betty writes about working for fulfillment, and what's complicated, many don't work for fulfillment, and i think a lot of people working in law firms, trying tore partners in particular may not be working for full fulfillment, and that sometimes, and i think that is -- i'm not trying to stave the himalaya question, but i wonder if this model she has where the educated women should be using their brains in some way, i think there is something in law firm culture for both men and women that's distorted and punishing. i think the question of whether you can have a life outside of the law firm for either a man or women, if you're a young man at 34 and you have a newborn baby, like, are you ever going to see that newborn baby? i mean, you know, i think for both men and women, it's a pretty difficult punishing culture, and our obsession with

work and need to work all the time, and the way we work, role work occupies in our life for most men and women is complicated right now in our culture. >> the nightingale school about 15 years ago, an all-girl school, had a career day. they invited a corporate lawyer/partner, the mother of a child in the school, to come and speak, and she came, and she spoke, and she talked about all the wonderful things she did as partner, and then there was a question period. these were girls between 14 and 18. first question was, what time do you get home for dinner? second question was, what happens if your child is sick? the third question was, how often do you spend the whole weekend with your child? not one of these girls asked this woman a thing about the law or law firm or her political

beliefs or corporate belief, so that the pressure on women who are corporate lawyers is enormous because underneath them, the generation that they're raising are complaining, and with justification, perhaps, and what are we going to do? something needs to be done, but it's not so simple. we can't say just make everybody, you know, let them have a root to success in the law firm equal because it's not going to work. >> uh-huh. i just want to point out we're talking about working for fulfillment, law firms, betty living in a culture where women couldn't have careers. they write about how in 1960 there was as many women, vast majority married, working, as there were at the height of world war ii when aural the men were away and women had the jobs. what that tells you is it's not that women didn't work when she wrote the book, but women didn't

work for fulfillment. plenty of women had to work. >> yeah. >> and did. >> yeah. question? >> >> i'm in grad school for history, the privilege of teaching the book and talking to the students about it, and i guess my first question is whether you think that today there's been sort of -- this is true of my friends, my peers, there's a backlash, the idea that staying at home or being a stay at home mom, that's a bierty word too, and it's not something that anyone should entertain as a goal or an aspiration, and then on the other side of it, when i talk about the book or about other feminist text, i had students preface what they say, saying, i'm by no means a feminist, and so i wonder whether you still think there's this, like, stigma

with the word "feminist," and what we can do to fix that. >> i would say maybe we shouldn't fix it. i'm going to say, i mean, look at most recently, i mean, people say, oh, taylor swift doesn't consider herself a feminist. marissa mary doesn't consider herself a feminist. "the end of men" argues that maybe the fact she doesn't consider herself a feminist means the term is no longer useful to us. it doesn't mean she's not a feminist. she, obviously, believes many of the things that we think of, and just what you talk about the students who believe all the feminist things, so should we keep trying to make people wear a sign i'm a feminist or just view the fact that we may not need the word as a sign of success of the movement. is it a sign of thetremendous success of betty and the women who went on the marchs, and gayle went on, is it a sign of succeeding that we don't need that word anymore? that these ideas have been so

assimilated into our dna that we may not need it anymore. that's just my idea. >> i think we could call ourselves women's advocates. you know, it's a much more neutral term. i think the, you know, firm nighses became a dirty word among gen x, not millennials, but among your student, and we do have to get away from that in order to -- but you do need a name. you have to have a brand. what's our brand? we're women advocates, activists, we're, you know, still want to see -- help women understand how to succeed in their lives, in life. we need -- we need to do that. we need help. >> i wish i knew. >> i wish i knew too. >> just to the point of what you were saying, gloria told me, and this is a gloria thing, just she was saying how that this woman was telling -- was bemoaning how

her kids, daughter call herself a feminist, and gloria said, yes, you know who she is, and, i mean, i think that that's like, you know, if you're daughter's saying to you, there's been a woman president, she doesn't know gloria, doesn't say i'm a feminist, you know, it's -- there's more than one way to look at that. ..

actually change the values of the workplace so men and women could have it all and that hasn't really come up here. i don't know that was in "the feminine mystique" but it was certainly in future books and what i learned growing up. women now, if they want to have it all they do it by somehow navigating their work place and designing their own solution and it might be that lateral track and not the direct upward track. she always advocated that we shouldn't have to do that. we should have silo structures that do that for us. that was one thing about the work they send the other thing is that betty friedan was not a marxist and that is not a proven fact. and it's very upsetting to hear it be given as that but i like most of what you said otherwise. she had a profound sense of

social justice center profound sense of social justice was informed by many things including her upbringing and where she grew up and many many things. in the 40s she grew up studying intellectual things in college and she certainly played with leftist ideas and everything. did anybody see the way we were quite anybody who was intelligent at that time -- she would be what we would say a limousine communist. >> the word marxist has certain residences to older people and what they mean by that was she had a strongly developed class consciousness and she thought more seriously about class in a more rigorous way then in the book. when you say limousine communist maybe that's a better way to talk about it. do we have time for one more question?

one more question. >> make it a good one. >> this is more of a comment based upon the last thing with identifying as a feminist and i feel like it actually has to do a lot with what gloria writes in her book. there is this sort of hesitation to you now stand up for yourself in a sense because you don't want to be about women. especially in a class that is reading "the feminine mystique" and the person says something very feminist a refusal to identify as a feminist in that sense shows there is this extreme backlash in our culture that still exists. did you see the oscars? to say that we are beyond the word feminism is maybe wishful thinking and lovely but i don't think it's actually true. that's all. [applause]

>> thanks everyone.

>> when he became chancellor of the federal public of west germany, his social democratic party embarked on a new course. he switched from the framework based on the western alliance with the atlantic alliance, maintaining the western alliance while in improving relationships with the east, particularly with the soviet union and the european states. through renunciation of force agreements. it was rude into key factors. the first was a lesson that he took away from 1961. he rick crabbs -- he recounted many of the memoirs he has written, the one i looked at again in preparation for the stock was his autobiography, my life in politics, where he describes his frustration and even in a lack of response by the western and particularly the u.s. commandants when the border was closed. he also described a mixture of

fury and ineffectual protests that his government was forced to deal with on its own. he writes, we should not expect others to find the answers we had to find for ourselves. and so he began working on a framework that would improve and remake the status between the two east german states. the second factor was an indisputable conviction that germans belong together. he believed east and west german leaders must rid themselves of illusions intractable politics, and instead work toward practical solutions that could ease tension and human suffering. the salient feature of this politics is really humanitarian dimension. the policy of small steps formulated by his advisor was change, continued confrontation he felt would only deepen the

division. he began by dropping language that had aggravated relations with the gdr. in his inaugural address, he opened the words unification and he reversed west german nonrecognition policy, vis-à-vis the gdr. he became the first west german chancellor to refer to two german states and initiate the first meeting face-to-face of west and east germany headset state since 1945. while the meeting in east germany and later in west germany did not produce immediate results, it did lay the groundwork for the later basic treaty between the two germanys. ironically, the meeting reprice some of the basic dynamics between khrushchev and kennedy. they were dominion the de facto recognition of the gdr and preventing him with harsh ultimatums.

like a kennedy at his first meeting had opted for a soft approach and hoped to begin with the points of basic agreement. what was the response of the soviet unity party? it was skeptical and fearful. because they did not want to change the status quo. they fully recognized that the changed relation would be come in fact lesson of the gdr's control over its citizens and that indeed is what happened over time. to my knowledge billy was the only key player from 1961 still alive in 1989 when the berlin wall fell. when interviewed he said with great and understand the emotion -- what belongs together will now grow together. he lived to see one of his fondest hopes realized. the jury is still out on how

much the two halves have grown together in the last 20 years. but his statement serving captured the mood of the moment in those first 80 days of the open border when german did come together to celebrate the unexpected and almost forgotten hope for unity. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, professor stein. now we'll turn to jerry livingston, distinguished for any u.s. foreign service and in washington is currently a senior visiting fellow with the german historical institute where we of shared many times together. glad to sit next to you after so many years. he had been the founding director of the american institute for contemporary german studies at johns hopkins, and former president of the german marshall of the united states. during the '60s he was the foreign service and the also worked at the base in west

germany at that time after the construction of the wall and he is one of the german heads over washington so has a lot to say but the book and about the times. i'm very pleased to have you here and looking forward to your comments. >> thank you very much. thank you for the personal remarks but i'd like to begin with a personal note, as mentioned i was in berlin in the u.s. mission and i was in the same action as dick. in fact, i can remember some of the editing of my cables, generally an improvement. so even back in those days he was a real stylist. and let me just -- seems to me as mary beth is also suggested, one of the main strengths of dick's book is its counterpoint between the personal and the summit meeting of khrushchev and kennedy and eisenhower and de gaulle, the meetings in washington, dick's ability show in almost every chapter how a

look at the diplomats like himself on the ground. so this counterpoint is one of the great strengths of the book. he has drawn from a wide variety of sources, as best as already mentioned, and i think probably dick was planning to write this book for 48 years. because some of the endnotes refer to authors notes from august 1961. so clearly here he was planning something 40 years ago, and we have it today right here. i don't want to repeat some the things that the said sum going to skip over certain points i would have otherwise made. the book is tightly focused. in its focus on the period 1961-1963 and the core of it is focused on big time with lucius clay from august 1961 in ma

may 1962. and one last personal word, the book shows digs loyalty to his former bosses, both of them are republicans by the way, henry kissinger. he has a lot of sections on kissinger's advice to kennedy, most of which was not taken. and then of course the core of the book is a mentioned is about, the congo as some historians refer to them, the realist lucius clay. other historians have accused clay of brinksmanship in his readiness to confront the russians, and to show that, not let them hide behind the east germans. and macmillan at one point referred to in horrific terms this childish nonsense, childish nonsense that clay was showing in berlin. but, of course, it will have none of that as we all know, and as he said himself.

the other strengths of the book as mary beth has also making is that the book shows in fascinating detail how kennedy actually developed as a learning process of jfk as a foreign policy practitioner. and how his willingness at the beginning, unwillingness at the beginning, to confront the russians and eventually develop into his willingness to confront the russians at the time of the cuban missile crisis. the entire pattern of kennedy's behavior, foreign policy behavior changed to i think we forget and we forget, dick alluded to this, a series of defeats his first year in administration was terrible. the bay of pigs the bay of pigs was in april 1861, then a disaster summit that dick refer to with nikita khrushchev in july 61 when he was brutally browbeaten by the soviet leader.

and, of course, the building of the berlin wall in august 1961, all of which were a series of defeats for kennedy because i think we should not forget him and it didn't mention it but i think it's important, in the end all they got was what he really wanted. but the flow was much more important because that was a real threat to the east german economy, which after all was the most important economy in the eastern bloc. now, let me before i finish with a series of positive remarks about the book, other positive remarks, let me sketch out for points that i think dick should have emphasized more. the first is we should not forget that in 1961 khrushchev was at the apex of his power. there was castro coming in in 59, the first time communism in the western hemisphere. sputnik and soviet man in space,

and at the time of the berlin confrontation, a large celebratory much like what has been going on in beijing the last few days, celebratory congress of the commons party of the soviet union was taking place. and so, you know, it's not too difficult to understand why khrushchev in his meaning at the vienna summit really was convinced that communism would try and. today, perspective of 2009 or in perspective of 1989, this seems ridiculous. but one can understand why khrushchev believed it, because he was at the apex of his power in 1961. and i think that should have been stressed more. secondly, dick does not sufficiently stressed the importance in the berlin context of the influence of the springer. which is on the americans all the time for not acting more strongly. i can remember when the eastern

affairs section, we were responsible for reporting on the gdr but we didn't have any contact on east german officials. why? because if we were spotted by a reporter, talking to east german official, it would be in the papers the next day. thirdly, it does not stress sufficiently that an election campaign was going on in west germany between on our and brought. kennedy's first reaction to the letter he received from the governing mayor recalled a bastard can what is this bastard doing quick cease trying to capitalize on this situation, the closure of the wall for electoral purposes. so one should not forget that there is a contest which played into this whole thing. but i think it doesn't mention that sufficiently. and lastly i think dick should make it all the more strongly that kennedy in 1963 did not

just give one big speech, he gave a second speech at the free university which reiterated, reiterated his readiness to meet and negotiate with the russians, that speech always gets neglected of course because of the confrontation, belligerent speech that he gave. in conclusion, three strings of dick's book, let me recall one point that i think we should not forget when i criticize kennedy for his readiness to compromise negotiate with the russians and, indeed, in the end to accept the division of berlin and accept the division of germany. you should recall that all of american presidents, whether democrat or republican, have avoided confronting russia directly on security issues which russia has signaled his support to a. and 9053 he did nothing to

support the uprising of the east german, gdr workers. 9056 he did not support the uprising of the hungarians and polls. in 1968 he did nothing when the soviets invaded czechoslovakia in 2008 we did not confront with the russians on georgia. so this is, so kennedy practice, his reluctance to confront the russians was in many ways to be expected because it fit in with presidential politics for five decades. and second, aspect of dick's book that is so stimulating is already referred to by himself is description of the bad advice given to him by experts, and maybe mr. obama might think a little bit about this when he is gathering his experts to think about afghanistan, because the experts not only barely prepared them for the vienna summit as dick mentioned, they gave him

bad advice generally, mostly bundy, thompson particularly to my great surprise because he was a highly rated in the past. so what did kennedy do? he came to rely on his instincts and he came to rely on his brother. obama may be relying on his instincts, but that's something to be learned. secondly, dick chose a different investing at the differences in ages influence political position. all those kennedy were dealing with were older. but also some were much older and they were influenced. meg millen had served in the first world war and/or shrapnel in his body and had memories of the second world war. it's quite understandable. we are not anxious to get into another war. the call is much older. oldest of all.

so it was not unusual when khrushchev may been the only one who said it but you do with a teenager in short pants but the rest of them i think sometimes felt that. thirdly, and lastly and maybe most importantly dick shows the success in berlin, both in 1948 kanye, 61-63 but they someone very important factor that dick i think mentioned but should stretch -- stressed more and that is the courage of the berliners themselves. and clay had come to know that in the blockade of 1948. and somewhat ironic because berlin is not both area. conservative city. it's a leftist city. the western part of the city they vote, and eastern part they vote for the sbd. this was a leftist city but it was still very pro-american.

