>> that case was a frontal attack on the legitimacy of the weapons themselves as opposed to their testing.

we almost got there at the court held and i quote that the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law hackable in armed conflicts. all, the little word generally. generally. why? again representing somalia, we tried desperately to include a provision that criminalized the use of nuclear weapons both international and and on international armed conflict. alas, it became clear that for a permanent five members of the security council, also possessors of the bomb, and most of the nato allies that three of them, that this was a

dealbreaker that would result in a failed negotiation. so we had to back off your but we did get in some language generally in support of generally illegal, and i'm will come back to the. i think you'll understand why "the butter battle" look struck a chord with me when it came out in 1984. i like to think of it as the most significant book of that orwellian year, 1984. it was a time when many people the world over, officials organizations of doctors and lawyers, were groping their way towards a massive civil society effort that led to the advisory proceedings on nuclear weapons. you will appreciate i'm using civil society in a way definitely from the title of this symposium, but civil

society of course is the term we used to describe entertainers, organizations who speak in the name of the people to try to actually get government to do something, or not do something as the case may be. and all that, nongovernmental efforts persuaded the taking of the case on the legality of weapons through the world health organization, and in nation's general assembly to the international court. and 1984, mutually assured -- love that term. tell them about when you read the book. mad is what the, policy was. but it wasn't an invention of the reagan administration then in charge in washington. it was a concept as they sought to outdo the evil empire.

remember them, those dreadful commies, of which ronald reagan spoke, the people with change in your atheist souls. butter side down, too. and it was terrible commie bread. indeed, ronnie the ray gun himself sought to make mad at obsolete, at least to the united states with his star wars program the that, remember that one? star wars, the ray gun approach. that would destroy the bad guys missiles in the air. dr. seuss might have made a little more about star wars in the book than he did. he noted in passing, remember when the zooks invented -- alas,

poor ronnie's toy was never up to the task of catching. noted ronnie ended bomb shelters. but dr. seuss' character still put great faith in them. i confess, had it been a yook, i would not have had much faith in chief yookeroo to go down that hall for the country and right side of butter. be that as it may, humanitarian law which is often talked about in the nuclear weapon case regulates destroying and killing in times when there's recourse for arms. some was a destroying and killing have been forbidden. absolute in some cases conditionally and others. a smart kid and my daughter's class used the word oxymoron to

describe the law of armed conflict. i don't quite know who put him up to that, but his teacher was thinking really well when she said try out the word oxymoron sometime, son. and he did. but nevertheless, i think we can do our best. the international court advisory opinion on nuclear weapons has two cardinal principles. the first is aimed at the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects that establishes that a succinct competent and non-competent. they must never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. according to the second principle it is prohibited to use weapons that cause

unnecessary suffering. prohibited use though, uselessly aggravating their suffering. alongside such lofty principles, some narrow rules, a very small egg. does, arousing early segment of the principal about useless activation in 1968 and the declaration of st. petersburg lead to a ban on a projectile of less than 400 grams which has explosives or implantable certain substances. think about it. you could have a dirty bomb, kaboom, which blows up a lot of people, but you can't have a little one which explodes in one purpose. they are, illegal, bad, wrong. and, of course, we have other

things like expanding bullets, poisoned weapons, and succeeding gases, and biological weapons. and even as the international red cross points out, lances which have been outlawed. but i fear both the zooks and yooks would argue for the legality of the big-boy boomeroo. after all, will ensure that there's an acceptable amount of collateral damage as far as the citizenry is concerned. imploring the same velocity as nuclear powers, there was a mysterious moo-lacka-moo with which the boom room was filled does not poisoned a 60 the military. it merely blows the zooks clearly to sala-ma-goo. and immediate and time of death, no unnecessary suffering there. of course, if the zooks don't

have shelter, and the general language, surely applies. it makes it a crime and i quote, to intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause loss of life or injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment that would be clearly excessive in relation to the country and direct military advisers anticipated. but, of course, who will be around to bring a prosecution and the likes of the eucharist and even grandfather general? time to put in a plug for creepy making it. we probably cannot negotiate the best place for butter on bread, so have to live with differences on that.

but can't we agree to disarm together? it would of course be at peace bonus that we could spend on, say, health care, encouraging the breeding of cows that produce low cholesterol butter, for example. there's something we might be able to agree on any win-win negotiation. disarmament has been the gulf since the beginning of the united nations. article six of the 1968 treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons contains that striking but unfulfilled promise in article six. each of the parties to the treaty undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, and on nuclear disarmament, and this is

a good one, on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. the hope of many other proponents of the nuclear weapons case wasn't undermine legitimacy of the bomb, which jumpstart the negotiations under article six. the last, not yet. think been about the end of dr. seuss, old generals stand on the wall with the bomb poised in both cases. will they drop it or won't they? well, it's dr. seuss' hope that the zooks and the yooks would come to their senses. as you conclude. the patients, said grandpa, we will see, we will see.

this grandpa is a little impatient that general and complete disarmament is not with us yet. thank you. [applause] >> well, first i have some great news for roger to i haven't indicated copy of the book review which i believe is the only reference to "the butter battle" book in all online. second, before i begin i want to share brief oh, the places you'll go, mom. sixers ago i just finished my first year of law school, and i have received an offer to spend a summer at the supreme court in pennsylvania, in pittsburgh which was my dream summer job. i just finished a graduate degree from carnegie mellon.

i've gone there as an undergrad. my sons were still there. i wanted to go back. but i applied, and got accepted into a future of americans study program from a weeklong conference at dartmouth led by one donald peace. so fortune at a very understanding judge who gave me a week off to drive hanover and spend a week reconnecting with cultural studies and american studies where i got to meet donald and after reading a lot of his work in graduate school. and so it was with great excitement that this holiday season when i was preparing for this conference, between family meals and gatherings i was again reading the professors were, this time his excellent biography, theodore -- theodor geisel.

a critical reading of dr. seuss' "the butter battle" book and a renewed call to global citizenship or the first, a bit of introduction about the book. "the butter battle" book was published in 1984, the orwellian here, which also marked theodor geisel's 80th birthday. this was significant through his previous work spoke america and a statically. but grammatically the butter battle book joins the lorax as his strong social commentary and strongest work. the lorax was the capitalism and the ensuing environmental degradation that it creates. "the butter battle" book demonstrates nuclear armed proliferation during the cold war. aesthetically the book is david and joins the lorax and oh, the places you'll go as the party from trenches to the coal use of a narrative and these two books created intergenerational

dialogue as a rep sent an adult -- as a rep sent an adult constructing a child and how and what to enter from the adult generation. rather than trenches numerous other works, acting in the absence of adults, or the stories action taking place in united nation. geisel completed "the butter battle" in response to ronald reagan's escalation of the arms race, a policy that they refer to as deadly stupidity. certainly a powerful petite of nuclear arms proliferation. i think "the butter battle" book is by the more valuable for its depiction of how society has progressed to armed conflict. is the text demonstrates the destruction of the other as an associate aspect of conflict to condition the book illustrates the failure of international law to prevent the potential devastating conflict. accordingly i called for more progress of international law stand on global citizenship

rather than strong state sovereignty. "the butter battle" book begins with a designed grandfather zook, up the hill, on the last day of summer 10 hours before fall trailing off as an unfinished statement. on the following page, the perspective refuting the large wall dividing the landscape afforded identical pink houses that on either side, dotted rolling hills. to continue the narrative of the child, my grandfather took me to the wall. after stands out before the wall, he sadly shakes his head and tells the child, as you know, on this side of the wall we are yooks. on the far side of this wall live the zooks. after pausing he continued. it's high time that you knew of the terrible horrible thing that zooks do. in every zook house and every

zook town every zook eats his bread with the butter side down. on the opposite page, yooks looking remarkably similar to zooks. in the background proclaimed butter side down. the next page returne returned e child of a father next to the wall. a poster that reads yooks are not zooks. keep your butter side up over the wall several couches are visible and against this backdrop the grandfather says but as zooks as you know we spread our bread with the butter side of the that's the right honest way. grading his teeth he continued, so you can't trust a zook to spread bread underneath every zook must be watched. hhis kinks in his soul. that's why as do you, i watch as

michael watching zooks for the's of a patrol. so these opening images the grandfather describes a trivial but also a resolvable conflict that will threaten their societies but simply whether one utters his bread butter side up or butter side down. at the same time the images suggest the commonality, as they look and live in identically homes within the same landscape. despite these come announced the conflict is clear. the wall is the most obvious of conflict and creates a very that separates these two people. while also acts as a mental barrier by creating and contributing to an exclusionary mindset that focuses on keeping out. moreover, to ensure that the wall remains a breach, surveillance becomes critical. as the conflict intensifies, so does the need to exclude.

