerable amount of power. infinitely richer for sean penn who quickly became an air of a time of 40 to 60 people because this ngo took over the responsibilities for one of the larger tent cities in port-au-prince and he was mayor and was in many ways is found to ball up the third circuit things are moving 7000 people to a remote desert with a port-au-prince, fire from services in a place for quickly nobody wanted to live. we can talk about that later.

the plan is to build an industrial park, but the project he was involved in such a boondoggle that it ever came together and priorities were moved to the southern part and ignore it. i'm not saying that's as an indictment on sean penn is it's easy to talk about celebrities in the public eye to save obi-wan about them and there's this image for celebrities who come down to disaster zones that are just there for a close up with a haitian kid and then they leave. he is done a lot of good work. it's been in many ways an individual neighborhood status this general nebulous to save

haiti and never getting anything done. i'm using him as an example of part of what happens when we as outsiders come into haiti to try to dictate our vision of what should happen without looking to see what is from limb by and running over what's in our path. the last pop store star, michelle sweet a keyword to leave. it is not so simple looking at the elections that ended the year. the united states had a very heavy-handed that probably through voter fraud in this piece that initially the electoral council should not poupon to thicket round of the

election and it was above all including a personal visit in the mid-of the crisis in career square to essentially dictate back to the should be in the race and then president of haiti left out. essentially this on the up is the reason things have not improved is to keep doing the same thing we have always done, which includes not listening, dictating, coming up with solutions and trying to post them on a society that his it's a priorities are too often it hard. i thank you for listening to me for the last 15 and it, but she really should. if you're going to be working in haiti, unique to be talking to people whose lives here affect

because he'll be affecting them in ways almost impossible for us to imagine from the outside. in so far i can eat any service is to train with his views which might otherwise not be remitted. [applause] >> thanks for giving me my book back. good book. you have to read it. we have a few minutes for your question to my homeland in the back with a microphone. if you would identify to come to you with a microphone and kindly let us know who you are and what their affiliation is to keep your questions short because we don't have much time at midnight to get his opinion as possible. while you think of your

question -- we have one right away. so i won't ask what. >> thank you. i am a researcher at georgetown university that are history. i had a question for libya, but maybe more specifically you, john. he seem to imply the ngos working in haiti have not been helping haiti in the long run. just after the earthquake ulcers devices they ngos and government don't work in all the money will vanish. now it's been a complete reversal talks about 80 saying

they are not building the government and the strength of local government. so how would you solve this? on the one hand you don't want to give money to corruption and on the other hand you want to start the government. how do you do that? >> that's a very good point. i'll say one thing. where it's true there were reports in the popular media and elsewhere don't give money directly to the haitian government or don't work. much of the rhetoric and the state department and hillary clinton was the most prominent example, that many, many others for changing their tune. in the early 1980s going back to that. , there was a major split within usaid and others to avoid

tahitian government as much as possible. at that time they were saying volokh, the haitian government is notoriously corrupt and in the 1980s is a tater should. let's see what these parallel structures. it's been widely back eyes that but that's created as the clichéd script that term goes a republic of ngos. it is well known and incontrovertible the system has weakened the capacity of government in haiti and private petitions to manage their own affairs. there's really basically no two ways about it. however, there's many other reasons to keep that he was in within your own borders, one is our easy.

the money spent in the year after the earthquake, people went for $3 billion. 90% of that with two u.n. agencies and international red cross. 1% went to the haitian government. the ultimate terms remain a sickly in the single-digit enough canis major string attached that hampered the government's ability to feed its own priorities. this is well known, but it's really hard to change. the major group such as kaman x another helpmate bandit, a term they used to themselves, buy two get contracts and they really don't want to let go of them. it's easy to take the perception of corruption, and use it as a

justification for business as usual. the one thing i'll stick with the this corruption is a catchall term is so broad as almost to be useless because it describes such a wide variety of committees. look at transparency reports. a couple bug posts written by affiliated haitian chap your the only examples were seen being sold on the street, which is the intended goal of those donations and people using family connections to get their places, which is not in any way equivalent to what to a propensity to take disbursements and put them into a personal bank account in switzerland spending them on appropriate projects.

i'm not saying corruption is not a major concern in haiti. one way is to fund institutions literally the anticorruption unit were to fund agencies such as police or customs bureaus to pay higher salaries so employees don't be to collect bribes to feed their families. the excuse of further contributing to the evening and even corruption within the government is a bad strategy. it's not going to be easy to change, but i don't know anybody seriously about the mississippi is any way possible without change. >> if i could. i >> i suddenly found an issue i can disagree with jonathan.

after the earthquake was no government. if you provide relief company i.t. is so was available to come in and provide it. the level of destruction of government agencies there as well during that time and a lot of middle and top government officials had been killed as a result of the earthquake initially you have no option. the issue is the distinction between humanitarian relief and development. first you have to do with jonathan said is listen to the haitian. the answers have been there for years in terms of education, et cetera. the issue is how to make a development policy and the program effect it you need to

deliver services. at this point the government has poorly developed at the local government level are the worst kind of absence of investments are made. dnc buries user to have come up and make a requirement at every grade to every ngo and say he's got x. every year you transfer 20% of which are providing to the government pert regency and never granted every contract dates built within it to be at some point carrying out duties themselves. there has been a lot of corruption we don't have any