but clay counted on the berliners and he made berlin essential aspect of our relationship with germany as dick has pointed out. and clay link to berlin, the united states, and thus germany and the berliners were our first allies in 1948. before the west germans, and that remains i won't say it is true anymore, but it remains certainly a decisive element in the berlin crisis of 1961-63. i was going to save rush out and buy the book but i'm not sure it should be bought by go to your bookstore and get it. it's a very good book. [applause] >> thank you very much for your stupid and comments. i want to give professor smyser a chance to respond that will get back to you. let me add one brief thing. there are so many salient points made by all of you. there's really not much to add. maybe decides that the east germans played a major role in

that particular, those east germans who fled as refugees. i think professor stein alluded to. as refugees really force the hands of the east germans, and this was not a collective action. it was just a decision, very selfish. people want to flee because they wanted to have a better career, a better life. those refugees forced the hands of the soviets and. this was sort of defeat for the communists because they did not want to build a wall around berlin as first choice. first choice was to take over west berlin and take over the access route and west berlin. this failed. it failed thanks to those people who force them. so at least for those selfish reasons just let the commons germany, played a major role. >> that gets to the part of a long-term trend. germans had been moving from east to west ever since 1944, and they are moving today. east germany is not losing

population because they have a dictator as the prime minister. >> those are economic reasons. >> they don't flee. they move. you don't flee from all high out to new york. you move. [laughter] >> depends on what you think of all heil. [laughter] >> if you lived in cleveland you might think differently. >> okay, whatever. few minutes for professor smyser to respond. >> i would prefer to take questions, but i want to just say one thing about kennedy's speech, which was i saw at the kennedy library about half a dozen of the drafts. and all i can say is, kennedy was so damn smart to throw those things away. because they were absolutely god-awful including the word soon or later the wall will come down. you know, this is the kind of thing which he understood he

couldn't say. and he made up his speeches as he went along. as he drove through the city and he was inspired by the crowds. and, of course, it was the kind of speech to be proud of. jackie kennedy is heard to say many times, perhaps in jest, that she was always sorry that the most famous speech made by her husband was in a foreign language. escaping, the most famous remark made by her husband was in a foreign-lforeign-l anguage, which was ich bin ein berliner. i should say something about the book, i hope the publisher doesn't mind. don't go to the bookstore and less you can get it at a discount. [laughter] >> buy it from amazon. i heard this from an editor at the publisher himself. he wrote to me and said, send people the amazon. that's where i'm going to send you. i would be happy to sign any

copy that you get. i have to say one final story about clay. when i was told is going to be working with him, i asked a few people who knew him still from the days from berlin. i said you have any advice? he said well, three things. different once told me three things. one was he's the smartest man i've ever known. that is certainly true. also said he has a steel trap mind. he can make decisions immediately. and the third was, he is the worst chain-smoker you'll ever see. and all three of those turned out to be true. i have no more remarks. i appreciate what everybody has said, and i wondered whether we just can't have questions and comments from the audience? it's so nice of you to come here and listen to all of this. >> [inaudible] >> sorry. >> my name is tom hughes.

during the berlin crisis i was in fear of intelligence as deputy director and then director under kennedy. i think it's a terrific book come as dick knows, stimulating stimulating, really a rewarding we. i could say more positive things about it but i won't take the time. like jerry mentioned a couple things that i was surprised that in the book when i did read it. one was that it was hard for me to see how you could write about the kennedys and berlin without mentioning the dulles'. all of them. certainly the relationship was central in the 55 period. kennedy and other democratic senators had been in the late 50s when dulles meant neutralism was immoral, when he meant -- even the european oriented democrats like acheson were against dulles for his

sense occiio policies. and then there was alan who played a role in this and then there is of all the things, eleanor, who was -- she was the representative of berlin back in the air. he called me and said tom, i know that my sister is working over in europe and if you have any -- just let me know and i'll move or somewhere else. and i thought, i didn't realize you were here in the first place. in a, she was miss berlin whatever she was. and so she was a constant public former as far as the kennedys were concerned to they wanted to get rid of the whole dulles arrangement, particularly after the bay of pigs. that didn't take long to get rid of eleanor either. that's missing. and as soon as the wall went up, eleanor was talking all over

washington about hyannis port pictures very direct, very personal against the president. she wondered why he was still serving in the administration. anyway, i think they should have been mentioned. second, you referred so often that the washington advisors, as though they are a group of like-minded people. my impression of washington is that, although the people you referred to were certainly saying what you said they were saying. they were a lot of inputs at a more junior level perhaps, but when you look at the list of who you're talking to in the white house. it's not only bundy, but lee white, david cline, arthur goldberg, jerry we center, dick goodwin, fred, a german and

innocent. it was quite a rich pool of people there. and while they may have been arguing more or less, i doubt they were just echoing what bundy and other people are saying. the same thing in the state department. eleanor and does was so upset that she kept a costing him on berlin constantly and followed him in immense room once and continued lecturing him. [laughter] >> there were a lot of stories. my final point is a more serious one. i don't quite go along with you on the kennedy transformation. i think kennedy is much more complicated both at the beginning and at the end than you indicate. i don't think that he said it was influenced by -- a certain was influenced by berlin and clay. clay was, just the same reason

-- he was very nervous about checkpoint charlie, kennedy was. he didn't suddenly decide to move the russian. the american university speech is hard to square with a speech in berlin, as the second speech in berlin. kennedy had many personalities. and he was able to rise to many different occasions, a lot of them contradictory. and make contradictory statements. ultimately, seems to me he would have thought that the success in the cuban missile crisis was because he followed a soft light. he followed thompson. he followed the blockade. he was very upset about military advice right straight through from the bay of pigs to the cuban missile crisis. admiral anderson, all these people, and he didn't want to trust military men on the spot, which clay sort of stands for. it was very clear all three of the people through the crisis

tied the hands of everybody in the military, both in washington and abroad, so there was no checkpoint charlie's after that he didn't authorize from the white house. so i come away pleased that you reached the analysis you have, but i think it's probably overstated when it comes to the final john f. kennedy and what he really was actually. >> you've made so many comments, i do want to take time to comment to all of them, except on the last one i should perhaps say that your absolute right. kennedy was an incredibly competent personnel. he could say different things in the morning and in the afternoon and so on and so forth. i'm not sure he ever heard so much from other white house advisers. i went to the kennedy library very carefully through the berlin files. it's astonishing to me how few documents that are in those files from people who were competent on german affairs.

every document seems to be from somebody who's an expert on the soviet union, and those of the people with whom kennedy was responding to. so where all these other people were, i frankly don't know. that's just a comment that i have to make because i couldn't deal with people whose record i could not see. as for kennedy's growth, a very complicated man, but a very different men in 63 from what he had been in 61. and i think you're right, one can possibly trace this as one does, a series of hills ascending to a mountaintop or something like that, not necessarily a smooth ride, and not necessarily meaning that he had become very fond of the military, which i think you're absolutely right. during the cuban missile crisis i think there were several times

he would have liked to take general curtis lemay and throw him out the window. but the point was that he did things in 61 and in 62 at checkpoint charlie, and and also later on, and also he did things, for example, sending the brigade which he would not have done earlier. he would have done them all because a republican had given him that advice. it didn't want to have any arguments and he didn't want to make berlin political so he said, i have suggested is, let's just do it. as you know, he sent johnson to berlin largely because he didn't want play to be there by himself as a republican. he wanted a senior democrat there. but nontheless, i see a development in the country. and whatever it may be, i think this is where khrushchev made

his big mistake. kennedy by 1962 was wearing long fans. and it put them on and how he had put them on trucks i frankly don't know but there we are. other questions or comments, please. sorry to take so long on this. >> anymore questions, comments? >> my name is steven. let me flesh out something that was just alluded to in passing. my impression is that in the context of 1961, the heart of american policy was to treat it as a proxy, the german states as proxies for the cold war. was this really, was there any real alternative or would it have been different or wise to treat it as more a german

problem than a cold war problem? >> this was kissinger's view, it's hard to say in retrospect because they didn't try it. i would say that it was perhaps impossible to treat it as a purely german problem. because the soviet troops were there. khrushchev was there and he was pushing hard. what kissinger was suggesting was that, he was suggesting a technique of negotiation. one of his wonderful phrases, one of the memos he sent a kennedy, i'm not sure it ever got to kennedy, i think he got to bundy and udp 60. he said would always coming up with ideas because they would be acceptable to the soviets. he said, if we make acceptability the test of every diplomatic proposition that were going to offer, we will always

lose. because there'l they will alwayy nothing is acceptable accept their position. so he said we have to explore things. we have to do things that have a positive impact on german and european opinions. he was as much concerned about the tactics of negotiations and of how you maneuver. curiously enough i worked for kissinger later on in the white house, as was mentioned, and i felt the same thing. that there was a man who always had a strategic objective, but that all around this strategic objective they were little technical savvy set when the no direction. and they may have been as many people have accused him of making them, done entirely for domestic political reasons or for bureaucratic reasons, we don't know that. i have spoken many, many times to kissinger but i would be an idiot if i told you i knew the full range of his mind. but nontheless, it was quite clear that he felt that on

berlin and on germany we should not just play the soviet game. i would like to say one other thing about kissinger which is interesting and i mentioned this in the book. kennedy -- he sent them to places. one of the most important missions for which he used them was to brief and went on american atomic policy. atomic weapon policy. adenauer as you know at first wanted nuclear weapons. wanted a time of weapons in germany. kennedy felt that offering atomic weapons to the german was red flagged and i think he was probably right. but he had to find some way to assure adenauer because adenauer was saying to himself what's going to happen is the soviets will invade germany. nobody will do anything about it. they will invade west germany and you end up at the fringe board and say a few very much, we will just take them.

then the only way to get rid of them is the bomb west germany with atomic weapons and that obviously to adenauer was impossible. germany had been largely destroyed already and couldn't take it. something decent kissinger, who had known adenauer for years, of course, in order to brief him on american atomic policy. and they had a meeting which was the last half an hour. it lasted almost two hours. adenauer canceled everything else. and in that meeting, kissinger -- excuse me, kissinger told kennedy this is where we are going to start using nuclear weapons. this is when we can start using them to you can be assured this soviets will never cross west germany without being attacked outside west germany. and he went through quite a bit of astonishing detail. it was such a -- such a

astonishing detail that adenauer actions that i want these notes destroyed. and so did the american in to see. they had them destroyed. the notes don't exist. kissinger never reported it. he just told kennedy they had done it. but that's the kind of thing that he could do. and that's the kind of thing he could do brilliantly. and that's the kind of thing for which kennedy wanted him, because kennedy had to stop the west german drive with atomic weapons. after that conversation, adenauer understood and he didn't need to worry. >> you think those notes were destroyed because what kissinger said was okay, when i going to drop nukes on munich or frankfort but will drop them on -- >> i'm not even sure he said that. i never asked him what he said. they were destroyed because adenauer regard them as so sensitive, because there were so many questions about the deployment of nukes and use of nukes that he just felt he would not want the record to exist. >> they would have dropped them

in east germany. >> i didn't ask to kissinger what he said. so i frankly don't know. but i don't think adenauer was necessarily in favor of dropping them. >> i think not, no. [laughter] >> other questions, please. >> michael binder from the air force. you said that chris jeff respected restraint. what did he think of eisenhower after the minimal u.s. response to the hungarian uprising? and if he had pleaded for help with the refugees in 1960, would the wall have gone up during eisenhower's administration? >> funny moment with khrushchev. i frankly don't know what he said about eisenhower after the hungarian -- so i can't answer that question. but i do know in the context of berlin, that there was this

moment when they had been negotiating a little bit, at the foreign minister level, and in geneva i think, and it had turned out to nothing, nothing useful. and to eisenhower decided i'd like to get to know this man a little better. and invited khrushchev to washington and the camp david. had been escorted by capital watch all around the country. country. this is the famous trip on which khrushchev railed because he couldn't get into disneyland. and then khrushchev met with eisenhower at camp david. and essentially eisenhower did what he always did and did beautifully which was talked in such a rabid way that nobody quite knew what he was saying, but they thought might be okay but they weren't sure, and you know how this went. there's a famous moment when everybody in eisenhower's cabinet was confused that what you should say because the press was after.

and eisner said don't worry, i'll just go out and confuse everybody. that was part of his -- [laughter] but the point was, christians was honored and delighted that he had been invited to camp david. he went back to moscow and he said, now we are somebody. this was the first visit that any soviet leader had ever made to the united states. and he said, now we are recognized by the greatest power on earth. we are somebody. this is very important for us. this may have been personal board but i think it was more than that. i spent many years working and i traveled all around the world, my god, 50 or 60 different countries. one of the things i've learned as i've traveled is how so many countries in the rest of the world always think that the americans or the english or the french or the germans or somebody else is superior. and they can act superior. they appreciate it, people would love it when i would talk to them like a normal human being.

it was one of those moments that i began to realize that there is, in much of the world, a sense that somehow or another we westerners think we are on a higher plane. now, that may not be true. for khrushchev this was incredibly important. russia was a communist society. it was still making its way up with the world. it had a lot of missiles but it needed recognition. it needed people to say you are somebody. and cruise ship appreciated the fact that i is now inviting. i can to in detail what khrushchev thought about hungary on those things. i don't recall if that is in his memoirs but i didn't read that part of his memoir. that's not a terribly good answer but it's kind of what khrushchev reacted at a crucial moment. incidentally, he then gave up on

berlin and tokyo to begin. he didn't push you. he didn't even push it in paris because of other things. >> any further questions, comments from the audience? >> he wanted to raise a point? we have about five minutes. >> let me just raise a couple more points, dick, that if they deserve a little more stress in your book, although they do come out. the first is that the readiness, the readiness of the united states to negotiate about berlin and germany behind the germans back, you know, and their refusal or the reluctance to bring the germans into consultation about germany itself. this would be something in 10 years later that would've been impossible, the letter was received by kennedy. johnson's refusal to take adenauer along with him to berlin when he made his trip there, and as you write, dick, brandt felt powerless in the

summer of 1961. and so just like chris jeff wanted to keep control, you described quite well his effort to do so. i think there's some tendency we wanted to ensure we keep our germans under control as well. the second point which also mentioned by think is very important because it is an abiding feature is the power of the west german economy. as you said, it caused the checks and the polls to resist the peace treaty. as early as the 1950s. and effective buyout in the gdr which in effect you could argue almost is what happened at the very end. and the strength of the german economy is not only important to this country but, of course, a booming economy of the 1950s and '60s attractive labor. not only from east germany of course but from all over europe. and some degree that continues

to be the case. and the last point, it does seem to me is this business, willingness to negotiate with the russians, which led, a thousand part of your book that i hadn't thought about before, the way the call was able to exploit that, to develop his relationship with adenauer which ended in the treaty of 1963. and part of it was the calls from this. charles de gaulle. they were right. so the contrast between the americans and the french in berlin and one side, and by the way, the bridge had no problem with showing their identity cards when it went through checkpoint charlie. not at all. nobody went to check hopper up

and made big issue out of it. so there are these ironies. thank you. >> when de gaulle met with kennedy as kennedy was going to vienna, he said -- altai. he said that is the best service you can do for the russians as was for everybody else. those were the last words that kennedy heard. and it influenced and a little bit. we don't really know. you know, it's nice that sam is here from the publisher because he can tell my editors that they should have let me write a book twice as long in order to cover all these points off not but i didn't -- [laughter] by did wanted it because i want to focus on this here. i wanted to bu write this book r a long time and i didn't write it, and you're right to say that, i did not write it because i didn't feel at all the information. because when went to the kennedy

library when i saw the cruise ship tapes, when i saw the khrushchev memoirs, when i saw the book written by sergei khrushchev comes to teaching in the united states, and he is a remarkable man, when i saw those things amazon east german documents which have become available, i'v i then said to myself, okay, now i can tell the full story. i was interested in telling that full story and not in getting into other things. sometimes authors are peculiar and that's the way i am i think. but the point to me was, and i apologize for coming back on this, i really think that kennedy grew during this period. i thought at first making this up to education of john f. kennedy. because i think he was a different man in the fall of 62 from the spring of 61. khrushchev did not know that. that was a great mistake. clay had begun to understand it. clay had found that there were