keeping the boris said he comes paramount and questions than the other nine -- underline russia for directing the barrier would be 10 about two trees in the propaganda is displayed both publicly on the zook site them and within the zook home on the other side. and continues to an internal his opposition between zooks and yooks. in this sense it produces both zook and yook to either or. for the absence of unwavering support for budding one spread upward and is simply inexcusable, or as the zook or yook might say, you are either with us or you are with those, butter side up, butter side down air. as the story progresses and the conflict escalates, uniforms get thank you. fight, fight for butter side up, do or die. a marching band ends song goes which interestingly the only

real gender in the book. and grandfather was from humble border patrol to general. nonetheless, what's most striking about the military escalation between the zooks at the yooks is not the elegant logic of our situation. but rather how the separatism to create a different culture with dignity, respect or even toleration makes this logic possible. most tellingly the reader never learns why bothering one's bread up or down even matters. there's no historical or cultural explanation for this difference or any explanation of the great importance of both zooks and yooks place on maintaining this difference. rather, they difference simply is. and harry could recall the arbitrariness of what we talked about are here today. so turning to international, international law say they enjoy specific rights and obligations.

illegal patch of course of the united nations charter. the charter however provides full support for intervening outside of the city council funding that the bombers standoff or previous act within a couple of some of the positives effective use of breach of peace or an act of aggression. within the yook complex there might be, but there probably has not been a breach of peace or aggression. moreover, while aggression the trigger u.n. security council action come is otherwise not yet a punishable crime. although now finally defined and amended to the convention of aggression will not become prosecutable under international law until 2017 at the earliest, and many commentators remain skeptical that it will receive the necessary support to become an event under the international criminal courts jurisdiction. likewise, international imagery law -- seeks to the effects of

armed conflict on civilian population. specifically international community law provides production does and tibetans to overtake a truck part in the hostilities. the first step in international humanitarian law can be done with an armed conflict exists and if so, what type. within the yook complex it is whether international law would apply. is unlikely an armed conflict would exist in this is big in addition this armed conflict, but does not provide for the prevention. finally, the international court of justice inability to declare better use of nuclear weapons is legal remains international laws building to prevent deadly conflict. and its advisory opinion on the account of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the icj found

that while the threat of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and in particular the principal symbols of humanitarian law. the court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons is lawful or unlawful, and an extreme circumstance of self-defense in which -- as such the studies of nuclear weapons basically big boy balmer rue, if not definitive legal under international law. how then can international law address and prevent conflict? one possible solution is aggression of the global people's assembly of the pros. by creating a truly global democratic order, they seek to empower global citizenry and restore legitimate to international institutions hampered by narrow state interest. likewise, and his the descent of

the icj advisory opinion, justice christopher took special notice of 3 million signatures that urged for the band of nuclear weapons to care the justice labored to show the court that it should uphold the will of the global people. a global people that could give legal voice to this as well. so to conclude, about about book illustrates the need most in touch with because across -- most often met by civil society and not state official. it also illustrates the danger of inflexible ideology. while the threat is lesson, the construction continues to create inequality, suffering and conflict throughout the world. to overcome these challenges international law must be refocused that we are all global citizens, all beings in the world and we must continually challenge binaries that create an us and a them. thank you.

[applause] >> i would like to open it up to questions. i would like to exercise a prerogative of the moderator to do the first one up to the panel, i go to line up at the microphone, we will turn to questions from the audience as well. i wanted to ask a question about, in "the butter battle book" where its international civil society? and here again i think we're using the term civil society, both contested and viewed somewhat different in the international claim and domestically but we tend to think of it as the activist, the agitators. but it feels like in reading the book that presents a very sort of grim view of international law and international relations that are stripped of all of the things that we usually think of, restraint activities a state. networks, institutions, civil society, domestic politics, and

all of this seems to be missing which leads to a very disappointing and frustrating antics i guess my question would be, could international civil society have played a role in a become at the time or perhaps now with a new framework of conflict that we have? or is it is sort of a combination that you are the only thing that matters, is fear, is having a bigger weapon to be able to motivate the process of state. so can we come up with a more encouraging vision of "the butter battle book"? >> let me have a go at that. my daughter who is a grad student in public policy out of berkeley, at about four, came up with what i thought is the

obvious into, why the hell can't we negotiate something here and talk her way through that? look, i'm an optimist. i see the book as an invitation to engage in those kind of creative tendencies and think through how we stop it. we think in terms of negotiating the particular problem and figure out some can solution. we think in terms of the escalating weaponry in a broad sense and that's what the united nations charter and npt talk about. what you think in terms of devising methods of conflict resolution so we could figure out some third party dispute settlement system that would've dealt with this long before it got to -- i think all the particular issues are there. he leads you to try to think about them. it may be too sophisticated for kids, but i'm not all sure that

it is, at least some of them figure it out. >> i think one of the most come with me be the most interesting thing the entire book is how it ends, right? so you have this on the seas which doctors is typically used to continue the action onto the next page. and here that's how the book literally ends. so, you know, the conflict doesn't and with a bang or a whimper. the very last page is left blank. there's been a lot -- a lot of commentary on what does that mean. is that annihilation which i think is pretty poor reading. it's really again doctors is requiring you as the reader to reconstruct more constructive narrative as to what the resolution is. so i think you are right in that it does leave for optimism. it's also striking in the book

that really the only one who gets it is the child. a child who climbs up the tree to watch his grandfather in this nuclear standoff but he is the only character who does not get co-opted into the militarization of the state. is the only one not cheering as he goes back to the wall for another round of weaponry your so again, i think seuss is trusting a younger generation to succeed where we have failed. >> just as a historical point, certainly the u.s. attitude toward international organizations and the role and constraint for not answering our behavior toward war has there been particularly friendly. but i think we started to participate more in those systems recently and we had in the past, seeking approval for our home and the persian gulf wars, for example. so i think in 1984 as a notion that we would seek international approval of use of force or

international involvement was probably more remote. >> so thank you for another really interesting panel. i guess i had two different questions, and one was sort of been thinking not just about this panel was sort of the whole conversation, during the course of the day so far. but really made the clearest between the zooks and yooks out in the direction of the of the sax and it only marks on the snitches, the implication is that the thing that divide us are inconsequential and civic. and we talked about that a bunch. i want to circle back to something that was said, which was to say that that is so is to sort of willfully ignored a lot

of history, and i guess i wonder, like are they, are the things that divide us and consequential, inconsequential as dr. seuss suggests? and it's certainly that we use, i think this goes to peter's talk as well. we use marking. we create the ambition of indifference in order to sustain animosities acts are not about those differences themselves, but they animosities are sometimes quite historical and structural and we lose track of them but they come to be part of how we understand ourselves. so i guess i just want to raise that incredibly depressing question force. about whether those differences are silly or not. and any other point i guess i

had, both john and elaine you were talking up the idea of identity and the identity of national identity, what it means to call the department of homeland, thank you for talking about that, always bothered me. and there's also another history there, right, even in a country that is both the ethnic, we use the law in so many different ways to try and create stories about our unity from citizenship and naturalization laws and, you know, all of it. it makes me wonder whether part of the problem isn't, it is also seems really evident in "the butter battle book," our commitment to progress narratives. and "the butter battle book," the story is, right, you just keep getting better at it. against everything you're seeing happen, right?