oversight. you have to build the internal accountability within those agencies and have citizens accountability as well. you can simply continue to provide money to the beltway bandits are the ngos. you need is your philosophy to provide services to build and petitions at the same time. >> you can take off, but i wanted to say i agree it would've been possible in the immediate aftermath of her talking about the afternoon of january 122 suddenly scale up to the haitian government. nonetheless it is abundantly clear it had to be changed at some point it hasn't changed and will be another disaster in the future could be a real shame to see a situation or people say

that they too have done this but we never got around to it. there's always an emergency and it's always too late. i >> my problem was doubled because i was ambassador. i thought to have budget support from the government. now i work in haiti and i think the big problem is not the government of ngo. a lot of the ngos seem to be following the path. they don't know what they're doing. so i think it's a problem of accountability. yesterday i gave the example of

what is happening right now. why is that we will not be able to hold elections. take these numbers. 460 laptops. 207 extended computer memory cards. 88 portable batteries. 160 solar panels disappeared in the offices of the electoral council. it is the prosecutor equivalent to district attorney for attorney general here who made the discovery that happened in the government office.

it was provisional back then. the prosecutor of the attorney general has been five. there is no investigation to know what has happened. there was no break in. here is a major issue of corruption, theft of the highest level and we don't know what happened in the u.s. is giving more money now for the next election to buy perhaps all the secret and again. so i say yes, we have to support government because i think there's no other way to do it. however, we have to demand

accountability. >> hi, my name is kendra. i work for a small mob profit. by shearing d.c. -- [inaudible] i've two questions. the first is for anyone. i saw paul claimer with the first guide book for two reasons in haiti since the 80s. i wonder if you think that's a feasible alternative to the garment industry as a sector that could rebuilder reconstruct haiti. the second question is for mr. katz and that is how do you get people to actually start listening that of saying they are listening and how do you ensure the longevity instead of having it be a one time project?

thanks. >> paul wrote a wonderful book. it's a fascinating read on its own. he layers a lot of history interesting perspective besides eat here come the sleep here. paul would also agree with the statement that you have to be very careful about how you do tourism. again there's a lot of talk as one of the major spokes of perhaps bill clinton's view of the reconstruction of haiti for the view put forth by paul collier in january 2009 has given up agriculture but also tourism is a major goal. it seems to be obvious. we have to be careful how you do it. before i lived in haiti, spent

two years in the dominican republic, dependent on foreign tourism, bore small percentage benefit in any way from it. a lot of the jobs done in the all-inclusive walkoff results are by haitians, some they are legally can get sent back when it came to pay them off that they're very good at their jobs. you have to be careful about that. that is not a model to replicate the compound all inclusive tourism like you see in the caribbean. that said, there are ways to ricin can be done while. one idea put out for to start is encouraging infrastructure to go back and visit their families or ancestral homeland and building

from not in ways that the smaller scale tourism that would allow more interaction between haitians and tourists of the complicated balance. how to ensure people they send and make sure they keep listening is very difficult to do. i think this may be part of what's behind the question. a lot of organizations have a little box for community participation and there'll ways to do it. you balance that with everything else. yeshivas accountability. the question as to who are the groups are the government not as

accountable? the way the system is constructed right now, primarily people in haiti are accountable to donors if you get a big grantor ultimately accountable, maybe to some extent congress. and that's an issue because they are different outside than in dynamic doesn't require them to be aphoristic audacious. it maybe they are different. they are not derived from a perspective of a people made in their individual life. one is to rewire accountability to come up with a mechanism that these groups are accountable can only happen under ideal circumstances of the haitian

state. the haitian government if they're doing something that crystallize in one major point since it's been brought up a couple times is one of the models should be the united nations. the fact that all the evidence shows the united nations was responsible to cut 8000 people. it refuses to consider some accountability can have their day in court is a bad place to start. humanitarians have to take the principle of no harm in trying to hold themselves accountable for its own sake and the ultimate vacation state has to be fought. >> i want to address the tourism

part of the question. why was the ambassador here, i try to get the government to pay attention. haiti's unique. it has a culture, a history that none of the others have had. i like to see haitian fortifications. we have more than 30 of them throughout the country built to fight the war of independence. if these were renovated, were built around us, you would first have the haitian diaspora would

attract people to come to a place to see where freedom started and how it started. we have a tool nsa said, the appropriate type of residences. i'm quite sure that most people combat will tell your friend you have to go to haiti to see would have been 200 years ago and how that changed including the united states. >> i think we have time for one last question so we can get to the presentation into a three minutes. >> you mentioned a baby in bits.

i'm wondering if you spot any good come out of the contract is post-earthquake? >> on an individual level, if you are cursed with lost everything in the earthquake and you're struggling and you don't i make it from day to day and you're able to receive some thing, it's appreciated and can be a good thing. tarps and tents were referred to as the symbol for a failure, but they do not themselves were better than dixon bedsheets people reliving them your immediately after. if we were talking about three years later it would certainly be a worse situation. there are other bigger things to talk about. one thing was medical aid

provided. it saved the lives indisputably. people receiving health care on an order of magnitude they'd never seen before in their lives. a lot of groups found themselves treating car accident cases of malaria in children with congenital defects that would've never been addressed otherwise. for those families that is because in. you have to look at this in context and the big picture at once. real fast back to the medical situation where private practices of top tours in port-au-prince put out of business by competition from free medical aid. although they were free projects underway to build hospitals to a large extent the health care system came in in terms of free

donut eight did not leave behind the structural improvement in made it possible for people not getting care to get along after. it is not an ape and every single person to say the call of these screwed up. you should go home and cry yourself to sleep every night. but the lack of coordination and oversight of the long-term impacts of this are doing and understand their are certain things and will be much, much more beneficial in the long run. >> do you want to come forward? we will shift around and have a quick timeout of our website.