times when kennedy supported him, when everybody else around kennedy would not support them. he told me once had a remarkable conversation where he said this is what you should do. and russ said, look, talked to the president. [talking over each other] to me. so it was quite clear that kennedy was beginning to shift, but he was beginning to shift in a way that not all the people around him quite understood and that only became obvious in october of 1962. i thank you very much for coming and for your attention. and i'm very honored, really, that you have brought the questions and thoughts to this meeting, because this is a very personal memoir for me, as was a political book as research work. so it makes a scholarship an autobiography. and it's nice to see that people take it seriously. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much, professor smyser. thank you, mary beth, and go to www.amazon.com. thank you, everybody, for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> this -- i didn't realize how bad the jim crow movement had been after the war in the early 1900s. and that i found bill shock. annapolis was one of the two cases decided by the supreme court of the united states in 1915 with a grandfather clause. if you googled grandfather clause you get grim versus oklahoma. this is an oklahoma case that deals with some restrictions on

voting. in that case as well, was a case involving a law passed in 1908 by the maryland legislature changing the charter of the city of annapolis to strict voting by african-americans. they are free and they have been voting and it applied only to the city, not to state elections. they tended to vote republican so democrats in power in state government and then the city wanted to restrict this. you couldn't vote in annapolis under this 1908 law unless you had $500 worth of property in the city. and leisure naturalized or you are the son of a natural but, of course, there were no women voting at all so that doesn't matter. over and bless your grandfather could've voted -- or in less

your grandfather could've voted january 1, 1868. voting in annapolis is tied to the 1867 constitution of maryland which allowed voting only to males, white males. so if your grandfather wasn't a white male and couldn't vote, you couldn't vote. no matter the 15th amendment in 1870 in annapolis, if you couldn't vote in 1868, you couldn't vote in 1908 spend more about maryland state capitol as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of annapolis. throughout the weekend and saturday at noon eastern on c-span2, and sunday at five on c-span3. >> w.e.b. dubois died 50 years ago at the age of 95. david levering lewis spent eight years researching and writing

his biography of the civil rights leader. he talks about w.e.b. dubois at the atlantic history center. this is about an hour. >> thank you so much for that kind introduction. i want to say thanks again to the livingston foundation for making this event possible. it's a great pleasure for me to be in what is really my home town. i did not really grow up -- effects and people are so questioning the evolving maturity of david levering lewis and i spent many years here, my teenage years, my dad was president of morris brown college and my brother-in-law was president of spellman college, and so by land routes are really quite deep. -- atlanta braves were really quite the. it was another city my wife and i would choose to live, then new york, it would undoubtedly be

atlanta. and i thought i would give the flavor of the biography with three readings this evening. can you hear? >> no. >> is that better? right. three readings from various sections of the biography, chapters 10, 11 and 14. and they could fall under the headings of the politics of history and that readings will deal with dubois magisterial study of the reconstruction era, black reconstruction in the united states published in 1935 and then the second rubric might well be called, effectiveness, chapter 11, the politics of knowledge. that will deal with one of his

greatest social science efforts his attempt to secure lending from the general education board, rockefeller been a faction of the carnegie corporation to fund the encyclopedia of the negro. and then the third might well be called politics of the left and deals with dubois involvement in the waldorf astoria peace conference of 1949. by far, black reconstruction's greatest achievement was to weave a credible historical narrative in which black people suddenly admitted that citizenship and environment of hostility displayed admirably and intelligence as well as the

influence in ignorance inherited three centuries of bondage. the book invested these former slaves, 4 million men and women whose numbers comprised a majority of two southern states and a sizable portion of the remainder with what a later generation of historians would greatly call agency. dubois returns to the center of the reconstruction epic as they steal away to freedom. a great many clueless in the early days but quickly set in their minds to getting a plot of land, some will book learning but quickly voting their own kind into office. the treatment of these first days of, summons dubois' awesome voice to the full coming of the lord, a chapter drawn in purple. and a passage as a historian,

those historians who of course have said that reconstruction was a mistake, that a historian might indeed, the author and here i give an approximation of dubois' voice in order to avoid the, as. it was all foolish, bizarre. gangs of dirty negros howling and dancing poverty-stricken, ignorant labors, mistaking war, destruction and revolution for the ministry of the free human soul. a few lines more than the frenzy becomes majestic. that was a beauty, all that was love, all that was true stood at the top of these mad mornings and sang with the stars. the great human song, pulsed

upon the sea free, free, free. writing as the scribe of his race than, dubois offers the contestants of what he knows is been a long will continue to be the dilemma of race in america. of all that most americans wanted, this dream of slaves was the least. everything black which it is, everything makers did was wrong. if they fought for freedom it would be good if they did not write, they were born slaves. if they count on the plantations, they loved slavery. if they ran away, they were lazy little perspective facing -- if they scowled they were in killing. the tone poems celebrates in the euphony of sound could intended to transport the reader into

jubilee. there was joy in the south. it rose like a perfume. like a prayer, dubois hands. men stood quivering. lifted shivering hands and all broken mothers, black and gray, praised great voices and shouted to god, a great song arose the loveliest thing born on this side of the seat. the sonata recapitulating unforgettably in the souls of the black vote. it did not come from africa, though the dark throb of ancient days was in it and threw it. it did not come from white america, never from so pale and

hard. however, deep these older and surrounding towns have driven, not the indies nor the hot south, the easter heavy west made this music. it was a new song and its deep beauty, its great cadences and while the appeal wailed, throb and thundered on the world's beers with a message seldom voiced by man. guardians of southern history sensing the books potential great mischief of their cause were instantly on the tv. there is a feeling of ripeness in the writing and an occasional passage of all those old testament granger and provocative is a mild adjective for black reconstruction, warned in a key -- in the tennessean

review alerting the region to bombshell. coalition, intelligence, agency, some critics would insist excessive portions the afro-americans in the reconstruction drama. but it was in his interpretation of the function of black labor in the formation of industrial wealth and dubois' positive the first of several original conceptions of profound impact. writing in the black work, the chapter, the book's opening chapter that black labor became the foundation stone, not only of the southern social structure but a northern manufacture and commerce of the english factory system, of buying and selling in a worldwide skill. dubois cast displays from africa as the industrial revolution.

it had been the treaty of 1713 that marked a historic moment when the small island, one of the means to a global powerhouse, a significant underscored by dubois' inclusion of the treaty's text independent she's to the suppression of the african slave trade to the united states is the first book of the harvard ph.d. his dissertation but by the terms of the treaty, the victorious british acquired exclusive license to import slaves into spain's colonial empire. by virtue of which northern england became the 18th centuries chief supplier of human flesh. that 18th century prophets from the atlantic slave trade, this too production and textile

manufacture of the british and french maritime was a proposition that must have come as a matter of logic, the author of the suppression of the african slave trade now steeped ever more deeply in karl marx. the authors embryonic thesis was to be brought full turn a decade later but it was indian admire whose analytical sophistication matched dubois', the scholar politician, capitalism and slavery argues that the profits pouring into bristol and liverpool from slaves, sugar, rum, coffee and finished goods underwrote to a controversial degree great britain's industrial takeoff. many other critics who saluted the brilliance of the book tended to feel uncomfortable, or become suspicious when dealing with its suite in depth, nor is it unexpected that much of what

troubled exercising a limited dubois' critics now seems less significant six decades after publication to contend for a student of society who have designed inside and black reconstruction that the former critics either ignored or simply overlooked. there was more than met the eye and dubois' vivid direction, and perfected the fallacy by substituting depersonalize conscripts insurance for a black men, women and children who toiled. dubois understood that thomas carlyle's witticism about the cause of the civil war, people cutting each other's throats because one half of them preferred hiring their slaves and the other half by the hour, was a deadly absurdity. ..

>> a different stature or a different habit of action and speech and all consciousness of inflicting ill disappears. physical abuse, cultural impoverishment, economic and civil -- [inaudible] are only part of the dismal condition of color-coded abasement, however.

black deconstruction, one of his early essays written a quarter century earlier, the interlocked perniciousness of race, the metaphysics of class and skin color. even as the racial a basis of american slavery hardened over decades can, masters and slaves endured in a codependency based on coercion, manipulation, antagonism that required of the millions of excluded poor whites little more than political passivity and police work. the south under slavery was not yet brazil, but with at least 350,000 people of mixed racial heritage in 1850, a majority of them free, the trend toward hybridization showed no sign of slowing. we now know that before 1850 as one extremely knowledgeable historian maintains, race relations of the lower south

partook of the character of race relations among its latin american and especially its west indian neighbors, quotes closed. duboise emphasized that the planter only began to appeal to the poor whites on the basis of color with the onset of the civil war telling the poor be, enfranchised white man that, after all, he was white and that he and the planters had a common object in keeping the white man superior. consider the consequences to social democracy of this apeel to whiteness -- appeal to whiteness in the chapter titled the white proletariat in alabama, georgia and florida. so long as the southern white laborers could be induced to prefer poverty to equality with the negro just so long was the management in the south made impossible. leftist reviewers deplored as

flagrantly unmarxist, of course, any contention that white workers would endorse compensation by a sort of public and psychological wage. but for dubois, it would serve as a tool of analysis where successor waves of dark europeans are ip ducted into a -- indistricted into a white republic in -- inducted. the exclusion of black people from the white republic was an inevitability for which the victims themselves have, with a fine illogic, been blamed. dubois forced into the pariah status of second class citizenship in order to justify in policy and law their

unfitness for full citizenship. set free then without preparation, denied ownership of land and deserted by the national political party to which they had rendered such strategic, vital service, these people were uniquely vulnerable to being scapegoated and marginalized. the reality was that whatever they did in slavery and freedom had to be discounted simply because to do otherwise was to complicate enormously the ideals, politics and economics of the american creed of laissez-faire. there was one accepted libel that black reconstruction would rebut with what seemed to many a fabrication of surpassing historical license, the libel of the willing support of the confederate war machine by the slaves. the lord of a lost cause depicted the peculiar institution as having been so

benign that the slaves had been proud and happy to serve as the mainstay of the fighting south. in the problematic fourth chapter of the book, therefore, dubois propounded a controversial general strike of the slaves as the second most important factor in the defeat of the southment -- south. he certainly knew the phrase itself with all its anti- leninist car a ma was invite -- karma was inviting derision. evoked images of millions of workers in new york acting in concert to paralyze government, men and women versed in the notions of -- [inaudible] and steeped in the ethos to have the labor with union. the proposition that illiterate black men and women had been capable of intelligent,

collective action decisive enough to affect the course of history was as much anathema to racist historians as it was theoretically vexatious to many. stripped of its overlay of political theory and associations with france's general confederation of labor or great britain's trades union congress, dubois' general strike amounted to little more than the common sense of self-preservation exhibited on a massive scale. as formulated in black reconstruction, the general strike entailed wholesale evacuation of the plantations by the slaves and involved directly in the end perhaps a half million people. they wanted to stop the economy of the plantation system, the author explained. and to do that, they left the plantation. some 145,000 of the 180,000

negro troops in the union armies were slaves who add either escaped to the union lines or signed up when the yankees maaed through the neighborhood -- marched through the neighborhood. what the negro did was to wait, look and listen and try to see where his interests lay, dubois wrote of the slaves' mindset. as it became clear that the union armies would or could not return fugitive slaves and that the masters with all their fume and furry -- fury were uncertain of victory, the same methods they adieused during the period of -- had used during the period of the -- [inaudible] in two numerous instances those wees teem the most have been the first to desert us was it

raitted on a great many plantations in the closing months of the war. leading authorities of reconstruction would begin to embrace the concept of a general strike in all but name so that, first, john hope franklin, then kenneth stamp and in the final decade of the 20th century, eric eric foner in what was once dunning's history department deduced the determination to break away from the plantation system as a crucial component in the north's victory. in looking forward, a chapter brimming with fecund ideas and ending with a poem by jesse fawcett, he deployed the concept of the american assumption to explain the failure of reconstruction. this assumption that wealth was mainly the result of its owner's effort and that any average worker can by thrift become a

capitalist had ceased to be valid after the civil war, he claimed. but its tradition lasted down to the day of the great depression at which point dubois announced writing in 1935, it had died with a great wail of despair. in his american assumption, dubois formulated a version of the creed of exceptionalism that scholars have come to regard as uniquely american. escape from the rise and fall of history into universal opportunity for individuals, endless progress for the nation. yet for a split historical second in the heat of radical reconstruction, dubois maintained that the american assumption had been temporarily counterbalanced. alarmed by the return to congress in 1866 of unreconstructed southerners who might repudiate the civil war debt and almost certainly reduce the national tariff, dubois

characterized northern industry as frightened and moving towards the stand which abolition democracy had already taken; namely, temporary dictatorship, endowed negro education, legal civil rights and eventually even votes for negroes to offset the southern threat of economic attack. the american assumption, dubois described, as a sort of trap door underneath the projects of radical reconstruction whether it was general sherman's special order number 15 giving emancipated slaves possessory titles to 40 acres of land in georgia and south carolina, whether it was the friedman's bureau's success in feeding, clothing, associating work contracts and educating 247,333 new citizens in 4,329 elementary schools, the first federal anti-poverty program, or protecting black voters and

office holders under the civil rights act of 1875. but much sooner than later, in dubois' version of events, the dictatorship of labor imposed on the south by the alliance of northern industry and the abolition democracy collapsed and dropped away through the american assumption. and so it was to be back toward slavery, the title of the throbbing, penultimate chapter with the wages of whiteness destroying any possibility of the solidarity of labor across class lines. the dilemma of divided destiny imposed by white america on black america far more intensely than upon any other people of color pressing against the white republic, crackled again in high voltage prose, in the high voltage prose of the souls of black folk. what other racial group in any advanced nation had been as widely inhibited and mentally

confined as the american me -- negro, dubois implored. the philosophy of salvation has been curiously twisted and distorted from. the defeat of reconstruction to the despair of the great depression, where had history taken them, he asked? what sign post pointed to a way out of the 300-year-old box? shall they use the torch and dynamite? shall they go north? or fight it out in the south? shall they selling regate themselves -- segregate themselves even more than they are now in states or towns, cities or sections? thatshall they leave the cub? are they americans or foreigners? shall they stand and sing my tis of thee? shall they deliberately commit race suicide? long ago in the flush of a

harvard doctorate and a precocious sociological study, dubois had been certain as he would write in the autobiography that the cure for the race problem was knowledge and scientific investigation. the lynching of sam hose here in atlanta, the policies of the general education board and bloody riots in atlanta in 1906 and springfield, illinois, in 1908 disabused him of an ideal far more suited to europe and the enlightenment than to georgia in the reign of tom watson. his faith in the ameliorating power of knowledge had never dissipated, of course, but it only sought what had promised to be the more effective strategy of militant journalism by uncompromising principles and social science. the conviction, that conviction was never to be more intensely manifested than in the

propaganda of history, the solemnly magnificent coda to black reconstruction in which the strictures of calvin and alexander crumb el thunder. dubois proclaimed that history as truth could empower true democracy. pardon me. if only history, historians chose to lie less. he was riding in a field devastated by lies told by rhodes and dunning, by walter fleming and claude bowers and a library of others. there would never be a science of history until we have in our colleges men who regard the truth as more important than the defense of the white race, he remonstrated. and men who not deliberately encourage students to gather thesis material in order to, in

order to prejudice or buttress a lie. dubois' last chapter soared beyond an appeal to honest history into a realm where moral philosophy fused with the symbolism of the creation. i'm fighting a bad head cold. bear with me. but if it was special pleading as biased in its own way as any white supremacists, he saw it as partisanship in the cause of justice and democracy as he proclaimed. the most bag any sent drama in the -- magnificent drama in the thousand years of human history. it was, he wrote, the transportation of ten million human beings out of the dark beauty of their mother continent into the newfound you el doradof the west. and he concluded: they descended into hell, and in the third

century they arose from the dead in the finest effort to achieve democracy for the working millions which this world has ever seen. it was a tragedy that beggared the greek, it was an upheaval of humanity like the reformation and the french revolution. yet we are blind and led by the blind. we discern in it no part of our labor movement, no mart of our industrial triumph, no part of our religious experience. and why? because in a day when the human mind aspired to a science of human action, a history and psychology of the mighty effort, of the mightiest century, we've held under -- we fell under the leadership of those who would compromise with truth in past in order to make peace in the present and guide policy in the future.