getting better at this. and the problem with the progress narrative is you just keep explaining the mistakes of the past by reference to the improving future or present it everything -- i would if that wasn't an expedition for refusal to learn from the past, and disregard the past when it comes to difference? and i would love your thoughts about that. >> so that's really interesting. on the question of whether the government is our inconsequential or selling, so first a question for the audience. how many people eat their toast butter side down? so what i thought was really interesting about this book committee of the books, you get star bellied sneetches and no stars. you can want it to one conceivably. in all of the other seuss books

in which there's a silly difference the audience by combat on either either side of the line but when you come to "the butter battle book" the audience eats their toast butter side up. never of intimate when a read this book to my five year-old daughter and her reaction was, but, mommy, the zooks are wrong. you can't eat your toast butter side down. the butter will trip. she didn't think that the yooks should blow the zooks up because of that but they were clearly wrong in her the pics i think it's interesting and the kind of civil war will because americans like you think the soviet wrong about the ideology. it wasn't a difference that do consequence. i think susan's point in his book on what i would like to take from it is we have these differences but we don't have to kill each other because of them necessarily. and so i think although any of the books it is like a difference doesn't matter, you can take the star on or off in this case there's a cultural difference and i don't think

that's entirely dismissed because it is something we will all feel something about. on the second question -- oh, god, i've forgotten of the second question. this is a go if you like the united states attitude is favorite different than other countries. we have a true commitment to progress. if you look at other places ethnic conflict of which there are many in the world, their ethnic divisions, racial divisions are not driven essence of the need to progress. for the most part. there are real differences. there are differences in culturacultural practices, in l, english was allocation, in all kinds of things, in historical status. but the united states i think has the strongest sense of attachment to progress of any, and i think it does indeed some of the discussion, but i guess looking more broadly, it also

impulse -- impels some sense of obligation to allow, there's some part of the narration that is too. we have some sense but it don't have a sense you can go anywhere, then why would you worry about -- is a zero-sum game and to my develop just as well as you can in dividing it appears i think the progress narrative cuts both ways if you compare the united states to other countries with significant, significant divided societies. >> i have a non-answer to your question actually. one of the things that always bothered me on international scene is whether the really our intractabintractab le problems. and what you did about the intractable problems. to me, take the israeli palestinian situation, the current wall problem and so one. and surely one has to keep negotiate on the. i don't think there's anyway you

can avoid the ultimate negotiation, and you got to do it and do it, and do it over again. you mentioned the problem of defining aggression. i represented the samoans and what i like to think was the ultimate resolution of the problem a couple years ago. and i said to several people after the event, well, great, that's a negotiation that woodrow wilson started in versailles in 1919, and we've done it. but to be honest, the americans and backers put in a provision, this is going to go back to it in 2017, and you can be sure that in 2017 a lot of people are going to try to pull the plug on what we thought we pulled off in 2010. so maybe that's an attractive a. but i don't think it's a race for giving up. you've got to have a long view on this stuff. and they think everybody who

signed in 1919 instead. and i'm sure not too long those of us in 20 will be dead. and i will like to think that the little kids will now be doing the negotiation and taking that on. and that we have endured ourselves in the meantime. but look how much there are some and consequential questions, and i think those we can resolve often. taken to a, roll the dice, and governments understand that. they roll the dice. a settlement and they move on. some you can negotiate. think about continental shelves, for example. ultimately, come we've managed to resolve most of those by a combination of dispute settlement and negotiation, draw some lines on a map, or do a joint enterprise to get the oil and make everybody happy. there are a lot of things that are relatively critical road to

the inconsequential when you sit down and talk about them. there really is a class of very, very high what's out a bit and i think disarmament is one of them. next month and though the negotiation is on the arms trade, i think we are going to get a reasonably decent treaty out of the. the nra notwithstanding. but that's a tough one. and it's only a little piece. i'm rambling a bit. me make one other point to look, always think about the terrorism problem, and that is this. think about it. putsch mind back to the late 1960s when people were saying we've got to define terrorism and put a stop to it by a treaty. now, pretty quickly we realized we couldn't do that. on the other hand, think about this, diplomats and politics right airplanes. and terrorists blow up airplanes are hijacked airplanes. and it actually was quite easy

to get overwhelming agreement. you can get the soviets, the libyans, all of the bad guys to agree, they don't want to get blown up on flickr you might be to get a treaty banning terrorism but you can get one saying do not blow up airplanes and so. and to enforce them. with quite significant success. take out the little pieces, you may not be able to save, to get an agreement about the butter but you may be able to get an agreement that we've got to make better butter. better butter, go down that road. we can pull down the wall. there's of the things we can do. spent i would just had briefly, it's not that the difference is that we have are trivial, it's that when these differences get

mobilized. that's what caused the great harm. that's how you go from just having a two living next to eah other to genocide. i think that a great point you just brought up with negotiation is like that is the one thing that is missing in the butter battle book. at no point was ever any conversation between the zooks and yooks. it just passing that we're never going to talk. regarding your comment on possessive narratives, and we love those in america, right? it's really hard to get away from them. i can think of them almost as a luxury. it's not something that you maybe have, you know, if you're struggling conflict in the congo. what is your progressive narrative? i live another day maybe. maybe in that sense it's just very rooted and just the kind of

foundation of the country, you know, always bigger, better beacon on the hill. >> she said i could have one more question although we're over time so i would just ask for the responses to be briefed. >> i will be really quick. elena, like you i never read this book. and like you i often kind of time after continued and maybe even a little dated. i'm curious what you think sort of a better moral lesson would be if you're going to rewrite strengthen to me our concept of war today. for roger and john, -- the capacity of international law to do with the zooks and yooks conflict and i guess my question to you is, what do you want international law to do in this situation? >> i'm not super bummed out. i am bummed out. i don't deny that is part of me,

as i said, i'm an optimist and i really think that ultimately these other things you got to negotiate away, both the weaponry and whatever the problem is between them. find some way they can live together and trade and all that stuff. there's got to be confidence-building measures between them that you can think about and work your way through. >> okay, quickly i would just say that there are about 50 significant separations, walls, barriers of some sort in use today. israeli, gaza is most common. rocko which i studied a bit, i was the longest one in the world. it's an amazing 2000-kilometer sand burns that separate them from the western sahara which is the only remaining colony in africa, and it's the reason that

morocco is the only african state that is not in the african union. these walls still have significance used in political, legal, build your strategy today. even if it's a military person it's hard to ignore the walls that we're creating in, along the mexican border, if anything is a very security state apparatus. don't be pessimistic. i also like between the hopeless pessimism of the development of international law and the great ideals of bringing true peace and stability and prosperity to all. and, obviously, the answer is somewhere in between. but again, when you have these conversations, when you have these dialogues you generally can find something to agree on. and i think that's the important point, just to keep talking. >> so, i should say i guess that

the part that i found a strong contingent was not so much the message of the book as the structuring of the dynamics you can actually found it an interesting contrast to what we're doing it. so i found it useful having had earlier and held as a child as what it was about to realize how completely different the concept of arrest was. now i feel like i should be trying to write a new dr. seuss book, which is beyond my capacity i think generally and definitely now at this moment. i would say i think the thing that i think you want to try to capture, to try to make a cartoon of our situation now is the incredible complexities pics i guess and serve having zooks and yooks who really do look almost exactly alike, what happens when you have 80 different ethic groups like it in ethiopia, or people from

hundreds of different countries and you have this flurry of people filling up the page, all of whom look slightly different from each other and you're trying to identify who is the enemy, who is the threat, the risk to the society and how do all these small very different, small differences in practice, either bring us together or place at risk. i would be impressed if even dr. seuss or draw a picture of that. >> so please join in thanking our panel. [applause] >> the u.s. chamber of commerce holds its summit today. we will join the event live at 8:45 a.m. eastern for conversation with james mcnerney. that's here on c-span2. and at 12:45 p.m. eastern, ma our coverage was over to c-span.