>> good evening, everyone. my name is make peers at the institute for global and international studies. part of the initiative that require has launched includes a website which incorporates a bibliography to haitian development and they smell blood. we welcome contributing authors to post on their blog. on the homepage we have a variety of posts. our team writes posts relative to development event and the yeah. we also reflect the recently published articles.

that's all very interesting. we have a link to a bibliography in this tab. if functions as a mori nation -- all of the publications are put in separate folders. if you look for information related to gender development issues or agriculture education, everything is sympathize for you already. we have a tabulated to caribbean current events to keep in good haiti's role and finally an event's top tier. anything in d.c. we will have a post about it. if you're interested in events like this coming a mile them. i will turn it back over to bob to wrap a. >> thanks.

[applause] >> once again i would like to thank make and scott for doing the website. this is the beginning is and does meg said, we welcome your participation. we hope the bibliography section can help you do research and i think our ultimate goal with the website is we would like to have it expand into a website that could help contribute towards that accountability we've heard. we want to help ngos be accountable to the people in haiti and we will find a way to do that on the website. this brings us to an end to our program. the city who had questions we couldn't get to, perhaps you could approach the speakers informally. we have on this site is not part and lots of sweets over there.

otherwise, i kid you not coming and i would like to thank c-span. we are very thankful about that and we hope you come back in the future. everyone, thank you and goodnight. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> homeland security secretary, janet napolitano talked about orders security and possible changes to immigration laws debated in washington. she also talks about cybersecurity and counterterrorism operations. the "christian science monitor" hosted this hour-long event.

[inaudible conversations] >> okay, folks. i'll give you a little time to eat. >> i can eat and talk at the same time. >> i am dave cook from the monitor. our guest today is the secretary from homeland security, janet napolitano. this is her sixth visit and we welcome her back. our guest is a new york city native who grew up in pittsburgh and albuquerque after graduating from santa clara university and university of virginia law school. she moved to phoenix to clerk for an appeals judge. later i guess practice law. in 1993, secretary napolitano the same a post he held until being elected as arizona state attorney general and he 90.

in 2002, she was elected as arizona's governor and breezed to reelection in 2006. in their off-duty hours she typed the himalayas, climbed mount kilimanjaro and appropriate this week is a major basketball fan. now onto mundane mechanical matters. please no light logging or treating with the breakfast is underway. there's no embargo except that c-span has agreed not to use video for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to get those of us and their amici to file. in the interest of preserving the group's reputation such as it is, if you'd like to ask a question, do the traditional big and suddenly a subtle monfort signal and i will call on one and all. with that madam secretary, the

floor is yours. >> good morning, everybody. it's good to be back. i've been in different roles as a pet different jobs over time, that it's always good to be back. we had this not celebrating the 10th universe every of the department of homeland security, which many types of institution building at the governmental level is the largest rear commiseration since creation of the defense department and as you know was commanded at 22 separate agencies while the d.c. department as those things that federalizing the airport screening workforce. i think of the time post-9/11 is dhs 1.0. it is finally recognizing the threat out in the world and a concrete way.

it is taking the initial step to work in ice department once it was inactive. tom ridge deserves a lot of credit for that. it's hard work to bring that many people together under one roof. mike chertoff continued that tradition during his time as secretary. i think of the last four years as dhs to play no where we were building on the foundation they had laid, getting a more mature sense of risk, what our value days. ..

so a lot is going on at the department in this regard. if i might i will mention a few particular issues. one is cyber, rapidly growing. we did a workforce analysis last year and brought in on a voluntary basis i might say a lot of experts through the private sector among other places to really look at what cyberskills we need in our department, what we are missing, what are the gaps and where we need to go. the presidents budget has consistently put more money into cyberand the budget that was

adopted last week also does the same thing. it has an anomaly for cyberin there. i spent a lot of my time working through the arrangements and what are our relations with the private sector? how do we organize ourselves with the nsa and the fbi where where -- who is doing what so a lot of time being spent organizing ourselves even as we work with the congress on revisiting cybersecurity legislation. >> -- says you are trying to higher 600 workers, is that true? >> not just hackers but others others -- exactly. we have identified our immediate needs of our 600 more than we currently have so we are in that process now. secondly, immigration and all of the attendant issues.

as you know, one of the major changes we made during dhs 2.0 was to prioritize immigration enforcement to really focus on those who would violate criminal laws in addition to who are repeat violators are who we caught at the borders where they got into the interior of the country. as we moved to high priorities we also started looking at things that are low priority and that led to a memo i sent to the director of i.c.e. and the direct or of g.i.'s last summer in june deferring action on qualified young people who would come to our process and go through a background check and the like. recall that the action for childhood arrivals program. it has some resemblance to the d.r.e.a.m. act which fail but in other ways it is not similar i.e. it doesn't provide a

pathway to citizen ship? why? because the campaign we have had over 400,000 young people now apply and i think, i want to say it's over 220,000 -- heather in my right about that? what is the number we have granted? it's over 200,000 have actually been through the entire process and have been granted. we are working and being very supportive of immigration reform. we have been providing technical assistance to the so-called gang of eight in the senate and we continue to work to emphasize our mission with respect to order security. the third area that is a big change for us and it's like turning a big ship is to move in the travel and trade space into a risk-based approach where we