the encyclopedia project was at a curious crossroads. the more attention paid to it by the academy and the foundations to the negro, the more resistance there was to privileging the scholarship of one authority whose claim to interpret the problem of the 20th century was unexcelled. two days after the commemoration of his 70th birthday, dubo to is sent a typed, carefully-crafted four-page rebuttal to the 11th hour misgivings informally conveyed to -- what is his name -- stokes, by several general education board trustees. the remaining obstacle, anson felt stokes had been told by the philanthropists was objectivity.

quote: they are only concerned about one thing, stokes had warned in his letter of february 11, and that is whether we thout thruways in which to assure objectivity of our findings, quotes closed. several ged trustees were particularly agitated by the opinion of a british anthropologist who had determined that anthropological scholarship in the united states betrayed either a white or a negro bias. stokes had been advised that this distinguished anthropologist appeared to doubt the possibility that there could be complete objectivity even in historical matters where racial pride on the one hand, our racial prejudice on the oh -- other was at stake. at 61 broadway, the headquarters of -- [inaudible] reflected the board's looming dilemma during the months of

january through march 1938. whether funding its portion of dubois' encyclopedia might not prove unavoidable. the insistence of highly respected and highly political charles johnson, a leading african-american sociologist and philanthropist, in mid martha, quote: interest in the encyclopedia is gathering momentum and had to be d curks ly noted -- duly noted. the academic creed of the day proclaimed that objectivity was if not yet attainable in its purest incarnation, a goal in whose pursuit the disciplined mandarin strove to discard all relativism except those exactions that were inescapably human. the objective historian, like the objective social scientist,

was in the words of the historian whose work has inevitably captured the fiction, a mutual or disinterested judge who must never degenerate into an advocate or even worse, propagandist for the objectivity quest was to be at grave risk when history is written for utilitarian purposes. these are quotes. dubois' february 1938 memorandum to stokes claimed that you could be objective and at the same time you could be an african-american. well, dubois assumed after meeting all the objections of the philanthropists that the funding of the encyclopedia of the negro was imminent, some $260,000. he assumed that the 33-year-old dream was about to materialize and with it the wherewithal of

professional talent and resources sufficient to reform late the problem of the century. for this venture meant as much to him for the symbol and substance of its interracial collaboration as for what it could produce in the way of old data revised and new findings interpreted about the negro. but although his seven decade pageant had filled black american with sound and light, it had been played out largely behind the veil of color, a performance of such exceptional merit and meaning, however, that despite the enforced invisibility of most of the most visible national minority, there had been occasions when the con desending white majority had been compelled to notice. he and the country were both the poorer for the racial prejudice that had forced him into a shoe string career as academic, journalist and man of letters,

an in the margins where -- existence in the margins where never once had there been an offer of a university appointment commensurate with his genius. whitford lo garntion his assistant, could no longer recall the brand, but he still retained a vivid recollection 36 years later of a champagne iced in a bucket in dubois' office. the decision of the general education board committee to refer the encyclopedia to the full board had reached atlanta when the new atlanta university president returned from new york with news that the stokes/dubois proposal was slated for approval at a meeting of the geb trustees on april 6, 1938, a wednesday. anticipating stokes' corroborating telephone call in the late afternoon on thursday,

dubois and logan passed the tension over cigarettes and small talk as the bottle of excellent champagne nestled in the crib of ice. logan was one of the few people with whom dubois ever descended into mere bat wanter, but as -- banter, but logan probably knew him better than anyone else except, perhaps, his second wife. even so, not even he knew dubois, he admitted. it became depressingly obvious as the light went out of the late afternoon that no telephone call would come from anson phelps stokes that day. well, i have some disappointing news for you, the president wrote a few days later, putting the best wasp face on the rejection, stokes complimented the president of the general

education board for being perfectly fine about the whole matter be and another one for fighting for the proposal. the general education board, although not flatly declining our request, has decided that it cannot act favorably upon it. yet, quotes, yet stokes was clearly disconsolate, ending his letter to dubois with a sigh: you and i may not see the project through, although i hope and believe that we will, quotes. ing -- objectivity concerns had continued to nag on certain trustees. head unbowed, dubois replied that quite possibly the chief impediment to raising the funds is my own personality. logan went to his grave convinced that the encyclopedia project had been undermined by the machinations of -- [inaudible] the lesson to be drawn from this

mortifying experience, logan would remind young scholars, was that there was once a time when the world -- when the word of one white man could determine whether a project concerning negroes could be approved or not, quotes. the admonition was correct, but logan blamed the wrong white man. the foundation wasps were only somewhat less receptive to dubois than there were to hearse covisits whose competing proposal had been rejected by the carnegie corporation two years earlier. and so dubois continues to persevere, and then he receives word from the general education board. well, i shall read this. stating frankly that dubois' activity with the naacp

overshadowed his scholar she interests and that more time is necessary to create another impression, better objectivity, obviously, the sympathetic program officer -- jackson davis of the general education board -- lobbied the carnegie corporation to approve its portion of the stokes/dubois application despite the action of his own foundation. dr. dubois is the most influential negro in the united states, he petitioned. this project would keep him busy for the rest of his productive life. dubois had been generally fond of frank koeppel, generally found him to be sympathetic, the carnegie corporation president had unsuccessfully prodded his own trustees to bail out dubois'

magazine, twice mentioned the unly cases costs on black reconstruction and had signaled a noncommittal interest in the encyclopedia of the negro. as it was possible to construe then the general education board's action as a decision to deferrer than an out-- defer rather than an outright rejection, it remained the longest shot that the carnegie might act favorably on the stokes/dubois request for an appropriation of 60% of the $260,000 budget, that he would never receive such an appropriation was to be communicated to dubois in a manner that was both indirect and guilt-ridden. his visitors arrived on campus on the third or the fourth day in november, 1938, with little advance notice. this is the campus of atlanta university. putting aside final revisions of

a book of his, black folk then and now, dubois conversed for a half hour or so with david stevens and jackson davis of the general education board offering reasonable businesses, the real reason was still evident after some minutes of general discussion of the encyclopedia project. two young swedish academics had just arrived in the united states to conduct studies of the negro under the auspices of the carnegie corporation. their names, carl and richard sterner, were unfamiliar to dubois, but he to to lately agreed to discuss the project with him when, as dais -- davis informed him, they would come to atlanta at the end of the month. a 40-year-old economics professor with a major reputation in europe had been

koeppel ooh,'s final product. the astonished university of stockholm professor and social democratic labor leader of the swedish parliament had received the invitation in august 1937. carl and his sparkling university-educated wife had spent is academic in 1929-30 in the united states on a study grant from the rockefeller memorial foundation arriving just as the stock market imploded. they had developed decided views about the american economy, but they knew almost nothing about negroes and the race problem. seven years later they were being asked by the carnegie corporation to return so that they could undertake a comprehensive study of the negro in the united states. the key to the decision to seek

a foreign scholar was contained in koeppel's injust that the carnegie study must be conducted in a wholly objective and dispassionate way. the foundation president had become convinced that special factors -- prejudice, professional jealousies, regional sense terrorists -- put objectivity beyond the reach of home grown social science when dealing with the national race problem, notwithstanding what other prominent american social scientists had to say to the contrary. in his quest for an ideal european, koeppel had considered and eliminated two swedish scholars scholar, an anthropologist, a retired dutch colonial administerrer, a british economist, a south african, the governor of nigeria, a former headmaster of rugby and england's leading anthropotle of the day.

before deciding that the swedish economist possessed the mettle to be the lord bryce of the american negro problem. signaling his acceptance of koeppel's offer but only after being persuaded by a rockefeller foundation can friend to withdraw an initial declaration, he concluded with his wife's concurrence that the carnegie option might be the last exciting project before the onset of middle age. why not the negro as well as anything else, he would recall rather breezily years later. the deal was sealed in the spring of 1938 with a a handshake over cock pails at new york's -- cocktails over new york's century club where the carnegie trustees after delivering harvard lectures and receiving an honorary degree. if you will bear with me, i will read one more page. it brings dubois to 1949 when he is going left and really out of

the mainstream. to put it mildly. this deals with, as i said, that famous waldorf-astoria peace conference. invited at the beginning of the year to serve as a member at large of the national council of arts, sciences and professions, dubois had immediately informed harlow schaaply of his acceptance, although he must have been surprised to see his nemesis, rufus columnen, listed with the four regional chairs of the restructured peace organization. during three days in late march, 1949, the cultural and scientific conference or waldorf-astoria peace conference convulsed manhattan's east side. the catholic war veterans picketed, hundreds of citizens

patrolled the sidewalks, hoisting angry messages. press and radio had given the conference the advance billing reserved for natural disasters to partisan review and the ad hoc band of several hundred incensed cold war liberals calling themselves americans for intellectual freedom, it was a communist front whose perniciousness was the more deadly because of the presence of the severely misguided. sydney cook, mary mccarthy wedged themselves into the discussions to combat heresy. irving howell writing for partisan review sneered at the stalinists who could find no big name, no richard wright or edmund wilson to lead off the conference. howell made no mention of the fact that the state department had denied visas to much of

latin america and to all applicants from western europe, thereby eliminating picasso, j.d -- [inaudible] among in others. seven visas were approved for russia and four or five each for poland, czechoslovakia and romania. dubois' writer discussion described the performance as that of a -- [inaudible] followed by a reluctant norman mailer, a politically inexperienced mind, quote-unquote, expressing disillusionment with both superpowers and consigning the world to the terrible prospect of war. shirley graham, who is dubois' second wife, shirley graham naturally thought his speech in madison square garden on march 27, the final night, was the high point. he spoke to the delegates with an intensity that conveyed something of the depth of his

revulsion centered by spotlight, his diction enhanced by the microphone, dubois proclaimed the cultural and scientific conference for world peace success. in a time of hysteria, suspicion and hate, we have brought together one of the largest gatherings of creative artists and thinkers the world has seen. they were not now, nor probably ever would be, in agreement on all matters. but in one vital respect, our agreement is complete. no more war. he was there to introduce harlow schaaply, but he had not said enough. when the applause subsided, he continued: we mow and the -- [inaudible] nation knows that we are not traitors, nor conspirators, and far from plotting force and violence, it is precisely force and violence that we bitterly oppose. he spoke hurriedly of the failure of the league of nations

and now the united nations to address the cancers of imperialism and racism. 81 years seemed to fall away as dubois delivered his speech. i tell you, people of america, the dark world is on the move. it wants and will have freedom, autonomy and equality. it will not be diverted in these fundamental rights birdie elect call splitting of political hairs. whites may, if they will, arm themselves for suicide, but the vast majority will march over them to freedom. and is still he was not quite finished. race war was not the answer. what he all want is a decent world where a man does not have to have a white skin to be recognized as a man, where sickness and death are linked to our industrial system. then he was done.

peace is not an end, it is the gateway to full and abundant life. shirley graham noted that even some of the policemen in the garden applauded. thank you. [applause] >> david will be happy to take questions, but this talk tonight and your questions are being taped for c-span, so we ask that if you have a question, that you come down here to my left, your right, and talk into the microphone so that you can be, have your moment in the sun at 2 a.m. on the television at some point.

[laughter] >> a question or two? >> good evening. >> good evening. >> [inaudible] i was just wondering if -- [inaudible] as to what happened to yolanda, her relationship with her father -- [inaudible] if she's deceased, when it happened. >> that story is, indeed, rather

a hard one to tell. it's a not uncommon story, is it, of a man whose commitment to great principles and abstraction s means that people nearest and dearest him find that the oxygen is sucked out of their universe, and they. >> riffle and are really -- shrivel and are really denatured by this close contact. so they don't come off so well. they spend their lives, the mother, the wife, the daughter waiting to be noticed by the great man, and periodically he does. but the psychic cost is what was large. and, of course, there are ironies here in that dubois was one of the great feminists of the early part of the 20th century. to read dubois on women's right is the to read some of the most

salient, cogent prose going. not just that women should have the right to vote, but that a women should have complete control of their bodies and equal pay for equal work. and yet dubois' treatment of his wife was, made somewhat a mockery of those principles. similarly, what was the second point about being close to him and suffering, yes, he wrote in a children's magazine that he created in collaboration with jesse fawcett, that name may resonate here, a children's magazine called the brownies for children of color. of again, a wonderfully nurturing publication for young boys and girls of color. but, of course, in his day-to-day and hands-on dealing

with his daughter and with his granddaughter, he was clearly not paying much attention to the text of the brownies book. >> writing a biography starts -- [inaudible] you noted in your introduction that you said -- [inaudible] i wondered if you could tell how, if you could just summarize how your relationship with dubois has changed over the many years you've been writing about it and your thoughts about u.s. history. i know that's very hard -- [inaudible] >> well, relief, i think, is -- [laughter] the major thought of the moment. and what i found is that there are people who are different from the others, not just the rich. but -- and dubois is one of them

in that there is an intellect at work here that is really wondrous to behold. i mean, it's terribly flawed, and half of his opinions are problematic, and of the half that are problematic, some are really wrong. [laughter] but he, he's in his principled quest for solutions to social problems and his willingness to put his pen on the line, he stands out in a country that is, had not so many of his character. and what else? i think what i was pleased to see was that going into this business, you know, i knew as you do that the one thing dubois said that the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line. but at the end i see that i am quoted as saying in the flyer,

handsome flyer that the atlanta history center has distributed announcing this lecture, i said that in the end he discovered or he said it was really the problem of the cash line. and i think that his evolution from a concern for race flights in rather confining terms to blacks in america, people of color in general, the evolution of that and a rather romantic conception of the qualities of people of color, the evolution from that optic to one of an espousal of economic democracy globally and a critique of the market economy as a wonderfully, deadly phenomenon impressed me greatly. it seems to me that even with the collapse of the soviet union and problems of china, the

caveat that dubois offers that the seeding of social problems to the market for solutions is very unwise, extremely costly, and in the end it'll rise up to bite us in the behinds. so those are some of the things that i took away from dubois. >> [inaudible] >> please do. >> first, i have to say i thoroughly enjoyed both books. i can't remember the first one -- [inaudible] this lecture has made me want to ask a couple of questions. first is the dichotomy in dubois with the -- [inaudible] and his involvement with a communist movement which is

authoritarian, as it were. clearly very -- [inaudible] i wonder if you could speak to that. secondly, having been born a national and grown up in atlanta, i -- [inaudible] thoroughly enjoyed all this discussion of dubois. i was curious about his involvement with -- [inaudible] ..