discussing the future of the industry. >> when i first moved here they spent a lot of time at home. the primary people would've visited prior to the work 1812 would have largely been friends and relations than any. the very cordial and very welcoming. during jackson's famous after the battle of new orleans, pretty much from 1815 on to the rest of righteous life, they have lots and lots of company, and they had many, many parties, or evening dinners or think you're at the hermitage. they were entertaining people who used to find things in the city, and they appreciated those fine things, too. she had very, very nice things, so this kind of cool image of

her as from the country lady. she wasn't that exactly. i think was more about her comfort in the big city than it was about her actual apparent. >> our conversation with a stored on rachel jackson, wife of the seventh president andrew jackson is now available on the website, c-span.org/firstladies. >> home integrity secretary janet napolitano spoke about illegal immigration. during this event with reporters in washington, secretary napolitano also talks about efforts to build up the cybersecurity workforce and counterterrorism operations. the "christian science monitor" hosts this hour-long event. >> okay, folks.

i'll give you a little time to eat. >> i can eat and talk at the same time. >> thank you, whatever. i'm dave cook from the monitor our guest today is the second homeland security, janet napolitano. this is her sixth visit with the group and we welcome her back. our guest is a new significant up in pittsburgh and albuquerque you got to graduate from santa clara university and the university of virginia law school, she moved to phoenix in 1983 to clerk for circuit court of appeals judge. later our guest practiced corporate law. in 1993, secretary napolitano was named u.s. attorney for arizona from a post she held until being elected as arizona's state attorney general in 1998. in 2002, she was elected as arizona's governor, and breezed to reelection in 2006. and are off duty hours, if press reports are correct, she has

hiked and climbed and appropriate for this week, is a major basketball fan. so much for biography. now onto mundane mechanical matters. as always, we're on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting but in short, no funding of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there's no embargo in the breakfast is over, except that c-span has agreed not to use a video of the session for at least one hour after the breakfast inns to give those of us in the room a chance to file. in the interest of preserving the groups representation for civility such as it is, if you'd like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and sending a subtle nonstudent signal and i will happily call on one another we will start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments then we will move to questions about the table. with that, madam secretary, the floor is yours. >> good morning, everybody. it's good to be back. i think i've been here in different roles as i've had different jobs over time, but it's always good to be back.

we are, this month, celebrate the 10th anniversary of the department of homeland security, which is really infancy when you talk about institution of ethic of level but it's the largest realization of the federal government since the creation of the defense department. and as you know, it was combined out of 22 separate agencies from all kind of legacy departments, as well as new things like federalizing the airport screening work force. i really think of the time immediately post-9/11 as dhs 1.0. it was finally recognizing the threats that were out in the world in a concrete way. it was taking the initial steps to organize the department once it was enacted. i think tom ridge deserves a lot of credit for that. that is hard work to bring that many people and agencies

together under one roof. and lectured off continue that tradition during his time -- michael chertoff continued entering his time a second you. during the last four years is dhs to go nowhere we were really building on the foundation that they had laid. where we were getting a better and more mature sense of risk, a better and more mature sense of what our value added is in things like the intelligence community. and really begin building a workforce to sustain the department overtime. as we head into president obama's second term, i think we're moving the dhs 3.0. we want to be agile and flexible because the threats are evolving so quickly. we want to make sure that we are taking care of the fundamental, particularly in areas like counterterrorism. even as we expanded to address

new and rapidly growing threats such as the threats to our cyber and cyber networks. so a lot is going on in the department in this regard. if i might above mentioned a few particular issues. one is cyber, rapidly growing. we did a workforce analysis last year, ride in on a voluntary basis i might say, a lot of experts from the private sector among other places to really look at what cyber skills we need in our department, what we're missing, what are the gaps, where we need to go. the president's budget has consistently put more money into cyber, and the budget that was adopted last week also does the same thing. it has an anomaly for cyber into. i spend a lot of my time working

through the arrangements, unicom what are our relations with the private sector? how do we organize ourselves with the nsa and the fbi, where cyber lanes in the road are concerned. who is doing what? a lot of time being spent really organizing ourselves, even as we work with the congress on revisiting the cybersecurity legislation spent the "herald" tribune international said we're trying to higher 600 actors, is that true? >> actress for good. not just hackers. exactly. we've identified that our immediate needs are 600 more than we currently have become so we're in the process now. secondly, immigration and all of the 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 have violated criminal laws in addition to the immigration laws, who were repeat violators, or who we caught right at the border before they got into the interior of the country. as we moved to high priorities were also started looking at things that are low priority, and that led to a memo i sent to the director of ice and the director of cis last summer, in june, deferring action on qualified young people who would come t to our process can go through a background check and the like. we call that the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. it has some resemblance to the dream act which failed but in other ways it is not similar. i.e., it doesn't provide a pathway to citizenship. why? because again. but it does it for action and we've had over 400,000 young people not like them and i think i want to say over 220,000 --

have become am i right about this? what's the number now that has been granted? it's over 200,000 have been through the entire process and have been granted. we are working and been very supportive of immigration reform. we've been providing some technical assistance to the so-called gang of eight in the senate. and we continue to work to emphasize our mission with respect to border, border security. the third area is the big change for us, and it's like turning a dictatorship, is to move into travel and trade space into a risk-based approach where we don't treat every thread equally, we don't treat every passenger the same, but they saw what we know or don't know about travelers, we can identify a we can expect through the lines

versus those that we don't know much about, that we need to be spending our time on. so you will see we have expanded global intrepidity don't have a global into card you really ought to get. it's for those who have it, for those who travel internationally, and did you arrive at jfk and you see people screeching through the lines, that's because they have the global into card. and then we have a domestic version called tsa precheck, 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 expedited travel program, which allows us to again focus on those we don't know much about, and hopefully we will take some pressure off the weight lines at the airport. we've done the same with cargo internationally. it's a much more difficult environment, but we have dual

missions to keep the dangers people and cargo out of the estate but also to facilitate legitimate travel and trade that has to occur in any kind of a vibrant economy. so moving to risk-based as opposed to a cookie-cutter approach is a major change in how we directed 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're going to have a budget, what's in it and what are going to more or less and so forth. we welcome the action last week when dhs finally got a 2013 budget. congress did put some money back in for cbp, customs and border protection, as well as for cyber. we're still in the process of unpacking what they actually did it because you have to actually reach down to each account to

see where the money is. and so i cannot tell you today exactly what impact that will have, but we will work through those, even as we acknowledge that sequestration does have real impacts, and those will evolve over time. but we will work our way through it and 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 agility and flexibility, and where we move to a smarter, more effective way to enact or to pursue the security of the united states. that is my report to the committee. [laughter] >> thank you, madam chairman. can you just sort of a softball open while you finish your breakfast, can you give us a sense of which of the many areas account to worry about, keep you

up most at night? >> you know, it's interesting, because there's so much that comes across our desk. if you boil down the hs into the five major mission areas we have, counterterrorism, air land and sea border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, disaster preparation response and recovery, i me cam you could stay up at night on any one of those five but what occasionally keeps me up at night, i've got dle, is not what i know about. because what i know about we can do something about. it's what's after that i don't know about. some operation that i haven't seen, some threat that hasn't become evident. some new mechanism or technique that are being used by cyber malefactors from around the world. so it's the known unknown that

can cause a restless evening. .. >> well, the border condition index was a project we undertook because we thought just measuring apprehensions at the border was not in and of itself a total measure of what life was like at the border. you needed to look at things like property values and crime rates and things of that sort for the seven million or so people particularly who live along the u.s./mexico border. that is a very, it turns out, a

very difficult thing to do, and any kind of statistically -- in any kind of statistically significant way. but in terms of how we measure border security, it's 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. they can then tip things that are seen to our forces on the ground. the technology part is absolutely critical as a force multiprier, and we have stationed more border patrol agents down at the border than ever before. so the numbers have been driven to 40-year lows if you just look at things like apprehensions. so we know we're 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 parking lots of the border -- 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're confident that the border is as secure as it's ever been. >> but do you have a -- >> but there's no one number that captures that. that's the, that is the problem if you're looking for just one number. border security encompasses a lot of different things. but as we look at managing the border, what we're looking for is the ability to detect illegal persons and contraband coming across the boarder and then the ability to intercede. >> we're going to go next to elise foley and david grant. elise? where are you? >> she's at the end. >> sort of following up on that,