don't treat every threat equally and we don't treat every passenger the same, but based on what we know or don't know about travelers, we can identify who we can expedite through the lines versus those we don't know much about that we need to be spending our time on. so you will see we have expanded global entry. if you don't have your global entry card you really ought to get it. for those who have it and for those who travel internationally if you arrive at jfk and you see people going through the lines, that's because they have their global entry card. and then we have the domestic version called tsa pre-check, which has been growing very rapidly. our hope is that by the end of this year one in four travelers will be in some sort of extradited travel program which allows us to again focus on those we don't know much about and hopefully it will take some

pressure off of the weight lines at the airports. we have done the same with cargo internationally it's a much more difficult environment. we have dual missions to keep dangerous people and cargo out of the united states but also to facilitate the legitimate travel and trade that has to occur in a vibrant economy. so moving to risk-based as opposed to a cookie-cutter approach is a major change in how we address these and it's the right thing to do. finally, i can't close my remarks without mentioning budget and sequestration. it is difficult to manage a large department such as ours when you never quite know if you are going to have a budget, what is in it and whether you are going to give more or less and so forth. we welcome the actions last week when dhs finally got a 2013 budget and congress did put the

money back in for customs and border protection as well as cyber-- cyber. you have to actually reach down and count to see where the money is. so i cannot tell you today exactly what impact that will have but we will work through those even as we acknowledged that sequestration does have real impacts and those will evolve over time. but we will work our way through it. we will work our way through dhs 3.0 i think in a very positive fashion where the department continues to coalesce, where we continue to work on things like the chill adey and flexibility and where we move to a smarter and more effective way to enact or to push through the security of the united states. that is my report.

>> thank you madam chairman. can you sort of as a softball while you finish your breakfast can you give us a sense of which of them the many areas you have to worry about keep you up to date most at night? >> it's interesting because there is so much that comes across our desk. if you boil down dhs to the five missionary as we have counterterrorism, air landed seed order security come immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, disaster preparation response and recovery, you could stay up at night on any one of those. what occasionally keeps me up at night i've got to tell you is not what i know about because what i know about we can do something about. it's what's out there that i don't know about. some operation that i haven't seen, some threat that hasn't become evident.

some new mechanism or techniques that are being used by cybermalefactors from around the world. so it's the known unknowns that can cause a problem. >> the last one from me. last week one of your officials and customs and border protection said that the department had made no progress on coming up with a new measure security for the border conditions. as you know the legislators who are working on a bipartisan immigration package are interested in such a measure. can you explain why if the report is correct there has been no progress and why that is the case? >> well, the border index was a project we undertook because we thought just measuring apprehension at the border was not in and of itself a total

measure of what life was like at the border. we needed to look at things like property values and crime rates and things of that sort for the 7 million or so people particularly who live along the u.s.-mexico border. it turns out that is a very difficult thing to do and any kind of statistically significant way. but in terms of how we measure border security and what we look for is a combination of the manpower, the technology we have, the aerial coverage and infrastructure. so for example we now have aerial coverage over the entire southwest border. we didn't have that before. forces on the ground and the technology part is absolutely critical force multiplier. we have station more border patrol agents down at the border than ever before. so the numbers have been driven to 40 year lows. just look at things like

apprehensions. so we know we are achieving success there but a real measure is more qualitative. really when you step back and think about the border, what you want is the ability to spot illegal traffic particularly in the highly trafficked areas. some parts of the border are virtually not trafficked at all and then the ability to respond to what is seen. and using that measure and the plans we have we are confident that the border is as secure as it has ever been. >> but do you have a -- >> but there is no one number that captures that. that is the problem. if you are looking for just one number, border security encompasses a lot of different things but as we look at managing the border what we are looking for is the ability to detect if illegal persons and

contraband coming across the border and then the ability to intercede. >> in i wanted to ask following up on that with the communication has been, what sort of recommendations was given to the gang of faith on how to make the border more secure and what sorts of things could be implemented? i know the administration has said it's the most secure its bed and what more can be done to make us believe that? >> without. >> she -- speaking specifically to what we have given the gang of eight because i don't know exactly what they're looking at but i can tell you what we did with the congress in general. one is technology plans. what -- 1 of the decisions i made a year plus ago is the

notion that one water called sbinet the powers that would go along the 2000 miles of the border and create a virtual sense, it didn't work. the border, parts of it are arid desert and parts of it are lush along the rio grande river. it's every kind of terrain you can imagine so rather than one approach it's affected by sector technology as to what would be the most useful manpower we have in each sector. those plans have been given to the congress and they have been completed. so i think what more can be done is to make sure those plans are filled out. in other words we make the acquisitions and deploy the technology but i think in terms of manpower, we are really there and what i try to communicate when i speak with members of congress is look, border

security is not somehow different when looking at the overall emmett -- integration system. for example, we know the key driver, a key driver of immigration is the demand for labor. we made a national e-verify or some such system so that employers have a way to comply with the immigration law, but that enables us tend to focus on employers who are invading the immigration law. we need a better way to let people come legally through the borders. it's a real incentive in a way for illegal immigration if you're going to be separated from your family for 10 years and that happens way too often. or if you can't get the right kind of visa for 15 years, that sort of thing. so straightening out the visa system for legal immigration is

concerned is part of it. so when we talk about border security, you actually got to look at the immigration system as a whole. [inaudible] i was frankly surprised by the congressional reaction. they are usually telling tsa that they are doing too much and a lot of people came out in opposition to this change. how do you just generally how do you balance that with tsa being a punching bag rather regardless of whether you are ramping up security measures? >> is kind of like gilda rattner. if it's not one thing it's another. i think frankly it's the right decision from a security standpoint. we are trying to prevent a --