>> the question about, that you underscore that i should say something about in the time remaining, and that is the paradox of a man who is so committed to human rights and racial rights ending up using the college readiness him as a cultural -- totalitarianism, it's a paradox. while you could argue that it makes sense for me what pragmatic and maki building perspective, your enemy is your friend, that ideology. you expect more from this great intellectual and humanist that i spent so much time depicting. so a biographer is troubled by

discoveries of that sort, but my job is simply to recover the life, recapture the life, and i don't have to be overly much -- these oxymorons or paradoxes, of which there are so many. but as i biographer that's just one of the material to use. >> [inaudible] i guess i have a question about paradox as well. i guess one of the things that strikes me -- [inaudible] >> the president of atlanta university, yes. >> and i'm wondering about, you

know -- [inaudible] my reading of dubois is he understood the situation. but i'm wondering how did he handle what was the hope of the amendment and the principles of immigration? and perhaps even in terms of the poor northern areas -- [inaudible] >> it's a mixed bag. it is. the frustration of white supremacy and jim crow was such

that dubois kept bumping up against the edges of the box, and so sometimes he would offer one solution and sometimes he would offer a solution that was diametrically opposite. confusing there for the people who had marched with him and gaining allies who are really disingenuous. the best example of that is when dubois going out of the naacp wrote some inflammatory editorials with the title segregation, segregation self-respect. what he was saying was that this is a fact of racial rights and would endure for quite sometime and, therefore, one should be smart about making the best segregation possible and, therefore, he suggested some sort of socialist solutions in the south, perhaps not too realistic. he was misunderstood. by the naacp rightly said as many people did, look, you just can't have the luxury of that kind of intellectual

hypothesizing, he does we hear, injuring into the congressional record, and your thoughts and pros by rankin and several congressmen who are saying that the new deal should be color-coded with separate wage scales for whites versus blacks. and they are quoting you, and so, you know, this is just not very -- well, it's a difficult thing and i think that the inconsistencies reflect a second mind trying to find a way out. >> [inaudible] do you think this

modern version of the negro follows -- [inaudible] >> it certainly inspired henry louis gates talked about how the idea gestated within. it's very clear that dubois was the source, cradle of the idea. and it succeeds i think remarkably well. i've a large contribution to it, so i make a frank claim of no objectivity perhaps, but it's -- [laughter] it's got some troubling flaws i gather, each a specialist as the logged on and said you have not done a very good job here or there. not too surprising and i suppose now henry louis gates after he sold it for $10 million, for source money to work out the issues.

[laughter] yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> great, thank you. >> a great comment from dr. king, comparing to gandhi and such like that. [inaudible] >> that's it. there's no malcolm x that -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, that's really delicious speculation, and i declined to do so because i'm still a historian and its just not the

thing i believe in doing. i can tell you what i would like him to say, if he were around. i think he probably would not have understood malcolm x. i think, dealing with a gentleman here who is indeed very elitist. he must've been the most elitist person of the comments part in the united states. [laughter] so i think he would have mistaken malcolm x persona a not perhaps have been patient enough to give him more time. but i think that there would have been some ideological problems of their as well. well, thank you very much. [applause] >> on booktv tonight, the

investigative journalism team. they worked together for over four decades writing eight books, winning two pulitzer prizes. it begins at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> wilson was so intellectual and he was our most academic most educated president. is the only president with a ph.d. as a result of the of the most other books that were written about him has been academic in nature, and i think they've missed the very human side of this man. he was deeply emotional, passionate, romantic figure. he had two wives. his first wife died, he courted, fell in love with a woman and married a second time. he wrote thousands of passionate love letters to each of these women. this was a real living, breathing human being.

and i don't think we have seen that about woodrow wilson. >> a. scott berg's biography of woodrow wilson releases next week. hear more sunday night at a on c-span's q&a. >> the ringing of the bell announces the opening of a thanksgiving day of the 22nd annual sale of christmas seals. >> this house is always good and should. it would be such a shame when we came here to find hard anything of the past in the house. hardly anything before 1902. and then when we went to colombia, the president took powerless there and all the history of that country in it. every piece of furniture in it has some link with the past. i think the white house should be like that. >> our message was this, as mothers we are concerned, as

first ladies and the citizens of the world we pledged to do all possible to stop this. >> season to of original series first ladies influencing image, look at the public and private lives of the women who serve as first ladies in their own words live monday night including your calls, facebook, it's an tweet starting next monday with first lady edith roosevelt at nine eastern on c-span and c-span3. >> on monday the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit will hear oral arguments in the case of verizon v. fcc. it will determine whether the fcc has the authority to regulate internet service providers. analyst discuss the legal and technological implications at ththe new america foundation. this is an hour and a half.

>> hello and welcome to everyone join us in the room, and via the live stream online. for all of you i encourage you to continue the conversation online using hashtag #openinternet. i'm sarah morris, and i'm thrilled introduce a really great participants are today to talk about the future of our communicate an ecosystem. we are here today to talk about the open internet.

today about the status of the case in the d.c. circuit where the fcc's open internet order is being challenged, though we're also here to look more broadly at the problems that have emerged as the fcc grapples with the scope of its authority over modern communications networks. the challenges that result affect us all and will continue to affect us all. arbitrary regulatory distinctions means federal policies are leading in porton -- principles that ensure argumentation's networks connect everyone everywhere, that our network servers opened levels that allow each of us to access the content and tiki medicaid unencumbered. that new competitors can actually compete on a level playing field with incumbent providers. and ultimately, that a digital divide marked by racial socioeconomic or geographic lines is not perpetuated. the values that underlie these principles, the benchmarks of

what is not as common carriage, date back over a century. they are not new. the sec needn't reinvent the wheel's. so we'll discuss here what a modernize application of these pencils might look in the context of 21st century communication. and join in the discussion today our matt wood, policy director at free press. steven renderos, national organizer for the center for media justice. marti doneghy -- did i say right? from aarp. angie kronenberg from comptel, and susan crawford, professor, benjamin cardozo school of law, fell at the roosevelt institute, codirector at the berkman center, former special assistant for science, technology, and innovation policy to president barack obama, and author of captive audience. susan congress are pleased to

have you and i don't have much to say on this topic so turn the floor over to you for opening remarks after which we'll proceed to a conversation among all the participants. >> thank you and welcome to everybody. thank you to the new america foundation posing as. there's a spring issues into negations policy and law and a lot of shiny objects, a lot of confusion picks up must be released especially the journalists in the crowd here that the case being argued on monday at the d.c. circuit, called verizon v. fcc, actually presents a moment of grandeur, a very significant historical moment. the question presented by the case is does the u.s. government have any role to play when it comes to ensuring ubiquitous open, world-class, interconnected recently priced internet access? does the government have good reason to ensure that facility and american? i believe it does, both for

competitive reasons, because asia countries ever taken are adopting host is pushing exactly to that end. and also because we have an obligation to ensure a thriving middle class that can help this country remain strong for generations. so this case being argued on monday that we will discuss today is situated in history for two powerful reasons. it is an attack on the idea that the government has any role in ensuring open, world-class, ubiquitous interconnected, reasonably priced high speed internet access. and it's an attack on the idea at both the administered level, so whether fcc has delegated authority from congress to do what it did in the open internet

role that we'll discuss, and administratively that attack is very strong and it stems from some elaborate legal domestic's that many people in this room are very highly qualified to talk about. and they will talk about it in detail, if you want. but that's all about policy. those decisions made by the fcc were made against the background of a single legal authority. and we'll get through those policy decisions one way or another. they will get decided. that's the administrative level. what i would like to highlight this afternoon is the profound, the profound attack this case represents on congressional authority to say anything about high speed internet access under the commerce clause. each talk has just one message, and so i get one thing that you will remember today. and that one thing that's so

important is that the d.c. circuit must firmly squashed verizon's first amendment claim, that any oversight of its high speed internet access service would be unconstitutional. the d.c. circuit must stop this argument in its tracks. verizon says that in its capacity, when it's wearing that hat as a high speed internet access provider, it is the same as the "washington post." and that any effort by government to constrain its ability, the slice and dice and prioritize and make deals with content providers about that high speed internet access could be found, should be found unconstitutional under the first amendment. now, verizon has plenty of good reasons to make this astonishing and laughable argument. it's an attempt to constitutionalize the regulation

of general-purpose communications networks. they want to move questions about the oversight of those networks out of the political realm, out of the political bridge, congressional delegated power to the fcc over to the courts. and make sure that there's a roadblock, a very tall constitutional roadblock to any oversight. they seek to remove any threats, any threat of oversight over high speed internet access. we have seen this before. exactly the same claims were made by companies seeking to remove regulatory oversight, but even then telephone companies did not have the claim that the first amendment would bar any oversight or regulation of their transport activities. verizon's goal is to make this sound like a serious, legitimate

constitutional argument. if they get there, that's a win. if this sounds serious, it's a win for them. because that will make some court, and they're hoping it's the supreme court, someday, and he'll make this argument over and over and over again, agree that this is a serious question. that oversight of high speed internet access, or any general-purpose transport network, raises constitutional questions about speech. and then they will pivot and they will say in light of the 36 questions, you can't possibly defer to what the administrative agency, in this case, the fcc, has done to exert oversight over us. they will repeat this over and over again, this laughable argument. this happened with health care. just keep saying it and hope that someone believes you, that there's a constitutional claim at issue. well, i'm here to tell you that the government has very good reasons to oversee the operation

of these general-purpose transport networks. and these reasons are so good, and verizon's claim is so absurd, that it's important that the d.c. circuit make a plain statement about this. remember why we have a first amendment. it's to keep government from directing the content of messages, from savoring certain points of view. what is the likelihood that the government and the net neutrality order at issue in this particular case, or any other arena of communications policy over general-purpose transport networks, is actually suppressing speech, or attempting to favor certain messages over others. i'll tell you what that likelihood is. it's zero. that's not what is going on here. there is no subterfuge, no attempt to censor. verizon will say is being forced to subsidize speech by being obliged to be neutral. that's nonsense. 50 years ago the same arguments were made by segregationists,

saying that the lunch counters were being used to subsidize sit ins. those argument only rated at paragraph 50 years ago. they were disgrace will at the time. here, sure, everything is subsidized by something else, but there has to be some line. scalia said it clearly about 10 years ago that curtatone plaza reclaim that everything is related to everything else, but there's a line and the transport network is not subsidizing the speech that travels over it. it's certainly not subsidizing messages. understandable messages by an audience with which it does not agree. that's not going on in this case. the d.c. circuit needs to slam the door on this first amendment argument decisively. because what verizon is what what verizon is what are trying to do in this entire case is protect its profitable position. it wants power to squeeze profit everywhere, both at its interconnection points with other networks and in the last

mile by prioritizing and discriminating with respect to traffic. but economic loss is not a first amendment injury. verizon is free to speak anytime it wants to be anything but merely allowing other peoples a speech to cross its lines does not amount to compelled speech. luckily, in a recent supreme court decision justice roberts very methodically made that clear in the context of the solomon amendment case. so we're hoping that the d.c. circuit pays attention to the. and verizon is not being singled out. these companies who are at issue in the open net order are regulated entities who provide wires and transmission lines and use rights-of-way to provide general-purpose communications into u.s. households. yes, there's a line between regulated entities and applications that use the internet. that's online. it doesn't mean that the

regulated entities are being singled out as speakers for their messages. the sidewalk is different from the conversation. and right now we are worried about the sidewalks unconstrained power to rise up and make more money by picking and choosing the particular conversations in which to approve. government had good reasons to prefer open networks to private carriage, to ensure adequate its access just as her phone system was the envy of the world when it was built. and to make sure our infrastructure is world class. indeed, the first amendment and its protection of dissent and freedom of the press is demeaned by verizon's argument in this case. surely would've not forgotten where all this came from, and we have common sense. verizon is not a newspaper being forced to support views it opposes. it's trying to use "the miami herald" case to say. nor is it wearing this hat a

television distributor exercise editorial discretion over which stations are programs to include in its repertoire. that's another case it's trying to use the attorney case in 1994. left to its own devices, verizon providing high speed internet access would like to choose programs and channels. so this claim has a crucial timing element to it. and a chicken and egg aspect. it's got to be squelched before becomes to all on its own. studies have shown that the benefit of open transport indications that works to all of society far exceeded the short-term benefits to carriers of extracting deals that help their stock price. this is not about regulate and the internet. this is about regulating internet access and the congressional authority to do so. so to sum up, the d.c. circuit has to make this clear. or we risk giving up on oversight over a basic network

input and absolutely everything we do. we need to reclaim the regulatory idea which unleashes human capital that is now stunted in this country. this won't be disruptive to those of us who are on the top mf59 education. it would be true though that failing to do so risks wreaking havoc. we have a shared purpose as a nation. we and empower the wrongly disenfranchised. it in our collective self-interest to get this right and this appellate cases part of a fabric of the story. verizon versus fcc is the right case in which the d.c. circuit can make clear that verizon is not a first amendment actor when it is transporting internet access. because verizon is so clearly wrong in making that argument, and i look forward to the d.c. circuit explaining why verizon is wrong, slowly, clarity and methodically, and i hope the argument on monday is

eliminating in that regard. thank you for giving me the honor of listening to me. i look forward to hang from everybody else on this panel. thanks. >> thank you, susan, for that compelling examination of a court issue in the open internet challenge but i think i will turn to you, matt, and that you give us a bit more context and background on the case, where we are, how we got there. and then we'll turn to the other panelists to give them the opportunity to explain what all of this means for them and for their constituency. >> it's great to be here, as always. susan has done her usual brilliant job of framing this case and telling you what net neutrality is not. it's not the content regulation. it's not speech revision t to is regular scent of a king in case network and i love that line about the sidewalk for the conversation. we've had a regular phone network for a while and in some ways we still do but that doesn't mean the government or anybody is regulating what you and i say to each other on that phone.

it means there is a basic guarantee of openness and access them universal service, affordability for that line that connects us all. so that's what net neutrality is a. it's not content regulation. it is a record in that even the though people try that line on you even today. what it is is a simple statement of the centuries old principles that the person you pay to ship something for you can't mess with the content of what they are caring for you. subleasing that contrary to verizon's claim isps can't edit the internet. they can't edit your income message. they can't say you can use some applications and services but not others, as long as those applications and services are not harmful to network. he could -- you should use any one of them. they can't say some service will cost you more, sponsor those coincidentally that compete with their own services. a country like comcast say we like it when you pay is twice the.

wouldn't be nice if we could keep you from relying on the internet access peace for all of your video and keep that second check coming to us every month for tv services? this isn't hypothetical. this is something that they've tried to do and that's the genesis of the open internet case where today. there was a predecessor case in the d.c. circuit the basically rent from 2007-2010 and finished up just as this one was taking off at the sec. it's not hypothetical. it's something i promise you they want to do today. even talk about it, slightly fancier press in place like aspen where they say we should be allowed to experiment with new schemes for paying for content, and what they mean is more money flowing into the isps call for doubling from the who pay them to deliver content, i pay comcast, ashamed to say, for the internet connection. they want to have the ability to charge also google or facebook or netflix or whomever more important for smaller companies

that aren't quite as well healed as those guys are today. they want to charge them for getting that content and craving all these additional revenue streams, monetizing all the sorts of ways. so how does that get us to today. one of these rules that are under challenge in court this week actually do? how well do they live up to the principle of what i'd said they should do which is keep the isp, the conduit itself from anything with the messages caring for you. they do a decent job i guess would have to say. sometimes people say there've been no complaints, no high profile adjudications of the sec so that means there's no need for the role, right? i think it shows the rules and work. they have kept the word on some of the worst kept cases. we may be nice if we could do this. they have intention every bit of bad behavior. we saw at&t on the wireless network refuse to make an application that apple sells called face time available to

everybody who got wireless service to at&t. they said you can have as long as you pay us for unlimited voice minutes and as long as you're paying us on a metered basis for the data you use. a lot like that comcast model. that is twice. you are free to go subsidy something else for it as long as that chick is guaranteed and as long as we're getting paid as a carrier two or three times. go off and have fun but only once they have discriminated against the competitive content, the innovative application that might take away some of their legacy business. i said the rules that were to some degree. the free press was not happy with the compromise struck when order was adopted in 2010 by the sec. lots of open internet advocates were not satisfied with the compromises. i'll touch on three quickly and finish as a third with on the authority peace which is as susan said maybe not as compelling that is very important in the case. it will come first most likely in the case. the judges will first consider

whether the fcc has authority to adopt these rules at all. the first cover mice we did not like was this wireless disparity that we talked to in the past with the sec has different rules that apply to wireless and wired networks. the way that plays out is on a wireless network that kerry has no obligation to oppose nondiscrimination principles. they can basically say we feel like charging you more because we can. and try and stop us. that's allowed for at least its conscience i fcc rules if not encourage. they also said the wireless carries could not block applications to compete with their own services, skype or google voice or phone your favorite. those are protected but of applications i give you application, a social media top could be fair game. not just for discrimination, not just for deferential treatment but for blocking by the isp. that's the first album, the wireless disparity. second problem all talk but more briefly, a lot of loopholes.