what the communication has been, what sort of recommendations the address has given to congress or the bang of eight on how to make -- the gang of eight to make the borders more secure? i know the administration has said it's the most secure it has been, how you convince congress that's the case and what more can be done to make them believe that? >> well, without speaking specifically to what we've given the gang of eight because, um, i don't know exactly what they are looking at, but i can tell you what we've given to the congress in general. one is technology plans. you know, one of the decisions i made a year-plus ago was that this notion of one sbi, what's called sbi net which was all these towers that would go all along the 2,000 miles of the border and create a virtual

fence, it didn't work. the border, parts of it are air rid, dense mountains, part of it are lush. it's every kind of terrain you can imagine. so rather than one approach along it's a sector-by-sector technology plan as to what would be the most useful for the manpower we have in each sector. and those plans have been given to the congress as they've been completed. and so, um, 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're really this. and what i try to communicate with members of the congress is, look, border security is not somehow different from hooking at the overall immigration system, right? they go together. so, for example, we know the key

driver, a key driver of illegal immigration is the demand for labor. well, we need a national e-verify or some such system so that employers have a way to comply with the immigration law but that enables us then to focus on employers who are constantly evading the immigration law. we need a better way to let people come legally through the ports. i mean, our -- it's a real incentive if a way for illegal immigration if you're going to be separated from your family for ten 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 where legal immigration is concerned is part of it. is so when we talk about border security, if you want to take pressure off the border, you've actually got to look at the immigration system as a whole. >> jen? >> [inaudible]

i was, frankly, kind of surprised by congressional reaction. lawmakers are usually telling psa that they're doing too much, and a lot of people came out in opposition to this change. >> right. >> how do you, just generally, how do you balance that as a punching bag regardless of whether you're scaling back or ramping up? >> it's kind of like gilda radner, if it's not one thing, it's another. i think from a security standpoint we're trying to prevent a bomb from getting on a plane, and i think if you're talking about a small knife, 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 announced the decision, try to give it a softer landing, as it were. but i've told the director that if we're moving to risk-based, that means risk based, and sometimes people are going to be happy -- unhappy with those decisions. in the end, we think we facilitate normal travel. >> ed? i'm sorry. >> first of all, secretary, thank you for being here today. my question is, the release of the i.c.e. detainees about a month ago has been in the news, and there's been a lot of back and forth about whether these were criminal releases or noncriminal. what's preventing dhsing from releasing broader statistics --

dhs from releasing broader statistics? i know every they have a category one -- >> level one, two, three, yeah. >> what's prevented dhs from releasing the actual offenses that lead to deportations? >> well, i think -- i don't know that that's been prevented, but i think you have to understand, this is a different pop haitian than prisoner -- populationing than prisoners in a way. the average stay in an i.c.e. detention facility is two weeks. so it's a constantly moving bowed of people. we maintain 34,000 or so beds in various detention facilities around the cup. i think we have contracts with upwards of 50. and so, yes, we can compile those statistics, but it's not like b.o.p. where it's a fairly stable population, and you know when they come in, and you know when they go out. we know there's --

[inaudible] but it does take a bit of work to get them, to get all the numbers in one place, as it were. >> and i understand you weren't wild about the story that said you were holding a couple hundred immigrants in solitary confinement for periods long enough to damage their mental health? >> i was not wild about the story. i thought -- but, look, i think solitary confinement is, should be the exception, not the rule. it should be as short a term as possible, and it should be monitored very carefully. so i've asked i.c.e. to go back and give me information on the specific cases that were referenced, when those occurred, whether the facts -- facts, i say that in quotes -- as reported were accurate. and then looking at all of our policy with respect to solitary. you know, solitary's used for a

variety of reasons. one is for an inmate's own protection. one is for an inmate who for whatever reason is seriously disrupt i have to the population -- disruptive to the population. those are two reasons. but it is not something we should be doing on a routine basis. we need to look at our own policies and make sure we're as tight as we could be. >> we're going next to david grant. david? >> [inaudible] is that something that you are going to be able to put in place over the next intermediate term, three to five years, the plan that has been set out and promulgated over the period of time, and how important is that system to you feeling like you're able to say to congress, the border is secure, or our immigration system is secure? how central is that to maybe just eliminating some of those

knowns/unknowns, things that keep you up at night. >> right. well, we've got the entry down. if you're coming through a port, that's pretty solid. exit is more difficult. why? because our airports and land ports weren't designed to police exits. go to an average airport, you don't find people standing at an exit line checking your document or your fingerprints or anything. and so just architecturally, the space for doing some of that is difficult. what we have given to the congress is a two-phase approach. one, on exit is we now have very robust databases. it's one of the big areas of reform we've made since the underwear bomber that enable us to do what we call enhanced biographic 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, we're going to move to full implementation where we're going to treat, we're going to give them our entry data from canada which they will count as their exit and vice versa. so we just exchange the data. and as we deploy enhanced, what we call enhanced biographic, we would like, ultimately, to be in a total biometric environment. but that's probably going to take some time and some real dollars. and i think from a safety and security stand point what we've got and what we're deploying really gets us about 99% this. >> scott? >> yes. you said that -- [inaudible] providing technical assistance to the immigration gang of eight in the senate. how involved are you in some of

those discussions? are you calling senators? are you meeting with them? i know you have relationships, obviously, with the two arizona senators, john mccain and -- [inaudible] can you talk about what you're doing? >> i prefer not to. i think they deserve the space to conduct their discussions with some confidentiality until they're ready to announce whatever agreement they have. i think at some point the process used will get, you know, filled out. but i prefer not to speak to that right now. >> mr. naylor? >> during a series over the sequester talked about long lines at customs industry and tsa checkpoints, and i'm just wondering, i realize the furloughs haven't taken effect yet, and there's been some anecdotal evidence what you're seeing so far is there substantial delays for travelers? >> yeah. if you look at, for example, miami as an airport and laredo

as a land port, we had some pretty long lines last weekend. upwards of at the airport three-hour lines. we're going to now take the budget we have. part of that was just trying to manage within the cr we were operating under and with the uncertainty of what was ultimately going to be done to dhs, you know, when they looked at our budget. now that we have of a budget, we can go back and look. we will do everything we can to mitigate lines. unfortunately, i mean, one of the things i would like to do is make line ares shorter -- make lines shorter. so, you know, moving to risk-based, trusted traveler programs, all the rest do have that effect. but i only have so many port officers, port inspectors, i only have so many tsa screeners. and there's no contemplated expansion there. so there will be lines.

>> alexis? >> [inaudible] in general, as someone who really has been an expert and knowledgeable about the immigration climate, what has changed in what you're seeing on the hill in the discussions? and, secondly, there are going to be conservatives when they see a bill who are going to worry about the scores and the cost of immigration reform. what can you say about why those concerns might be slightly misplaced compared to the experience of 2006? >> um, i think that in terms of scoring, you know, one of things we've looked at in terms of our own scoring is how much of this can and should be fee-based. so, for example, if there's going to be a programming with the 11 million undocumented in the country could register, get their biometrics, we get the

background checks and is forth, that's a lot of people. but they'll need to pay a fee. they'll need to pay a fine. they need to get right with the law. they did break the law. and so some of this will be fee based. port inspectors, the same way. i think that we can look to that and have a more fee-based services at the ports, 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 that as we looked at this in terms of of advising the white house, there were ways to deal with that without getting a big number that cbo would have to score. >> and in general, are you optimistic about -- [inaudible] >> you know, i think it's interesting. you know, 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. i mean, there were two wars