and if you are talking about a small knife, there are are the things on a plane that somebody could convert into a small sharp objects so from a security standpoint it's the right decision. i think where we could have done better quite frankly was a little more legislative and public outreach before we announce the decision to try to give it a softer landing as it were. but i told the director that we are moving to risk-based. that means risk-based and sometimes people are going to be unhappy with those decisions but in the end we think we have preserved security and will facilitate just normal travel. >> thank you secretary napolitano for being here today. >> my question is the release of the dash a month ago had been in

the news and there has been a lot of back and forth whether these were criminal releases are not criminal. what has prevented dhs from compiling and releasing broader statistic to show why people are deported and what level of crime i know they have broad categories like category 1 and level 2 and three. what is preventing dhs from releasing the actual offenses we have seen? >> well i think, i don't know if that is then presented but you have to understand this is a different population than prisoners in a way. the average detention is two weeks so it's a constantly moving body of people. we maintain 34,000 or so that's in various detention facilities around the country. i think we have contracts with upwards of 50 and so yes we can

compile the statistics but it's not like running a state prison system where it's a fairly stable population and you know when they come in and you know when they go out. it does take a bit of work to get all the numbers in one place as it were. >> i understand you were not wild about holding a couple hundred immigrants and solitary confinement long enough to damage their mental health. >> i was not wild about this story. but, look solitary confinement should be the exception and not the rule. it should read the shorter term as possible and it should be monitored very carefully. so i have asked i.c.e. to go back and give me information on

the specific cases that were referenced, when those occurred and facts and i say that as reported were accurate and then looking at all of our policies with respect to solitary. solitary is used for a variety of reasons. one is foreign inmates on protection. one is for an inmate who for whatever reason is seriously disruptive to the population. those are two reasons but it is not something that we should be doing on a routine basis and we need to look at our own policies to make sure we are as tight as we can be. >> we will do -- that goatee david graham, scott wyler and -- david. >> is that something that you are going to be able to put in place over the next intermediate term, three to five years this biometric plan that has been promulgated over long period of

time and how important is that system to use to be able to say to congress the borders secured and are immigration is secured? how central is that to eliminating some of those known unknowns they that keep you up at night? >> well we have got the entries down. if you come into a port, that is pretty solid. exit is more difficult. why? because our airports and land ports weren't designed to release exits. go to an average airport. you don't find people standing in exit line checking your document or your fingerprints. so just architecturally this space for doing some of that is difficult. what we have given to the congress is a two phased approach. one on exit is we now have very robust databases.

it's one of the big areas of reform we have made since the underwear bomber that enable us to do what we call in hands by the graphic exit based on what we get from the airlines among other things and we can cancel out that way. we have an arrangement now with canada. we just finished a pilot and we are going to move into full implementation where we are going to treat, we are going to give them armed entry data from canada which will count as their exit and vice versa. so we just exchange the data. and as we deploy on what we call enhanced biographic, we would like all to middle he to be in a total biometric environment but that is going to take some time and some real dollars. i think from a safety and security standpoint what we have got and what we are deploying is

about 99% there. >> scott. speier said -- providing technical assistance to the immigration database. how involved are you with some of those discussions? are you calling on senators and meeting with them and john mccain and jeff flake. can you talk about what they're doing? >> i would prefer not to. i think they deserve space to conduct their discussions with some semblance of confidentiality until they are ready to announce whatever agreement they have. i think at some point the process will get filled out but i prefer not to speak to that right now. >> mr. naylor? >> you talked about long lines and customs entry and checkpoints and i'm just wondering, realized the program

program -- what are you seeing so far with substantial delays for travel? >> if you look at for example miami airport and laredo as a land port we had pretty long lines last weekend. at the airport a three-hour line we are going to not take the budget we have. part of that was just trying to manage within the cr we are operating under and with the uncertainty of what was ultimately going to be done to dhs when they look at our budget. now that we have a budget we can go back and look and go through everything we can to mitigate wide. unfortunately in one and one ofe things i would like to do is make lines shorter. so moving to risk-based, trusted traveler programs and all the rest do have that effect, but i

only have so many port officers and port inspectors. i only have so many tsa screeners and there is no contemplative expansion they are so there will be lines. >> alexis? >> what has changed and what we are seeing on the hill in the discussion and separately -- to worry about the cost of immigration reform. what do you say about why those concerns might be misplaced -- the wanat. >> i think that in terms of scoring, one of the things we have looked at in terms of our own scoring is how much of it

should be fee-based. so for example if there is going to be a program where the 11 million undocumented in the country can now come out of the shadows and get there by metrics and we run that background checks and so forth that is a lot of people. but they will need to pay a fee. they wanted to pay a fine. they need to get right with the law. they did take the law. so some of this will be fee-based. port inspectors, the same way. i think we can look to that and have a feed based service at the poor particularly at the land ports for cargo and things of that sort. so you know again without speaking to what the gang of eight is looking at i can tell you as we look at this in terms of the white house, there are ways to deal with out without getting a big number that the cbo would have to score.