him and they all work so hard to make this important statement that preserve these principles for us. but things like him this might set of nightmares for people in the audience, but things like reasonable network management, whatever that may mean can our managed services which we know that has defined even to this day. the obvious loopholes and landmines that may be very legitimate ways for isps to manage their networks and maybe we for them to abuse that privilege and abuse their gatekeeper power. third way was its authority basis and susan touched upon us susan touched upon this archive is quicker entered over to the rest of our all-star panel to talk about the real-world implications of the authority question, not get too lost in the dry legal part. what the fcc has done for the last decade or more is continued down this mistake about a saying the internet and internet access services more precisely, are not really transition services to

their kind of like a transmission service but they're also different enough that we don't have the same kind of food over them as a day or something like a telephone network. however, we saw some authority, you know, very much unclear as to what that authority as. i wouldn't say that's a wrong argument or a bad legal theory. it's just not the claims want the fcc has available to it. so the question in this case on the authority issue is not will this issue is not will this be the end of the line for the fcc. they have other options available that we think they can and, frankly, should've taken a long time ago, but it might be the end of this regulatory twilight zone in which broadband internet access service and other broadband telecommunications services have lived for the better part of the last decade and and now through two presidential administrations and that's what we'll see us the argument plays itself out and as the judges finally render a decision sometime later this year or maybe early next year if it slips that long, as does the fcc have this authority it claims over network management

practices or does it need to go back and try yet again? the problem is this is not on something that affects net neutrality. the fcc is given a broad decision. i agree a narrow line is more likely but they might be don't have no authority whatsoever over broadband communication, over modern communicate and. and that would be a disaster because we need fcc to make sure we have a level plain feel so that competitive companies like those andy represents provide service to people and most importance of the constituencies and communities like those of marti and steven here to represent have access to that world-class modern communications network that we so very much need even as the technology and the content running over it changes. so that's more than enough for me. i'll stop there and ask and if i'd missed it, if i did anything wrong that were made during that very exciting i guess might be one word for but also tense time at the fcc three years ago. >> as legal advisor to

commissioner clyburn and i wouldn't doubt her whole team from her legal team was involved, and the consideration of the fcc's order here but i primarily was responsible for representing the commission as we review the order and had discussion with our fellow commissioners, the chairman's office and the staff. i wanted to take us back and broaden a little bit about what was going on at the time that we are considering the fcc order. first, there was wide, public support for the commission to act, to be something. why is this? i think it was because folks began to realize how important it is to have access to the internet as we had all grown to love it. to be able to access video, voice alternative, to be able to surf the web, check the "washington post" website, "the new york times." and this idea that we would have to pay more or the content provider would have to pay more to reach as, sort of a scary

idea. how is that going to change what it is that consumers were doing every single day with the internet? in addition, there was this economy going around the internet. and we've seen lots of innovation, alternative options, new competition. that's very exciting, especially because it's really expensive to reach consumers. here's an alternative to reach consumers in a new and exciting way. many of the staff had grown up during this internet age. i begin work in the mid '90s. i remember when you couldn't attach anything to an e-mail. i remember when we used to talk about whether or not you would be able to provide for his orpheus service over the internet. so the idea that we've gotten to this place i think we all were on humbled at the fcc. we wanted to be sure that we were taking steps to protect consumers, but at the same time the rules wouldn't be so onerous that we really would alter or

somehow stop new innovations that could happen that would benefit consumers. another thing i wanted to point out is that congress had become quite aware of how important the internet was picked in the american recovery and reinvestment act, congress had directed the commission to spend time and money putting together an national broadband plan. how can we get broadband? how can we get high speed internet access to all americans? that's affordable. and they also provided in that act billion dollars to build broadband in america, to make sure that all consumers would have access to this new, exciting service. they recognize that very much like how electric service had been when it first began, how telephone service began, and realized that this helped equal the playing field for consumers and provides them new opportunities. here are ways that we can create economic opportunities in rural america. and the president touting

include an open internet policy in his presidential platform. so these broad discussions were going on, the importance of an open and it going on. and i think the commission really wanted to ensure that one, yes, consumers can have access to this open internet. they have the opportunity to speak. they have the opportunity to reach competitive opportunities. and at the same time we were very humbled i in the position that we're in, and we wanted high level rules that would provide this. and we knew that yes, it wasn't going to please everyone. and perhaps that meant that we actually got to the right compromise that on both sides everyone met everyone was happy. i do have a deferred -- a different hat on. i represent can't tell which is the trade association representing competitive carriers -- the commission laid

out very clearly in this order how it is that large isps do also have alternative services, video services, voice services have an incentive to discriminate against competitors. so small companies that are trying to compete over the internet and awful alternative services to consumers would be put at a disadvantage about these rules. and so that's the perspective that i wanted to provide from my old position and in my new position. and happy to be here and to continue this discussion with you all. >> thank you. we want to hear more from you about how your current members are put at a disadvantage when we don't have certainty about just how the committee nation's network and the public network hanging together and serve everybody come and benefits what humans can provide. the general sense, i think it

more importantly people and communities are impacted by these rules and by lack of certainty about their communications future. that's why we're so excited to have marti and steven a. marti for aarp, a powerful voice on a lot of issues that are in play here in washington, but a special on this issue as well. and on the impacts that lack of affordable and universal communication services can have on all americans but especially on aging populations who have as much do as anything for the services that may be don't always adapt to the newest service instantly ended have some kind of certainty in all of these changing technology landscape. >> so please, marti, whatever you like to sure about the impact your members have seen. >> thank you very much and thank you, new america foundation, and colleagues here for this great opportunity to talk about potential impacts to the 50 plus population regarding this decision, or the next weekend

and the imminent decision to aarp is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization with a membership of more than 37 million, and we hope people turn the goals, particularly the 50 plus population, turned their goals and dreams into possibilities. real possibilities. we hope communities and we fight for the issues that matter most to families, we believe, such as health care, employment and income security, retirement planning, affordable utilities, yes, and protection from financial abuse. broadband services, the technology itself, many of you in the road are much more specialists, experts than myself. but i can say that an aarp, we see broadband as a successful connector for the 50 plus population. we understand that while all people have a fundamental need to stay connected one another will be part of the wider

community, being connected is particularly important for the 50 plus population. older adults find out later in life many times that there are more potential opportunities after the age of 50 than before, such as becoming an entrepreneur, starting new businesses, just coming up with those dreams and goals that they wish they had thought of, and proceeded with when they were 20. but now after a life full of work they have an opportunity to engage in that. the 50 plus population in this country is growing very rapidly, and projected to increase by 21% by 2020. and those over 65 growing by 33% by the year 2020, which is just a minute away. all of the communities in all of this nation really need to go to work and find ways to keep the very large and vibrant growing 50 plus population, not only engaged, but also connected.

we'd like to talk about the technology infrastructure and broadband and the implications and impact for this population. we know that lifelong learning opportunities are very high on the list for the 50 plus population. and they get an opportunity to study in local institutions in higher education and intergenerational access to public schools and community facilities t. access to public services offered by federal, state and local governments where information on critical, life-saving and life enhancing benefits are online now. and those populations or those of adults have no access or who have limited access really value broadband and internet to getting to those benefits. and again i mention access to entrepreneurial and small business startup opportunities very important. want to talk very quickly so we can move to questions and

answers about how we see this rapid technological change happening in telecommunications. aarp firmly believes that as the technology involves -- evolves, they cannot be obsolete. they must move and transition with the technology. there is no stopping point. there is no tipping point. they must move as the technology evolves for the protection of the consumers and in the nation's public interest as well. we know that the classification issue is at the core or at the heart of a lot of the distress right now regarding the hearing next week in other telecommunications issues if we try to help our members understand the difference regarding the classification, telecommunication services, the fcc has so much more authority under that right, under the classification as opposed to the

information service. so we can help our members understand the difference but network neutrality, aarp supports an open internet. we support the consumers right to access information openly without discrimination of content or service. so we are firmly supported in that camp. we believe that policymakers should ensure that consumers have the right to use their internet connection to access to use, receiver offer any lawful content or services that they choose over the internet. and consumers should have the right to attach any device to the operators broadband network, as long as that device does not damage or degrade the subscriber's use of the network or other subscribers use of the network. ..

broadband technology and with the internet represents is full grown robust technology and is treated as critical to our nation and public interests of our nation and very critical to our 50 plus population and quality of life issues as all of us age. we feel the public for its patients, its encouragement and to a great extent its

subsidization of this great innovation technology broadband, deserves a federal communications commission whose role will be to protect, strength and universal access of not only connectivity but the content and services the internet will offer. >> thank you so much, marti. let's get sarah morris back in. last but not least is stephen. marti talked about broadband as the basic communications platform, no longer something that is fledgling. what does it mean for communities to don't have access to basic connectivity? what impact do we see when we don't have equal and open access and affordable access for every population, not just those few who buy it from verizon who claim it is theirs and they can edit it if they want to? >> first of all, thank you for having me on this panel. it is an extreme honor to be on this panel with so many folks

that i have the deepest amount of respect for and i am humbled to be here. i am here with the center for media justice but i should be truthful who live actually representing on the 160 members of the immediate action grassroots network which is a national network we coordinate with membership across the country. the open internet has an impact in three areas. no it is vital to the communities that are represented to the network which are communities of color, communities, low-income, for and working class communities, vital for their health and well-being. it is important to protect the public interests, particularly the same vulnerable communities, without these protections can be priced out of this vital infrastructure, sometimes relegated towards a second class

internet that impact their ability to communicate effectively and participate in this global twenty-first century economy. lastly you see an impact, the open internet is vital in protecting a platform that is democratized our communications and provided us an effective platform where we can voice our opposition and that will go into that a little bit more. this is about controlling ownership of this vital infrastructure and these are preexisting tensions communities of color, rural communities, working class communities are familiar with. one of our network members, an organization in mississippi, they run a massive digital literacy program for jill fernand elementary and middle school and high school because they know how critical the skills are too a quality

education and they are engaged in this work trying to connect education through digital literacy just because it is so vital. around jobs broadband has been an engine behind economic development. interesting study by the center for social inclusion in mississippi naacp that took a look at broadband in the mississippi delta and analyzed zip codes and how many broadband providers were in those zip codes, they had four to seven broadband providers, internet service providers, there were 378 businesses and the codes that had zero there were about seven and it is no surprise a lot of those zip code is very much dovetailed over with rural communities, poor communities, communities of color. what we learned from these struggles is when we lack agency over these critical infrastructures our communities suffer. this case in the fight for an open internet is our fight

because it is directly tied to our other fights for community health and well-being and as other folks alluded to, corporations are often times trying to look for more ways to make more profit which is natural, they are corporations so when profitmaking conflict with public interest in a lot of cases profitmaking usually wins out but it doesn't have to be this way. network neutrality is the principle that protects the public and when this erodes we face an internet ecosystem that preys on the public. shortly after the fcc implemented its network neutrality rules, metro p c s came out with a tiered data plan to pay $40 and get unlimited what they called unlimited web browsing and you could get unlimited youtube. for a little more you can get additional websites and when you see this tiered structure that

is similar when we think about cable, metro pc yes is a company that amounts to t mobile but it was the company back then that was marketing for the communities of color. think about the internet experience we are inviting people into when we don't have these vital protections so when corporations are in a position to pick winners and losers the losers tend to be those most vulnerable communities, communities of color, poor, working-class communities. without an open internet we are denied yet again one more platform, arguably for us in our day and age the biggest platform to express our opinions, that reflect the best interests of our communities. this is relevant now more than ever as the president and congress debate what action to take in syria. is vitally important that we have access to media platforms that allow us to oppose military force, to call for peaceful intervention, that allow us to hear the stories of groups like

iraq veterans against the war and challenge the obvious anti muslim racism we see that is so much part of a mainstream media. i think in this issue about a lot of companies that are against network neutrality are the same companies that provided this massive amount of data to the nsa. users all across the u.s. and an open internet was the platform that allowed for us to hear these secret surveillance programs that come to life. the online communities that have fought back against policies like sofa, it is a vital platform that allows us to build power and challenge when it is necessary. in conclusion those of the three pieces we see as important. we need an open internet for health and well-being, we need deal and internet to protect the public interest and protect those most vulnerable and we need the open internet as a platform for descent.