going on, we were close to a depression, health care was, you know, 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 election had consequences in many that regard as people -- in that regard as people look at the changing dem graphics of the united states and the changing demographics of vote ors in the united states. and i think that aligns with the general recognition whatever side you are on on the immigration debate, there's a recognition that the system we have needs to be rebooted. just doesn't fit current reality. so am i optimistic? i'm always optimistic. and we will do everything we can to support bipartisan efforts in the congress to get this done. >> yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> sure. >> my question deals with there are two terrorism suspects,

fairly high profile -- >> can you hear him in the back? could you speak a little louder? >> there have been a couple of terrorism suspects who have been picked up in the last couple weeks, one in italy who is a relative of osama bun laden's. there's -- bin laden's. there's been some talk about trying them in civilian court. what is the potential for lost intelligence by not interrogating them, trying them in article iii courts versus trying them in the closed circumstances in guantanamo bay where you can cull through some of this information? in -- >> i think with respect to the matters you reference and others that we have a variety of techniques, excellent ways to get whatever intel individuals have and have to share. quite frankly, we've tried a number of terrorism suspects in article iii courts particularly

in the southern district of new york. there's an expertise, a real expertise that's been developed there. they've actually done more trials than at gitmo, i might add, and have gotten what i view to be very, 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 multidepartment, multiagency, high-value interrogation group that can feed in different types of questions that need to be asked. by way of example and not speaking to those two, but i just from our standpoint let's say you arrest or find someone who has been active in the bomb making field, particularly where aviation is concerned. we want to know what he learned, where he learned it, how he did

it, how he would do it so that we can identify how we would find it and translate that into something a tsa screener or somebody screening at the last point of departure in the united states would be looking for. so we're looking for something that would be translated into actual operational purposes. and, you know, we've, i think, organized ourselves in way that that can get funneled into whoever is conducting the examination. >> moira? >> i was in one of those tsa security lines over the weekend coming back from florida. >> were you in miami? >> fort myers. >> yeah. florida's hard because it's sprung break time and -- yeah. florida's just tough. >> but as you're kind of contemplating the two-hour line and all the sort of masses of humanity in front of you taking off their belts and children and grandchildren, one of the post-9/11, you know, decade after 9/11 --? >> yeah. >> -- being as we've been

talking about ten years after iraq is there any sort of, you know, sort of more than a decade after dhs was created in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks of scaling some of what seem like excessive, you know, measures back sort of so that we're not always in the osama bin laden age when we're, you know, traveling domestically with our kids? >> well, children under the age of 12 can keep their shoes on. >> i know. >> and over 75 -- you're not over 75, but if you are, you can. but let me tell you the reality. the reality is the aviation threat has not gone away. >> right. >> and when i testify and people say what are the threats you're confronting, i always identify two; aviation and cyber. that's where we've seen operational activity, that's where we have seen preoperational activity. technology has not yet caught up to where we would like to go although we are working both

with our international partners and here. we're always looking at so-called cutting edge technology to ease the process. the, finding a nonmetallic substance that can be used as ap explosive aboard the mane while you're moving -- plane while you're moving two million passengers a day is a difficult task. so we rely a lot on intel, we rely on different layers in the air environment. but until the technology catches up to what we need given the type of threat we continue to face, um, i think our best bet is, again, encourage and more travelers to get into these expedited programs, precheck, global entry, what have you. so that we can move them into different lines and then -- >> with what are the ways for those? because background checks take six months to a year. >> no.

no, no. i think global entry's very popular, and for a while people were having to pate 60-90 days to get their background check, but that now has been reduced substantially. so, and once you have that, global entry, you can get into precheck. so we are in some respects victims of our own success, but we are staffing and doing that work so that we can keep those waits as short as possible. >> mr. shields? >> governor, you -- [inaudible] three elections in a row in arizona in the past 40 years. and as you look at immigration and your experience in your home state, to what degree do you see the influence of john mccain as predicted that arizona will become a but 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 he sees it happening, you know, every day because he's back and forth all the time. and that does, i think, have some influence on those who previously had been suspect of getting into the immigration debate. i'll tell you from an arizona perspective what happened in my view which is to say that in the early part, in the 2000s 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 sector. and people lost confidence in the rule of law. it was under any sort of could. that it was under any sort of control. and i think that caused some

real political pushback, and people who -- people were legitimately concerned about what was going on. i was concerned. i was firing off letters to the president and to chertoff and to our delegation. so when i came in, we said, look, we're going to focus on that, and we'll shut that down. and so we've had from its peak to now i want to say a 75-90% reduction in apprehensions along that arizona/mexico board. border. and, you know, at some point public perception begins to change back, in other words, that more and more people are saying, yeah, there is security down there, the rule of law is being appreciated, and now, you know, when you live in a border state, you recognize that you need an immigration system that really works. because people will go back and

forth. families are on both sides of the borders. people live in the united states, work in mexico, vice versa. so that's the kind of system you want to have where you really have a good seasons of who's leaving -- a good sense of who's leaving, who's coming, where they're going, how long they're anticipated to stay and so forth. >> [inaudible] so people talk about arizona becoming a blue state or a purple state, but the fact is it hadn't happened, last year it wasn't competitive, it wasn't competitive five years earlier, of course, senator mccain was on the ticket, so what's the the timetable for it to become a competitive swing state? >> you know, i don't know. it'll happen, i think. it is, you know, the fact that i could win three straight elections there, i think, is indicative that democrats can win and do win in arizona. you know, 2004, i think, is an anomaly in part because, you know, senator mccain's favorite son, so he's running.

and while i was not involved in the presidential campaign, my current position keeps me out of electoral politics of that sort, my understanding is the obama campaign really didn't play in arizona. they were at work in nevada, colorado, new mexico, you know, that -- those three states which are have really moved. arizona will be behind them, but i think it will be more purple over time but, ultimately, blue. >> since we're on the electoral topic, um, as you know a colleague of ours, karen of the post, said you've made it known that you were considering a presidential race. want to comment on that? they say you're doing it quietly, so this would be a good format to discuss it. [laughter] >> you know, i think my plate is so full now that 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. >> okay. >> i'm fine with where we're at. >> well, welcome you back to make the announcement whenever you want to. katie if. >> thank you. speaking of senator mccain, which i think we were doing a bit earlier, yesterday at a town hall meeting he was asked whether he would ever move away from using the term illegal immigrant, and he said sometimes that phrase is appropriate. is it ever appropriate to use that term, or should we always say undocumented immigrants? >> yeah. i don't get caught can, i don't really get caught up in the vocabulary wars. they are immigrants who are here illegally. an illegal immigrant. they are immigrants here without documents. that's an undocumented immigrant. the key focus is on how we right this system so we don't have this perennial large group who have, in some respects, a de facto amnesty because they're here, they're not leaving, but there's to way for them to get

right with the law, to pay a fine, you know, attest -- learn english, you know, make sure they're 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 than to consistently have them in the shadows. >> we've got about 15 minutes left. we're going to go to brian, then to deborah charles, stuart powell and michael warren to close. brian? >> some of the senators working on immigration reform talk about maybe including a border security trigger that would have to be met before, it would have to be triggered before a pathway to citizenship could be opened or something along those lines. given what you've said about the difficulty creating a thattistal metric, how possible do you think a measure like that could be as part of a big wither immigration -- a bigger immigration reform package?

>> yeah. i think once people really look at the whole system and how it works, relying on one thing as a so-called trigger is not the way to go. there needs to be certainty in the bill so that people know when they can legalize and then when their pathway to citizenship, earned citizenship would open up. there's also talk about getting in the back of the line. that's easier said than dope. calculating what the line is at any given time, it moves. so those judgments will have to be made, but i think the key thing is to have border security in the bill to open up legal migration more than it is to deal with employers and then to have certainty with how you deal with or how the 11 million here who are either illegal or undocumented depending on what your vocabulary is come out of the shadows. >> deborah?