[inaudible] speier no way think it's interesting. four years ago when i started here and i went around the hill saying let's work together on immigration reform, i didn't really get a positive response. there were two wars going on and we were close to a depression. health care was winding its way through the congress and it was like we can't take on another big issue. i think now is the time. i think the election had consequences in that regard as people looked at the changing demographics of the united states and the changing demographics of voters in the united states. and i think that aligns with the general recognition. whatever side you are on on the immigration debate there is a wreck mission that the system we have needs to be fixed under the current reality. am i optimistic? i'm always optimistic and we

will do everything we can to support the bipartisan effort of the congress to get this done. >> my question deals with there were two terrorism suspects -- >> can you hearing about? >> there've been a couple of terrorism suspects picked up in the past couple of weeks one in italy and another relative of osama bin laden's. there's some criticism about trying these individuals in civilian court or guantánamo bay. what is the intention by not interrogating them and trying them in article iii courts versus trying them and circumstances at guantánamo bay where you can go through some of this -- >> i think with respect to the matters you reference and others that we have a variety of

techniques and excellent ways and quite frankly we have tried a number of terrorism suspects in article iii courts particularly and a real expertise has been developed there. they have actually done more trials and get mo i might add and gotten what i view to be very good results from a security and law enforcement perspective and an appreciation of the role that article iii courts play. so we have for example a multi-department, multiagency high value interrogation group that can feed in different types of questions that need to be asked. an example, from our standpoint let's say you find someone who

has been active in the bomb-making field particularly where aviation is concerned. we want to know what you learned, where you learned it, how he did it or how he would do it so that we can identify how we would find it and translate that into something that a tsa screener or somebody screening at the last point of the porch or in the united states would be looking at so we are looking now to trance per into operational purposes. we have thank organized ourselves in a way that they can get funneled into whoever is conducting the examination. [inaudible] >> were you in miami? >> florida is hard is it spring a spring break time and yeah

florida is just tough. >> contemplating the two-hour line and all the masses of humanity. the decade after 9/11 talking about 10 years after iraq, is there any thought more than a decade after dhs was created to eliminate the 9/11 terrorist attacks and scaling some of what seem like excessive measures back so that we are not always always -- traveling domestically with our kids? >> children under the age of 12 -- and if you are over 75 you can but let me tell you the reality. the reality is the aviation -- is not gone away and when i testify people say what are the

threats you are confronting? i always identify aviation and cyber. that is where we have seen operational activity and that is where we have seen pre-operational activity. technology has not yet caught up to where we would like to go although we are working both with their international partners and we are we are always looking at so-called cutting-edge technology to speed the process. finding a non-metallic substance that can be used as an explosive aboard the plane while you are moving 200 million passengers a day is a difficult technological and logistical task. so we rely a lot on intel and on different layers in the environment but until the technology catches up to what we need given the type of threat we continue to face, i think our best bet is again encourage more and more travelers to get into

these expedited programs, pre-check, global entry what have you so that we can move them into different lines and keep those lines shorter. >> that background checks could take -- >> no, no, global entry is very popular and for a while people were having to wait 60 to 90 days for a background check but that is now been reduced substantially. once you have that local entry you can get into pre-check. so we are in some respects staffing and doing that work so we can keep those weights as short as possible. [inaudible] as you look at immigration and

the experience in your home state to what degree do you see the influence of john mccain predicted that arizona will, a -- to, a blue state in short order and that dynamic in this whole debate? >> i think senator mccain has called it right. i think the demographics of arizona are changing. very rapidly and you see it happening every day. that does i think have some influence on those who previously had been in the immigration debate. i will tell you from an arizona perspective what happened in my view which is to say that in the early part of 2000 between closing off san diego and closing off el paso so much of the illegal traffic was funneled into arizona so that over half of the apprehensions for the

whole country were occurring in the tucson sect there. people lost confidence in the rule of law. that it was under any sort of control and i think that caused some real political pushback and people, people were legitimately concerned about what was going on. i was concerned. so when i came in and said look we are going to focus on this and shut that down, and so we have had from its peak to now i want to say 75 to 90% reduction in apprehensions along that arizona mexico border. and you know at some point public perception begins to change back. in other words more and more

people are saying yeah there is security down there and the rule of law is being appreciated and now when you live in a border state you recognize that you need an immigration system that really works. people will go back and forth and families are on both sides of the borders. people work in the united states and work in mexico and vice versa. that is the kind of system we want to have where you really have a good sense of who is leading and who is coming, where they are going and how long they are anticipated to stay. >> do you talked about arizona becoming a blue state and the fact of the matter is -- competitive five years earlier since mccain was on the ticket so what is the timetable? >> you know i don't know. it will happen i think. it is, the fact that i could win

three straight elections there is indicative that democrats can win and do win in arizona. 2004 i think is an anomaly, senator mccain's favorite son is running. while i was not involved in the presidential campaign by current position keeps me out of electoral politics of that sort. my understanding is the obama campaign were in nevada colorado and new mexico. those three states which are really moved. arizona will be behind them but i think it will be more purple overtime but ultimately blue. >> around the electoral topic, a colleague of ours karen tumulty of the post said po said you have made it known that you are considering the presidential race. do you want to comment on that?

she said you are doing it quietly so this would be a good format to discuss it. leftists be by plate is so full now that kind of contemplation would be the kind of thing that would keep me up at night and i lose enough sleep as it is so i am fine with where we are at. >> we will welcome you back to make the announcement whenever you want to. >> speaking of senator mccain yesterday at a town hall meeting he announced he would never live away from losing -- using the term illegal immigrant and sometimes that phrase is appropriate. should we use that term or should we always say undocumented? >> i don't really get caught up in the book capillary wars. there are immigrants who are here illegally. there are immigrants who are here without documents, undocumented immigrants but keeping the focus on how we

write the system so we don't have as perennial large group who has in some respects a de facto amnesty because they are here. they are not leaving but there is no way for them to get right with the law and to pay a fine, learn english, make sure they are paying their taxes etc. etc. so that from every kind of law enforcement and security perspective it's much better to bring them out of the shadows then to consistently have them in the shadows. >> we have about 15 minutes. >> stuart pile and michael warren -- >> some of the senators working on immigration reform talk about it order security trigger that would have to be met before a pathway to citizenship could be opened or something along those fronts.