>> thank you. that was very compelling. i want to take a moment and broaden the scope of bit. and fink a little bit about the worst-case scenario susan described earlier where the court would sort of issue a sweeping ruling that says the fcc has no authority to regulate broadband and other policies beyond neutrality and the open internet order, the lack of authority would affect. i can start off by flagging the universal service fund and probably marti and angie could add to that but what we are seeing, trying to to broaden the scope of the funds or broaden the scope of the things supported within universal service fund to include broadband service. in the context of the lifeline program which provides a

discount for low-cost telephone service, we have seen calls from groups across the country to expand the program to allow it to support standalone broadband. we have also seen as sort of the inability, to work and extend those regulations to include broadband within the lifeline. we have gotten there partially but to support broadband as a stand-alone service, so i know there is lots of, the scope of the regulatory authority over traditional telephone companies involves much more than nondiscrimination. to dig into these other related issues that -- >> my worst-case scenario is worse than that, that there be no congressional authority to delegate power to the sec to act and what you get then is a continuation of the status quo which is divided markets, take wired, and will take wireless,

able to charge whatever you want for whatever services you want, becomes another private limousine service that some people get access to and some people don't. so all the positive, we called them--all the great things that happened for society because we have things like the postal system and federal highway system in america, communications networks, the phone reached everybody at an equal level, that huge competitive advantage for the country is whittled away because we have a few people, the more affluent who will be able to get access to second class networks but better than their less well-off brother will, new businesses won't be able to rely on a common interface so they risk having the rug pulled out from under them when they want to attract new investment and that launched at the equivalege

access for americans, education everything we support is by not having interconnected internet access and we won't get that without having some oversight because left to their own devices we will get what we have got which is the status quo and deeply profit driven enterprise. >> i would like to emphasize what has been mentioned by a couple people on the panel already, there are still pockets of populations in this country that have no access, and very limited access, rudimentary access to even phone service, great phone service, not to mention broadband, internet and so forth. the demise of the sec as a gatekeeper, preserver of

public-interest, in that respect would turn communities that are struggling to survive with no providers to what i would like to say waste land because economic development doesn't happen, populations who want to continue generation after generation, that is not going to happen but we still have places in this country and without an fcc, gatekeeper, a public-interest roll, those places may never get service and those with limited service would have a very difficult time attracting the profit driven provider to come into those communities. i just want to speak to those rural populations and other places that don't have what we see in washington d.c. and other urban areas in this country. >> we do know congress had that concern already and specifically devoted money towards building

projects so that more consumers can have access to high-speed internet service and we also know that a commission to has a statute, hasn't been updated since 1996 looked at the lifeline reform which occurred about a year and a half ago, put together a pilot program for broadband internet access service for low-income consumers, relied upon the statute relied upon the internet access case to do that. the pilot project that is ongoing right now so that they can turn the lifeline program into not just a voice said the reprogram but also a broad band subsidy program. as you indicated, the commission permits the subsidy for purposes of packages so consumers find both a voice and a broadband package, it can be subsidized, but it is a lot of money the subsidy is.

it is not apparent that there are a lot of companies that are currently offering that service to low-income subscribers in the lifeline program. if the courts, even if it shuts down the case, so congress still has the authority to delegate to the fcc. it may somehow limit the authority that the fcc has been delegated and we have to go back to congress in order to be able to ensure that low income consumers can be served, that they can get access to broadband internet access through subsidies, it is going to take a while for that to happen and that is the concern. if the court doesn't shut down the whole thing at this point and uphold the commission's statutory authority, the 706 a authority, 706 b authority, the language in various portions that were tied back, related to the service of video, the service of voice and the 230

provision that was relied upon by the fcc. hy would even go, stress beyond what susan stressed, they really need to uphold the fcc at this time and the fcc have to go back and redo the amount of time that will take the fcc and the political pressure they would feel from the public and from the company and this is not a great use of government resources. this question has been asked and answered and the court should uphold it and there are many other things the fcc needs to work on including finishing up our pilot project and making sure low-income consumers have access to affordable broadband internet access service. >> for me, part of what i think about is i am in an interesting generation where i am old enough

to have gone to school and at times when i didn't necessarily need access to the internet, i was also the first person on my block what i was growing up in los angeles to get a computer and have a dial up connection. i was the go to person for every query. but nowadays when i go back, my cousin lives with my mom now and she has a broad band connection, cable connection at home, she needed because she goes to college. my cousin next door who is in high school regularly on a daily basis utilizes her computer to finish her homework. for me, the doomsday scenario is more what the impact is going to be to people in their homes, out in communities. this is an infrastructure that is now being utilized for so many critical things. i held my mom complete her taxes on line, helped family members look for jobs on line, look for directions. this is everyday survival stuff.

i think angie is absolutely right. we need to keep moving forward. this authority question, what is interesting is it is a very critical question but it is also interesting to me because it reminds me of the four talks songs same old song, it is the same old song. every time the fcc decides to do something it seems like, the carriers don't like it, they respond by saying the fcc doesn't have the authority to do that and we have seen their recently. we completed our network, part of a campaign to lower the cost of phone calls from the prison and the fcc did such an amazing job in addressing an issue that had been longstanding and the commission for over a decade and angie was involved in that so thank you. what are the carriers saying? they don't want to be regulated so the fcc has no authority.

these arguments come up time and time again any time the sec tries to do something. it is a very important question. come on. >> without really questioning angie's true statement this will tie the commission up in knots, back to that point all little bit to get past the same old song, people will say the fcc does that, if they do the right thing they will be sued. they get sued no matter what they do. a lot of hard by saddam that the time of the open internet order drafting was at least get sued for the right thing. do the strong thing, do the right thing and you will get sued no matter what the going with your strongest theory. obviously if the fcc chose to redo the order based on a narrow -- would be a big political fight. the open internet rules, and

that neutrality, they tied themselves into to navigate the current system we have to be guaranteed they send traffic to one another based on nothing more than the technologies they are using more the type of facility whether it is copper wire or cable wire, providing the same service, a vital communications service we need for our economy and society and your companies have to deal with the regulatory arbitrage and the games the incumbents play to make that as difficult as possible for their competitors. >> seems like the same old song. what that is referring to is congress did provide for provisions in the 1996 act to open up the local markets, specifically the local phone markets for competition. and as we see more companies

transitioning to new technologies like internet protocol transmission, they are now arguing that the internet, therefore the commission should regulate it the same way that it is regulated, the traditional service, they do not want to interconnect with competitive carriers, they want the commission to treat it as though it is all over the top, and internet hearing will take care of the situation and our position is this is not internet arrangements, these are voice products that are managed services just like it is managed today over the carrier's network. in fact they all advertise their voices over internet protocol services, is not carried over the internet and we continue to have that fight with them and so there is a lot of spillover. the arguments you have seen before and you see again

proceeding after proceeding and the commission's whack of the termination how to classify services, how to treat services and it has to tie itself up in knots in order to enact consumer protection and occasionally we find out here is a consumer protection interconnected voyage that hasn't been covered such as the recent case, who knew that as it turns out if you're a consumer and your voice product get switched over to interconnected voice service without your permission, you have a slamming complaints that the fcc they are going to dismiss it because they haven't said those rules apply to interconnected service even though in many other contextss they apply the same telephone consumer protections for interconnected voice service. so yes, it makes it difficult for our members and we are

concerned about exactly what steps the commission will take, what authority it will be viewed as having by the courts that there is a level competitive playing field. why is this so important to consumers? consumers have choice, they have innovative services offered to them, usually at cheaper prices, they will have alternatives. if they don't like their service from verizon they can go to somebody else. this is what the 96 act intended and we want to see those provisions continue. >> you mentioned in your earlier statement, you highlighted the widespread political and social support back in the days of the original drafting of the open internet order and given this sort of regulatory arbitrage that matt highlighted and your

stories exemplify and companies are moving into phone systems delivered over the internet, we are seeing a shrinking base of companies and entities these rules are protecting. as we transition over this is sort of we are reaching the critical moment. i am curious, where are we now when it comes to this political and social support? have we missed the moment? >> there is a lot of confusion. i don't want to put you on the spot but there's confusion in what you just said because the numbers actually show not much of the service is over the internet right now. the use of internet protocol is a transmission technology. doesn't mean it goes over the internet. through this confusion what happens in the name? it is going over the internet, has something to tell you all, that is not true.

that is a misconception that my association is spending a lot of time trying to correct. as it turns out, there are some folks that are choosing to have their voice products over the internet and that is great. we think that is really important. it is also true that they continue to have managed voice products for consumers. the majority of residential consumers are choosing and all business consumers do and that is because business consumers need to absolutely make sure they have good quality service. the internet is a best effort network. it doesn't offer the same kind of guarantees that the telephone network has traditionally offered that is so important for so many consumers. it is even important to me. as a residential consumer with two young kids at my house. i don't rely solely on my mobile

service. i continue to purchase a triple play that includes a voice products because i absolutely want to be sure that i can stay in contact with my friends and family and loved ones and if there's an emergency in my house, that manage product that i get from verizon is a manage product that does not travel over the internet. in fact you can go on the web site and they will tell you that. that is, and i wanted to be really clear so folks understand. commission, the lack of certainty and definition from the commission's perspective that hasn't defined what interconnected void is and isn't a problem they perceive. you have enforcement bureau looking at the slamming rules and going weekend handled this complaint and one other thing i should have mentioned most likely the state could indeed because of many states have

deregulated the service so where is the consumer supposed to go? how is the consumer going to be protected from that? it is important that the commission address issues head on and the politics are hard. i have been there before and i have been in a situation where i am bugging the chairman's office to make a hard decision and this is when it is helpful to have the grass roots and consumers say we want the protections and did is so important for the commission to do its job and protect consumers. especially in light of the fact that there are those in the states that have been deregulated so the fcc is the last agency to protect consumers. >> i just want to thank angie for the clarification but also highlight the necessity in a

dire situation we have at aarp and other consumer advocacy groups for to kelly with the state legislature and state utility commissions who don't have the best information. they may have the best lobbyist that the carrier can provide but they don't have the best information and they get a lot of conflicting information as to where there authorities end land where the fcc is able to step in and what its role will be in terms of being the stopgap. i want to speak up for consumer groups who are fighting at the state level are dealing with the legislature a utility commissioner who are getting mixed messages about the fcc's rolled that the state level the same don't worry, deregulate, the fcc will be there while here in washington, they are doing everything to make sure the fcc will not be there. ..

why would suddenly i not have the same types of rights both economically speaking and from an internet freedom standpoint, from a democratic standpoint why can't i find what he is talking about because the ideas he has the right to decide what sites i can go to into the can talk to? that is where a lot of the confusion comes from and the isp has been successful at muddying

the water for people. >> it almost makes you smile because from the consumer perspective these are general purpose transport networks and you're supposed to be able to pick up the modern equivalent day of the phone and it should be connected and work. we are america. we are always supposed to be number one. yet steadily at the state level and local level all of that structure is being removed. in this case is absolutely central to that very well thought out campaign. the problem is there is enough of a shell game. maybe it's not going over the internet at the same type provided by the same guy. if it's moving around and read defined broadly coming yet it shouldn't be that difficult. this is the basic general purpose transport communications network. it's a substitute for the telephone. it should be treated that way. but without the clear authority, by the become a very strong

roles in the states who can pick up the phone. the fcc can't pick up 300 million phones and respond to the consumers protection complaints. there is an important role to play so we have to get them back in that position. we've got this opportunity now in the next couple years to move the ship are now and i'm hopeful that whatever happens with the fcc's legal gymnastics on the open internet rule itself we will see a wholesale move towards this as a very important social policy issue for the country. >> we do have the state commissioners who are engaged on these issues and we need more of them. the organization that represents the state utility commissioners, the president put together a task force and the just released their white paper on the cooperative and state work that needs to happen with new networks. so i encourage you all to go to their website, look at the paper. we need to have more of the discussion and how we have this

engagement at the state, the state commissioners, state legislatures and the fcc working together to ensure there is a level playing field so that we all have options ask consumers whether we are residential consumers or business consumers and that we all know that competition is one of the best ways to protect consumers to offer innovation but also their needs to be basic protections in place that susan talked about and steve talked about and marti talked about that insurers to get the kind of guaranteed service that the foley's had and that they rely on and they don't have to understand the distinction is when they are using the internet versus their wireless phone or why your phone. >> what i but that really quickly as part of what we have had to do with the media action grassroots is bring that grassroots voice to a lot of the place is not just the fcc would also the state level was

involved in california and the unsuccessful campaign at the stop at the regulation bill. but we also need to be able to organize people and organize those stories and not provide those technical distinctions but share with the potential impact is to their everyday lives. for the folks up there on the inter web, feel free to hit us up. magnet is where it's at. >> i.t. cui to open up to questions. speaking of the interweb we have some folks monitoring that would your feed. so we will try to get one or two questions from the twitter feed as well. i think your hand went up first. >> thank you very much. earl comstock. the panel has done a great thing that there is an elephant in the room being overlooked and you clarify for the audience if you would address this.

the reality is you mentioned it's been since the 96 that this was done. i will remind everybody the 96 that was written 60 years after the 34 that and congress did know about the internet. there was a lot the 90's and 90's on the internet so i maintain the statute does address the internet and would be helpful for the listeners to understand that in the even to you get past the first amendment argument and in the event the fcc goes down on 706 which i think they probably should, the reality is the fcc was given the tools by congress to address all of the advanced networks. i would like for you to meet the educate listeners on the fact that in the event the court strikes down the rationale reported by the fcc not always lost and you don't need a new statute. you could go back and address these things as they have been done before. i feel like everyone is

tiptoeing around the fact that they got themselves in this box buy basically defining what angie rightly pointed out is something over ip as outside of their grasp and in the scramble around the edges saying but we didn't give it all the way we just gave away the important stuff. maybe you can talk about how title two, three and six might continue to apply they went back and revisited their definitions. >> i didn't intend to tiptoe around it. but the commission classified broadening the service. the first of that for a cable modem service and then dsl. they could go back and look at those decisions and say no it will be a title to service and they have all of the authority it needs and it can even price

regulate if it wanted to. it also could do other things instead of classifying the internet access service of title to read classified the transmission and make it available on a wholesale basis and create a vibrant competitive market for the broadband services so that other providers could offer an open internet service to consumers. so i think all of that will be very politically difficult inside the beltway if that is what the commission would be left to do. it's very hard to speculate what the court would say if they were striking down but it is that the commission had relied upon. but yes very is a series of decisions that occurred in the prior commission in the administration it was left in the position that there was an.

we made the decision not to go forward with the reclassification. it has an open proceeding as part of the discussion. and one of the reasons i did it is a was too hard to do. there was such an outcry that they shouldn't do that but it should go in this particular route and see what the court says. >> i tiptoed around it but i feel like i stepped on it a few times. they have put this up but thank you for bringing it up again because i get is important. it's important people not think this case again is the end of the road for the fcc. it's the end of a regulatory twilight i talked about earlier where they have tried to say we have jurisdiction over the broadband service but only in the time eluded ways and maybe that holds up and the court will find that to be the case. it just isn't good enough in our view for all of the things and all of the responsibilities

under that act and all the roles they have to play to make sure that we maintain this communications network and don't let it disappear just because the technology has changed. >> our members would have no concerns as i mentioned earlier about the amount of time it would take for the commission to make this decision and what the end result could be. one of the things i would hear constantly from those lobbying when i was on the floor was we need certainty. we need certainty. just make a decision. and so to put this all back into a more uncertainty has there are other proceedings that are going on at the fcc that my members cared about. special access reform and reforming and modernizing the policies that the commission to the and instead we are going to rehash this and the other responsibility the commission has been given that they may have deadlines and the incentive option.

this is not our preference to the it's to make a decision to come out very clearly that this is not a first amendment right and that it should shut down the claim that the commission overstepped the authority that it has. it's time to move on. we need to be addressing larger issues and it gets back to what else does the commission already have and how that might impact such as lifeline and high-cost reform and luckily the reform has provisions about advanced services but that's going to be affected. we need to be having a different discussion. it's time for this to be shut down. should this get to the supreme court lets hope the supreme court does it again. i would like to point out none of us have talked of the city of arlington case. the commission one the city of arlington case. i personally am really proud of

that case. i was one of the primary authors of the undermining order as a staffer on the wireless bureau and i was thrilled that the commission was upheld for the purpose of its jurisdiction and not just its general statutory authority so i hope the d.c. circuit is going to look at that and the are going to look at all of the other provisions of the site. it's a redefinition of what 706 is so that we can get beyond this conversation and talk about other things and ensure that consumers have access to broadband.

>> first i always want to go back to the principal of how are we going to improve everything on the basic principles and concepts for instance we want to promote to the equal opportunity and equity and helping the poor. all of the commodities are could but we are on the principles. so the internet and broadband is a thin concept. why we have to limit it to just a small area but not all of your areas for instance we have a landline phone and everything and they had a problem already. this line wouldn't be your line

at all. we don't resolve it we have a big problem and the reason -- the problem is you have a bigger issue than that because they don't even allow you to use the form and they have a phone for you to call the police for a certain case the patient or inmate got sick and you can call the police but they have learned that it isn't working. so all of the other issues if we don't resolve it we have a big problem. they don't face on justice. so if people complain. but the fcc [inaudible] so on this we have a big issue.