>> yeah -- [inaudible] can you give -- [inaudible] are they all -- [inaudible] >> no, no, no, they have a bunch of different skill sets, and some, you know, we don't need ph.d.s in computer whatever for many of the skill sets that we need. and so one of the things we asked this group to look at is, you know, what do we need. are there, for example, associates degrees that would be helpful to have in our cyber sad ray? and the answer -- cadre, and the answer is, yes. so we look at that. we look at different kinds of bachelors degrees. we look at, we're beginning a whole host of intern orships and fellowships -- internships and friendships for young people to compete and try to get to introduce them to public service and to the kind of really interesting work that they can do at dhs. we just started this year a secretarial honors program that's modeled on what the justice department does. and we kind of announced it at

the end of the season, you know, because it's new, and we didn't really hit the peak. but even there we had over 3,000 kids compete for, like, 60 billets. so we know there's a market there. i think young people are very entered in the concept of public service. they may not necessarily see that as government service, and so you've got to kind of make that leap for them or help them make that leap. >> [inaudible] another part of cyber, some computer, cyber experts are saying that there's a fear of over, like, building up the threat scenario too much, that everyone talking about a potential cyber 9/11 or pearl harbor that it's actually going too far, and it's not going to do any good. >> well, i think, um, there are different types of cyber events, right? there are individual hackers, activists, there are groups that conduct actions on the web, on

the net. there are some that can be state spot or sored. sponsored. and the u.s. has to be in a position where not everything is dealt with at the same level because there are different types of attacks, different methodologies and so forth. my real focus right now, quite frankly, is -- oh, thank you finish is getting more caffeine. [laughter] my real focus is on this intersection with the private sector, right? because they control most of our nation's critical infrastructure. the congress rejected a regulatory approach. we are working under the president's executive order reaching out to them. we are marley concerned about some sectors -- particularly concerned about some sectors where there's already been a lot of activity, financial and energy, but others as well. so i think, you know, for the

next nine months to a year that private sector connection and, you know, the nsa, the fbi and us have adopted kind of a theory a call to one is a call to all, so we get rid of that who do you call when something's wrong. just let us know, the quicker we get information, the better we can help with mitigation. so that, that issue with the private sector is going to be key the to our ability to do things. but, again, going to your question, not everything is a pearl harbor, obviously. so we've got to scale. >> excuse me, roger. >> [inaudible] temporary worker program -- of the touchy areas. >> right. >> how do you create a program like that that balances, you

know, the security need so you can get work withers in but also out, but then also the concerns of businesses and people who say these workers are going to take american jobs? >> right. again, not speaking to what's going on in the gang of eight, but in any temporary worker program that's -- you've got to get that balance, right? between opening up and filling labor markets that need labor versus depressing wages. there's a lot of ways downing that. you know -- you can do that. you know, the department of labor has a huge role to play there. hay get the stats. they look at what the prevailing wage rates are and the like. i think that the u.s. chamber and afl-cio have had a whole string of discussions this winter. so somewhere in there there's an agreement to be reached. >> steve? >> madam success tear, i wanted to return -- secretary, i wanted

to return to aviation security for a moment -- [inaudible] and i want today get a sense, you said earlier there's been operational activity against aircraft. can you talk a little bit about the volume of fluids that pose real risk to people on planes, whether they're looking for internal or external carry on of the fluids, how much of a threat this really poses for people as they, as they fly? >> yeah, well, depending on what the fluid is, you know, the bottle amount that we require, i think, is calculated so that if that were to be used, it would not be a significant enough event to blow a hole in a plane. we already check the check baggage, right? so the way to deal with it right now is to keep large amounts off planes by and large. but there are also powder, powder substances.

one of the real evolutions in technology has been explosive trace detection equipment. it's gotten better and better and better. and k-9s are very useful in this atmosphere, but k-9s, one member of congress said why don't you just use k-9s on all the lanes, you know, and do away with all this, and the answer is there aren't enough k-9s in the world to do it, and secondly, i learn a lot of interesting things in this job. [laughter] i could talk almost any topic now because at some point it's crossed my desk. the deal with k-9s is, you know, they can only work so long. so you've got to have k-9 shifts. [laughter] and, of course, you need their handlers with them. and then you need to continually be replacing and refreshing your k-9s. and so k-9s, while they serve a very useful purpose and we do use them, you cannot use them -- you can't rei lie on them as

your only tool in the tool kit. but i really like them. [laughter] nice dogs. >> michael? >> why do you think secure the border -- [inaudible] the administration more credit for securing the border? >> no, i don't know. i think it's difficult to change public perception. and you can always go down to the boarder and find somebody who's unhappy -- border and find somebody who's unhappy. you can go to any city in the united states and do the same thing. i mean, you know, we're not talking about an environment in which you're at zero. i mean, we're not saying there's never illegal crossings, we're not saying that there are no, there's no contraband that come into the cub across the borders -- the country across the borders. what we are saying, however, is that the border is more secure than it's ever been, and it's a continuing commitment and process for us. and the best way now to get the maximum out 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're dealing with at the border. >> anybody who with hasn't had one? >> a lot of change down in mexico with the new administration. are you hopeful, concerned many your areasome. >> yeah, i've known the president for a hong time -- for a long time. i'm really hopeful for his administration. i'm getting to know my counterpart and will be meeting with him soon, i think. and we've already had a number of other meetings. our staffs are communicating daily. so i, you know, uh-uh think mexico, president pin yet toe realizes that a safe and secure border is not just a law enforcement necessity, but if you're going to have economic growth in mexico particularly in the northern states, you've got to have control over the

security situation. so he gets it both from a law enforcement and an economic perspective. so i'm very optimistic about the work we'll be able -- some of which we will continue from president calderon's administration and some new projects we will get under way. >> hannah? >> i wanted to return to the cyber work force. you identified what is missing, what are gaps, so what is missing? what are the gaps there? >> well, i hate to identify our gaps in public. but i think, i mentioned, you know, the outreach with critical infrastructure. there is so much going on there that being able to increase our response and response teams, the so-called cert teams, we want to continue to enlarge the 24/7 watch floor that we have. those are, those are immediate areas where i anticipate growth.

>> [inaudible] operational gaps when you look at cyber? >> i think the key thing in cyber, and it's something i mentioned just a minute ago, the information sharing in realtime is absolutely key. so, you know, we need to have an environment in which the truth sector confident finish the private sector is confident that when they transmit realtime information, that we can deal with it in realtime and that 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 color questions. the secret service falls under your supervision. do we know why the beast didn't start in jerusalem? [laughter] >> that's a car. now, i do not know.

but, but the secret service, that's one of the reasons why there's planned redundancy in secret service operations. sometimes things don't work properly, and rather than hold up the entire presidential motorcade, you have a substitute ready to go. >> and one of things that i found most intriguing in doing research for this was that you don't use e-mail. can you, without giving away state secrets, say how you keep on top of the huge information flow without e-mail? >> i actually think it's better in terms of keeping information -- i think e-mail just sucks up time. and you're all nodding and laughing, but you know i speak truth. [laughter] but i have a variety of ways. i'm constantly getting reports and e-mails throughout the day that come in through my head quarter 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, and 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 that happen on any given day, it allows me to focus on where i need to focus. >> and with -- >> why do you -- i'm sorry. >> go ahead, no. >> why -- [inaudible] >> i think it's in many respects in a job like mine it's inefficient. >> and did you used to use e-mail? >> no. i stopped using e-mail when i was the attorney general of arizona. and because i was just getting, you know, you get hundreds and hundreds of things all the time. and i was, like, why am i spending my time scrolling through this and responding to stuff that doesn't really need to be responded to. and i also don't like the process where people could send you an e-mail, then say, see, you were, you were told or 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 little more selective on how how that goes. if people want to get me information, there are many ways to do this. >> do you think this is a lifetime decision or when you're no longer secretary of homeland security, will you get an e-mail address? >> well, i don't know, do you all like getting e-mail? >> yeah, yeah. [inaudible conversations] >> it's the business we're in. >> oh, it's the business you're in. i may use it at some point, but, you know, right now i have no contemplation of doing so. >> you're not on twitter apparently. >> i don't text and i don't twitter. people in my department do. craiging few gate does a lot -- craig fugate and we've found that in disaster response it's quite useful. we have our own web sites. i get questions, i stream videos of the answers from our employees. there's a lot of ways you can live life without e-mail.