is there a statistically significant method and how possible do you think the measure like that could be as part of better immigration reform package? >> i think that once people really look at the whole system and how it works and relying on one thing is a so-called trigger, it's not the way to go. there needs to be certainty in the bill so that people know when they can legalize and then when that pathway to citizenship would open up. there is also talk about getting in the back of the line. that is easier said than done, calculating what the line is at any time. it moves so those judgments will have to be made. i think the key thing is to have order security in the bill, to open up legal migration and to deal with employers and then to

have certainty with how you deal with the 11 million here who are either illegal or undocumented depending on what you're vocabulary is, to come out of the shadows. >> deborah. [inaudible] >> they have a bunch of different skill sets. we don't need ph.d.s in computer whatever for many of the skill sets that we need so one of the things we ask people to look at is what do we need? are there for example associate degrees? that would be helpful to have and are cyber cadre and the answer is yes. we look at different bachelors degrees. we look at -- do we are beginning a whole host of internships and fellowships for young people to compete for and against trying to introduce them

to public service and the interesting work they can do at dhs. we just started this year a secretarial honors program modeled on what the justice department does. we kind of announced it at the end of the season because it's new and we didn't really hit a peak but even there we had over 3000 kids compete for 60. we know there is a market there. i think young people are very interested in the concept of public service. they may not necessarily see that as government service so you have to make that leap for them. >> another part of cyber, some computer cyberexperts are saying there's a fear of building up the threat scenario too much and everyone talking about a potential cyberweapon and it's actually going too far and it's

not doing any good. >> there are different types of cyber events. there are individual hackers and hactivist. there are groups that conduct actions on the web, on the net. there are some that can be state sponsored so and the u.s. has to be in a position where not everything is dealt with at the same level because they were different types of attacks and methodologies and so forth. my focus right now quite frankly is getting more caffeine. [laughter] my real focus is on the intersection with the private sector because they control most of our nation's critical and the structure. the congress rejected a -- approach. we are looking under the president's executive order

reaching out to them where we are particularly concerned about some sectors where there has been a lot of that to the with energy but others as well. so i think for the next nine months to a year that private sector connection and the nsa and fbi has adopted -- [inaudible] just call or let us know. the quicker we get information the better we can help with mitigation so that issue with the there is going to be key to our ability to do things but again going to your question not everything is -- obviously.

>> the temporary worker program that you talked about has been one of the touchier areas. how do you create a program like that balances the security need where you get workers and also out and people who say that these workers are taking american jobs? >> right. again not speaking to what's going on in the gang of eight but in any temporary worker program you've got to get that balance right between opening up and filling labor markets that need labor versus depressing wages. there are a lot of ways you can do that. the department of labor has a huge role to play. they get the stats and they look at what the prevailing wage rates are and the like. i think that the u.s. chamber in

afl-cio have had a whole string of discussions this winter, so somewhere in there there is an agreement to be reached. >> stuart? [inaudible] [inaudible] can you talk about the volume that would pose a real risk whether internal or external carrion and how much of a threat it is? >> well depending on what the fluid is the amount that we require is calculated so if that were to be used it would not be a significant enough event to blow a hole in the plane. we already checked the checked

baggage so the way to deal with it right now is to keep large amounts by and large. there are also powder substances. one of the the real of aleutians of technology has been explosive detection equipment. it has gotten better and better and better and canines are very useful. a member of congress said why don't you just use canines and do away with all of this and the answer is there aren't enough canines in the world to do it and secondly i have learned a lot of interesting things in this job. [laughter] i can talk on on most any topic now because at some point it has crossed my desk. the deal with canines, they can only work so long. you have to have shifts and of course you need their handlers

with them and then you need to continually be replacing and refreshing your k-9. canines while they serve a very useful purpose and we do use them you cannot use them, you can't rely on them as your only tool in the toolkit. but i really like them. [laughter] >> michael. >> why do you give the administration more credit for securing the border? >> i don't know. i think it's difficult to change public perception. you can always go down the border and find somebody who is unhappy. you can go to any city in the united states and do the same thing. we are not talking about an environment in which you are at zero. there is never illegal crossings and we are not saying that there's no contraband that comes to the country across the borders. what we are saying however is that the borders more secure now

than it has ever been and is a continuing commitment and process for us. the best way now to get the maximum amount of our border security efforts in addition to the technology plans which i told you about is to deal with the other parts of the immigration system that directly impact how much traffic we are dealing with at the border. >> anybody u.s. and not had one. >> there's a lot of change going on in mexico with a new administration. [inaudible] >> i have known president -- for a long time. i'm really hoping for this administration. i'm getting to know mike counterpart and we will be meeting with him soon i think. and we have already had a number of other meetings. our staffs are communicating daily. so you know i think mexico, the

president realized that is safe and secure border is not just a law enforcement necessity but you will have economic growth in mexico you got to have control over the security situation. he gets it both from law enforcement and an economic perspective. i'm very optimistic about the work, some of which will continue from president calderon's administration and new projects that will get underway. >> you mentioned what is missing and what are the gaps. >> i hate to identifier gaps in public. but i think, i mentioned critical infrastructure. there is so much going on there that being able to increase our response and respond teams, we