[laughter] >> thank you for that. >> everybody, you know, everybody makes choices, right? >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> all right. thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> and live now to the u.s. chamber of commerce's 12th annual aviation summit as it gets underway here in washington today. a number of experts and leaders will take part in a series of panel discussions today examining the future of aviation including the effects of high gas prices, tougher environmental regulation and a number of other issues. this is live coverage on c-span2, just getting started. >> so important for both passenger service as well as all of air freight. most people forget or don't know that air freight carries one-third of all goods internationally. so we are, we have a lot of topics to talk about today.

aviation, obviously, thrives under extreme pressure. this is something that just goes on and on, so i thought there was a low bow that was particularly apropos, and it's the atlas air logo; aviation carries the weight of the world on its shoulders. that is right on. absolutely, that's what it's all about, and it's a perfect segway into getting the program going. ..

and seven of the newest ipads being drawn. you have to stay here in order to get them. and if you think you're going to leave during the day, the doors will be locked so that you can't get out. [laughter] so with that said, i want to just quickly, and i mean quickly, thank all of our sponsors. because without them we would not be having this today. starting with boeing, they are our lead sponsor. they been so generous and so helpful, as have all of the rest of our sponsors, bombarded, airbus, airlines for america. they are sponsoring a reception this afternoon. the aerospace industries association, the aircraft owners and pilots association, american airlines, a s. i gee, atlas air, brussels airlines, delta, embraer, g. is for government solutions, the international league finance corporation, jetblue, the national business

aviation association, northstar group, pratt and whitney, rockwell collins, rolls-royce, southwest and airtran, spirit airlines, united airlines, u.s. airways, and westjet. thank you, thank you. and now please welcome the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce, mr. tom donohue, for this morning's keynote discussion with boeing's chairman jim mcnerney. >> thank you very much, carol. [applause] good morning ladies and gentlemen. jim and i would add our thanks to everyone that is joining us today, that will speak today, and particularly those who were kind enough to sponsor our activities. we are particularly pleased to have jim with us today. as you know, he is one of these fellows in town that doesn't need an introduction.

he has degrees from harvard in jail, and he played baseball with george bush. he has a storied career. -- harvard and yale. he went to ge and was a body with jack welsh. he became chairman and ceo at 3m. in 2005 he took over boeing. users on the president council, all kinds of organizations that put together to look at everything from manufacturing to trade. he's an outstanding leader and a visionary and innovator, an advocate for business. jim, we're glad to have you here. here's how we're going to do this. we are going to pick some questions, but not so targeted, but broad enough that ji jim in each question can cover a couple of subjects. so here we have a man that runs really to companies in one. you've got a huge defense

operation, and a massive global aviation issue. so from a perspective and from the perspective of being chairman of the roundtable, tell me how you think the american economy is doing. what about the recovery? and how is your company doing? >> first of all, thanks to you and your carol for your entire team doing this every year. this is a big deal in our industry. i know that everybody the killing, including boeing, are delighted to be able to support this. thanks for that. now to your question, the economy is what it is. it's sort of bumping along, very slow growth in the united states. not growing fast enough to really generate job growth, as you can see in the unemployment numbers. it's not running, it's not out of running yearly productivity in most industries.

the housing sector is beginning to kick in a little bit, which could get us over that 2% rate, a number of people think it will. but it's still a pretty anemic recovery. there's lots of reasons for it. everybody's got, their own favorite, reason for it. i've heard your speech on the subject. i tend to line up with you. i mean, i think a lot of the issues that our country faces on the fiscal side, regulatory side, tax, i think having an impact. is slowing some things down. certainty is a word that is thrown around, but it is a meaningful word when you look at long-term investment at this stage in the recovery is significantly lower that long-term investment at analogous stages in other recoveries. that speaks to the people willing to put out 20 your money, yes or no, willing to

hire four or 5000 people behind that, yes or no, less this time. i think europe is the challenge, as they face really a sovereign debt issue over there, and, but they and we will recover, albeit slowly. developing markets are growing. they are where the real action is on a global basis, as i think everybody knows. bowling is doing probably somewhat better than that description would apply and is largely because we are in a business that innovates. and we're and innovation replacement cycle in our industry. so we are not bounded by the gnp growth that i described, because people are replacing old technology with new technology, us and airbus and others, much more fuel-efficient planes, much

more responsive to the environment. and so i would say more than half our growth, which is probably two or three times, about three times the gnp growth that we're seeing around the world, more than half of the extra and buy a cycle, by innovation. so i think we are, and the aerospace industry in and of itself, not just boeing. i mean, the aerospace industry really is by many measures the most globally competitive industry that the united states has. i mean, it's about $325 billion every year just the equipment, about a third of that is exported. far less than half of that is imported from other places which is a measure of competitiveness. so i think, i'm tempted to say the country is likely to have the aerospace industry because of probably too much pride in

the industry that a lot of us have. but it does represent in many cases i think some of the best of our country, and i'm very proud to be a part of it. >> great. that was a softball wakeup question. [laughter] now, not from a political point of view, but from an operation point of view for your company and others, give us your quick view on sequestration. >> sequestration, look, i think we all know why we are where we are. i think the administration and the legislative process put in place something that we all assumed would be so scary it would never be implemented. that assumption was wrong. that assumption underestimated the lack of bipartisan

capability in this country. and so here we are. sequestration on its face is a silly -- excuse me -- is a silly way to go after -- spent take a minute. spent i'm choking up. >> that's a good way to cover a question. [laughter] >> i am too sick to proceed, tom. spent i couldn't talk at all and it was a great celebration in this building. but seriously, go ahead. >> thank you. i think it's obviously a silly way to go after cutting the budget, which is an otherwise laudable objective. and it's going to be disproportionate impact in places that we'r were not goinge pleased with. i mean, take defense, take the faa, aviation.

the defense by the letter of the law, the defense cuts will be very debilitating, and will impact -- this is one man's opinion, and that is not a good thing in the world that is more full of threats than not full of threats. the faa is struggling with how to deal with everything from airport powers to support a programs -- support of programs, and then there are many, many other examples. i remain hopeful. i'm an optimist. i remain hopeful after we all go through some of this silliness here for a few months that sort of the blueprint that is put in place by the c.r., which is a more choice for, more thoughtful way to go about it. i hope that that will become the force of law. i remain an optimist. >> good.

so now build off your optimistic position you just established, why don't you tell us what's the latest on the 787 dreamliner? >> the 787 -- you are referring to the battery issue undoubtedly. i think we are very close, we have a high degree of competence in the technical solution that we are testing right now. with the faa. and i think it will be sooner rather than later that the tests would be completed in several days, and we will all look at the data. and i have a high degree of confidence that that data will tell us and we'll tell the faa who are the decision-makers here that the fix is what we need to be and we'll get this airplane back in service in due time. you know, this is been a

difficult time for us. i mean, we've got this fabulous airplane back, and none of the promise of this airplane really has been diminished by this, and why do i say that? because there's nothing about a battery that needed to be fixed, that impacted the other things that make this a special plane. whether it's a 20-30% improvement in operating cost of the airplane, or the range of passenger comfort of the airplane, all those things. as a matter of fact, we've taken some of his time to sort of tighten up some things and just make sure we are in good shape as we get this back into service. but it's been a frustrating experience. i must say that, that the faa, michael her to, -- michael her to has been chance you. they put us through our paces.

and they have america's best interest in mind. they have the safety of the flying public in mind as i hope we do. which i think at this point means let's get this thing back into service and get on. >> i think the interesting point you made was innovation. recently i was talking to some of your very good competitors and they seriously and vigorously want that plane in the air. because they don't want this continued questioning of new -- you've had this problem with every new plane anybody develops, whatever happened to be. so there's a lot of people who want to get this thing going. so let me ask you a related question. you heard the list of other people here that make airplanes. the chinese are talking about going into the business of making airplanes. what you think about the? >> i think the chinese will be competitors in large commercial airplanes. i thin