want to continue to enlarge the 24/7 watch floor that we have. those are immediate areas where i anticipate growth. >> what about the operational gaps when you look at cyber? >> he i think the key thing in cyber and something i mentioned a minute ago is the information sharing and real-time is absolutely key. so we need to have an environment in which the private sector is confident that when they transmit real-time information that we can deal with it in real time and they will not suffer business competition or other consequences as a result. so working through these private sector issues is going to be a real challenge for us. >> let me close with two quick

questions. the secret service falls under your supervision. [inaudible] in jerusalem? >> no i do not know but the secret service, that's one of the reasons there is planned redundancy and secret service operations. sometimes things don't work properly and rather than pull up the entire presidential motorcade you have a substitute ready to go. >> one of the things most intriguing to me in researching this is that you don't use e-mail. without giving away state secrets can you say how you keep on top of the huge information for without using e-mail? >> i actually think it's better. i think e-mail actually just up time and you are all nodding and laughing but you know why. >> the truth.

i have a variety of ways. i'm constantly getting reports and e-mails throughout the day that come in through my headquarters staff that get to me. i do a lot of my own work by phone but i haven't found it to be a problem. it allows me to when information gets to me or when i seek information and it gets to me it's not superfluous. it's the stuff that in this job which has 100,000 different things on any given day it allows me to focus on where i need to focus. [inaudible] >> i think in many respects in a job like mine it's inefficient. i stopped using e-mail when i was the attorney general of arizona because i was getting hundreds and hundreds of things

all the time. i was like, why am i spending my time scrolling through this and responding to stuff that does not need to be responded to and i also don't like the process where people can send you an e-mail and then say see, i you know this and then it comes back two years later to say hey you got this e-mail among the thousands you get every day. i want to be a more selective on how that goes. if people want to get me give me the information there are many ways to do so. [inaudible] >> i don't know. do you all like getting e-mails? do you like? the business you are in. i may use it at some point but right now i have no contemplation of doing so. >> you are not on twitter apparently. >> i don't text and i don't twitter. we have found that social media

disaster response is really quite useful. we have our own web site. i stream videos and i get questions and stream videos of the answers from our employees. there are a lot of ways you can live life without e-mail. [laughter] everybody makes choices. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] after the argument we spoke to reporters about the case. we will hear from of prominent gloria allred and ted olson.

an attorney charles cooper who argued in favor of the law. [applause] >> while you were waiting i would just like to introduce the two original plaintiffs in california on marriage equality. robert tyler, diane olson and i'm their attorney gloria allred and we were the first in california to announce that we would challenge the ban on marriage equality. we fought for six years, twice the california supreme court including making the arguments against in the california supreme court and we also argued that even though we felt it was unconstitutional that the 18,000 couples who had married after

her first victory in the california supreme court, those marriages should remain valid and after our first victory robin and diane were able to marry and the 18,000 couples are permitted to have their marriages remain valid and we are here today because we want the u.s. supreme court to overturn prop 8. thank you very much. >> i just want to say one thing. if 36,000 are married in california what will it harm if more couples get married? we have been married for five years. california has not dropped into the sea. nothing is happening in california. we are not an experiment. we are civil rights movement and we deserve civil rights and i hope they come down on the right side of history.

it's not a matter of if we are going to be able to marry, it's a matter of when this issue is all. we will win eventually because the public is on our side. thank you. >> that is robin tyler. this is also diane olson. diane is the granddaughter of a former governor of california, governor olson. also i filed an amicus in this case in the perry case that was heard this morning on behalf of the women's equal rights legal defense and education fund. >> thank you very much. >> please identify yourselves. >> my name is charles cooper and i represent the petitioner's in this case. the parties and their lawyers have now litigated this case for almost four years.

and finally at this point the case as you have seen was presented to the court. the court asks some penetrating measured cases from both sides and now it's in the hands of the court so we are looking forward to hopefully a prompt response. this as i said difficult controversial issue. there is no way to sum up my argument in a couple of sentences. we believe that proposition 8 is unconstitutional and and a place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people and not the courts. >> what do you make of the questioning -- >> thank you very much. thank you. >> the petitioners don't have --

that would be a win for you what it not? >> yes. i will mention briefly and then david can. there are more ways in which we can proceed in this case because the state of california decided that proposition 8 was unconstitutional and although they were enforcing it they quit defending it wants the district judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. then you have the argument that no one is going to appeal this case and the proponents who were in court today who were the are the authors of the measure didn't have the right to carry it forward. if that is the case the district court decision finding proposition 8 unconstitutional stands and the governor and the officials of california would be enforcing it in that would be the end of proposition 8 or the ninth circuit decided that under the circumstances in california proposition 8 is unconstitutional because of those circumstances in california.

the third way is that there are many states who have acknowledged the right to raise children and to live together in households and the court can decide that structure is unconstitutional because california and those states have admitted that individuals can live together and have families and raise children and they don't have any defense on that. finally the broadest argument that we have made is that it's just wrong, it's not consistent with the ideals and the laws in and the constitution of this country to take our brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights that we give to everyone else. that is the broadest possible outcome and any one of those four outcomes would you use success in terms of overturning proposition 8. >> you can hear the arguments before the court today starting momentarily on c-span. the supreme court will consider same-sex marriage tomorrow with an oral argument ie