>> as a point of principle we believe the right to communicate belongs to everyone. i think that you mentioned the availability of broadband. what we are seeing is product and is becoming more and more available. but when we take a look at the adoption rates and there was a survey that was recently published on the dingley yonder the took a look at the adoption rates and the communities versus rural the founding look in 2003 compared to 2010 found virtually the gaps haven't really changed and in some cases to get the demographics got wider and the availability of broadband is there and has an unaffordable whatever mechanisms need to be in place for people to utilize the technology and communicate effectively in the 21st century digital ecology it is in there. the infrastructure is in there. and obviously the state and regulatory agencies play a critical role in assuring people

to develop that ability to communicate. >> i'm going to check with our online monitors. do we have any questions -- >> i have on-line access thanks to the interweb. [laughter] i want to make sure the we get this but something that's popped up time and again and i'm not sure if you want to join in here is why can't the ftc, why is it neutrality anything more than just a substitute for antitrust? and i would start to answer that by saying the ftc we don't know how effective they aren't doing what you're supposed to do. but number two we are talking about the pro competitive policies to dhaka about universal service and deployment and adoption issues that we've already talked about it's about the communication network functioning for everybody and not just do we have options. so the competition is a great way if you can get to improve service for people but it is the

only thing that we should have in our toolbox and there hasn't been enough in the current dominated result in lower prices and we can talk about the second rate network that we are often relegated to. >> not only does antitrust, but many of the social policy issues that attach to the communications network like internet access. but also, it inherently looks backward and italy protect competitors. protect competitors. here we have a marketplace where they don't really want to compete with each other and they have divided up the market place all over the place so it would be looking backward and would deal -- the ftc cannot see that you have to enter a market in order to serve people who are radically and served. only the regulatory policy does that and it can create the system of the cross subsidies and everything else that needs to happen in order for everybody

in america to have world-class high speed internet access which is where we should be pitied so the ftc has an interesting consumer protection will but when it comes to making prophylactic regulatory rules that will protect the nascent industry is only the expert administrative agency can do that. >> also to prevent the kind of during that we see. you can offer any kind of service you want and call it basic communication service but it's not. it's a limited subset of that. >> with facebook on the front page. >> i want to get back to that elephant in a room. i'm a little bit out of touch with a couple of years ago the fcc lost the comcast case and i'm wondering if some of the same issues were at stake and is

the fcc arguing that case should be repealed or can it be distinguished or how serious is this congressional authorization issue? >> some people would say that the second case, the one that's going to be heard on monday is let's do it again. other people say no, we've rewrote the section to understand what 706 means and earl can talk to you about why that doesn't really do it. and we have established the statutory authority based on the sections of the act so that is the approach being taken and the elephant in the room is why not ripoff the d-nd and then you could forebear from applying all kinds of things. we don't want to weigh down the high-speed but at least you have your basic stitch restructure.

the political argument is absolutely right. so a problem is not having enough representatives in congress who either understand this issue or are willing to stand up for the lobbyists who will assault that and say we won't give you any more campaign contributions. that's where the problem is. it's all about campaign finance. so if the fcc tried to act aggressively there is a risk the budget would be cut in half of the appropriations committee because the lobbyists would washup on congress. if you want to talk about elephants in the room that is the elephant in the room as part of the congressional ability to stand up to whatever happens. >> elephants and donkeys. [laughter] >> the commission is relying on several statutory provisions that were not in the original.

>> any questions? >> let's keep talking about that elephant. a dozen the fcc have the authority to make the reclassification if it so chose and go from title i title ii and then yes there would be a follow-up from that but at least to be able to make that classification, isn't that in their ability to do that right now? >> they do but they have to have a reason for doing so. it will go to court again that it is clear from the decision that the commission has that authority to do that and it must be able to explain why it's doing that. >> ringsted not the fcc is correct in its determination on the merits it just says it has the discretion to do this. they can decide broadband internet access isn't really a telecom service and is in fact an information service would cover those mean on the statute.

justice scalia and 2005 said no the fcc got it wrong and they don't have the authority. they have to read it to say that the telecommunications service, something that lets you and me send information to each other that is exactly what this internet or the internet enabled or whatever term you want to put on a that is that term is even though there is lots of information overriding the top of it. but people that want to say that confirm the fcc on the merits of the classification decision they are not reading it the right way. >> i see that oral has a follow-up. >> i wouldn't put all of the burden on converse. the fcc could do this. that is what they are created to do and they have plenty of justification that the discussion of voip over the

internet versus the voice services. the problem is if they are not willing to do it and the fact that the fcc is left unclassified for the last 15 years what is the status of the voice over the internet protocol service to the the agency is very reluctant to tackle the issue for precisely the reason they can't explain what is the difference between the transmission service and the ip based service. there is no fundamental technical difference. so with all deference to people who say the problem is the congress would cut the funding somebody that spent ten years up there i can say that isn't as likely to happen if the fcc made a principled stand as some might think. >> the d.c. circuit says something very and that is

within days. will get a road map about what to do next and what principles really need to be invoked. >> i think we have time for one more. there was a hand there. >> for those of us that are not super familiar with this incredibly long stage you, i'm wondering who cares about the open-ended and i am wondering what kind of communication products or infil graphics are comic-book versions you have to educate about and give the pathway for action. >> they put out something could just yesterday about what is meant neutrality to the this a look at the publicknowledge.org. i wrote a book about this called "captive audience," which explains this and does it in an approachable way that is one of the problem is there is a steep learning curve and a lot of acronyms that people get

confused. >> we will have lots of information as levi's is itself and that is that old issue. the fcc started traveling with these issues and i think to the common sense it is about the best we can do should your communications capability be changing. do you want to have the ability of the right to send your information to everyone. even though we've tried these are the tools they need as much as ever. we need more and more access to information just to keep up in this economy and to keep up with our families to be a

>> i want to say hopefully very quickly again i want to emphasize what i said to the commissioners themselves and to other audiences. the commissioners have to be able to save very loudly so that the state's coming utility commissioners, legislators and everyday citizens can hear them say that there are mixed messages out there that exist for a purpose. and they are not the stopgap that many in the industry are telling the policy makers and that people will be harmed because of this misinformation and i think the commissioners need to be more vocal in a more diverse audiences in letting them know what their role is and why they were created in the first place on the statutes that they operate under.

>> we host the monthly conversations called digital dialogue where we try to take a look at these issues to d construct them and also connect them to the broad social justice issues or some of the issues people care about on a day-to-day. some of the members have developed some interesting tools to kind of help break down the issue. one thing that comes to mind in particular is the production house which is an organization in new york produced a video called the internet is serious business which if you look it up on vimeo it really explain how the internet functions and takes a look at the issue around network neutrality. they also have partnership with the media literacy project with a thousand toolkit which took a look at how the mobile functions and mobile obviously being an issue in relation to the net neutrality that's relevant. gwyneth net neutrality is a

hot-button issue it was a remix of a warren g. song called regulate which is specifically looking at trying to regulate what is proceeding was about. >> i was going to say i think that they were hitting the firm stopped now and i noticed some are getting a little less less to get so i think we will end it there but we will be around if anybody has any additional questions. [applause]

in the number

as the obama administration in congress continued debating whether to use military force on the neighboring syria. president obama this morning in st. petersburg russia returning to washington tonight meeting with russian vladimir putin -- prime minister putin saying they had a candid and constructive conversation. also the president announcing he will address the nation on tuesday night on the subject of syria to be a over on capitol

hill tonight today the u.s. senate scheduled to gavel and briefly at noon eastern in order to place the syria resolution on the senate floor calendar. that would allow the majority leader harry reid to bring the resolution to the floor on monday when the floor body returns. sending of a vote by the senate as early as wednesday. live coverage at 12 eastern right here on c-span2. this is a town throughout the colonial period of until emancipation. but i didn't realize how bad the jim crow movement had been after the war in 1900. and that i found as a shock. that was one of the two places decided by the supreme court of the united states in 1915 for the grandfather clause. if you google grandfather clause

this is an oklahoma case that deals with some restrictions on voting. in that case as well as a case involving a law that was passed by the daremblum legislature -- maryland legislature to restrict voting by african-americans. now they are free and they have been voting and applied only to the city, not to the state elections. it tended to vote republican so the democrats in power in the state government and in the city wanted to restrict this. they couldn't vote under this 1908 law unless you have $500 worth the property in the city. unless you were nationalized, of course there wasn't anything at all in 1908 with the senate of a naturalized citizen to get or

unless your grandfather could have voted january 1st coming 1868. when 1868 voted in annapolis. only for the white males. no matter the 15th amendment in 1970 and you couldn't vote in 68 you couldn't vote in 1908. and the secretary general of the

organization of american states spoke yesterday about the global of the drug trade and offered policy solutions regarding drug trafficking and substance abuse. they spoke at the caf development bank of latin america's annual conference in washington, d.c.. this is 90 minutes. >> translator: thank you again we have this conversation on the new approach to the global problem of drugs this is a challenge confronting based on

real events. it has been a little over four decades with the creation of the zero tolerance policy on the convention against the drugs and 98 and the model of share intervention with the years of columbia this is a good moment. the question today should be criminalize if weedy regulate --

we deregulate and the paradigm requires action and response for us there is progress made. the international connection and a the report from the civil society and the reaction of businessmen looked at the possibility over criminalizing drugs and this does not have to spend globally that makes it even more interesting for the discussion and of the report on the drug's commission for the secretary about a year ago at

the summit preceded by the decision that the president of guatemala the president was commenting on and the places of question on the crime and violence generated and pose this question during his first speech with the summit of america. the secretary has stated to analyze this more than one scenario. during the presentation of the last four months it has been analyzed in guatemala and they

have worked on a road map. i would request that each of you have presentation for not longer than seven minutes and at the end we have q&a for the topic that is as relevant and that forces us to think whether this paradigm changes and i believe it can move in and shifting away from the ban on drugs. we can start with mr. secretary general. >> translator: thank you very much. those of you that want to listen to me again on the topic i appreciate the time. i will give a positive.

the first thing i want to do at this request in the dialogue around the country there was a sense that first we have a very serious problem in the continent that uses cow herron is used in the world and cocaine is used in the world and a large amount of marijuana and a whole host of other drugs. so the problem is enormous and it has not decreased right now we contemplate the business of drugs $150 million per year, half of which is spent in our countries where there are a number of deaths much greater in the fight by the use of drugs if

we do the comparison of death by accidentally been killed because of the use of drugs. in that number and is a war against drugs that has the largest amount. the violence has not decreased and people that have been in jail about 3.5 million people of prisoners in jail or half of them are because of drugs. the problem is significantly due to cocaine to behalf of the cocaine according to the numbers i have for 2010. half of the cocaine produced in that year and get the problem persists because what is expensive is what comes after

production. this is the problem that the consensus was that violence and repression was not enough. and third was the fact of one of the president's support that each country coming yes every country has the same problem but the problem is the country's had a drug problem that is different we don't have to see it more here. the drug use is very low so it's not the same for the country that some of the country's from the south. so it is not just a health

issue. other countries have to siva the drug problem as a crime problem such as the countries in central america. disabilities this issue is different and the letter thing i wanted to see is there were two mandates that the president charged. they wanted to know what the objective aspect -- how was the problem and then they wanted a different scenario. so the two reports were drafted of course that there were two different reports. since we have the difficulty that problem as seen different in its report it goes from the problem of planting all the way to drug use. esen to draft the report with

that entire process this is the only continent where every single stage of the drug problem since the coca plant is grown to the production is every -- it happens so cocaine paste, production harvesting, the mountains, the city, the transportation all of them. we concede that damages caused to the population, to the health of the population and to things that are very important as well. violence is concentrated in the countries where the drugs pass through but the violence is

increasing and in the countries where the drugs go through. so then the other issue is the government's, can they face this problem where the crime issues are also another problem. recidivism, unity. all of those have a lot to say in the topic. then there's the issue, the economic problem that is a large aspect of the drug problem in bolivia or peru or colombia because 500 to $700 a kilogram of cocaine. and it goes up and you can see in the report becoming the to keep josette 30,000 so it

multiplies by 500 the cost and size, so it is an enormous amounts of money that remain in the latter will stages. everybody is making money with drugs but it is undoubtedly the final stage is where the most money is made. there is other data that i could share with you but it can't be summarized right now. so what we did for this report is weak at specialists in the area. one that led to the process and specialists -- i'm talking about specialists in areas of community leaders for example but have worked. teachers and professors that have research, law enforcement and ask all of them to tell us how they follow the drug problem and based on their view and

their outlooks we decided on what the report was going to be light. so we decided it would be always a security problem. many of the devotees are to make it more comprehensive. but there is not enough law enforcement. the court system is not enough. the methodology or the techniques and the jails and prisons. all of that are difficult. so we come to the conclusion of how can we together solve the issue because we are trying to work together against this a drug problem. so we are not saying that the law enforcement activities shouldn't be made. what we have to improve the strategy because the strategy has failed. the drug problem cannot be

handled exclusively through law enforcement. things have to be approached differently. that's where we come up with the issues of decriminalizing or legalizing. or how do we work on prevention. so the scenario itself was different. acknowledging that many of these bills can work jointly or to get there. the third issue is emphasizing the social, economic and cultural aspect of drugs. so emphasizing work made in communities and grass-roots levels and communities. out of this debate can the risk of nothing happening. so we see the scenarios are presented as telling a tale of

yet this is what is happening here. flexible that begins in the general assembly and it means nothing has happened so some countries are saying we have been waiting for five years respectively. we are going to do whatever we want because we have a major crime problem so that scenario is very serious and a possible scenario. it's not that it's likely a scenario and we are not anticipating. it will happen. so let me conclude by saying that the reports have said that the impact of the report has been surprising. i was mentioning this to somebody from the media right now. much has been spoken lately. sometimes not very well or very little so i am very glad people are talking up the oas.

but to say that half of the headlines that have been written about this in the last years have been about the drug topic so that just means that the date on the topic was needed and i hope that this debate will touch on our conclusions because we all have to do the same. the countries have to agree with the countries have to do it according to the countries that are different so the work that comes before the flexibility is needed and it is being applied. i don't agree that the resolutions have to be imposed or treated to the insulating that we have to leave that to be decriminalization for example.

we have to leave it to the evolution of the country. our conclusion is one. if you were going to deal with a drug issue and whole fish you, that means if somebody seeks the treatment we cannot have jails full of people because they use drugs because that is a negative consequence to that individual and it is just continuing on a crime rate for that person. >> translator: with regard to this point you were mentioning the future. i think that all of the elements like the police in the city's and the troubles and columbia and others all of the work of investigation which i think was

one of the greatest activities in this criminal investigation and how we see the future that it has spoken about the magic wand that he mentions of localized crime will end because of the fact this is legalized let's do it. from the point of view of someone with your experience and speaking about security what would you say and in this regard what is your vision? thank you so much for the inter-american dialogue and of the oas and all of you that give us this opportunity to share with you our comment more than reflections on what today and in the americas this key issue is to debate about the drug problem you will understand why i'm sitting here and why i'm so close to the secretary behind

me. if the date has a different element as the secretary mentioned. for the first time in the americas, we have established a platform for the serious debate which has been set aside from the old ideologies and by the seas. now we are debating because by the presidential mandate -- and then after the secretary has mentioned a technical and political effort with a very inclusive group of people it is a serious debate and the beginning of my comment to but i believe that we need to look at this problem into the future and not be stuck in the past. we need to look towards the future. why? because there is a serious contribution that allows for this debate and understanding of

the problem and secondly, it is surprising to see how the reality in the americas is somewhat hidden with regard to publication of the report and once it is distributed there is a way to identify what could be called some agreement, the consensus number. number one would be that it is to reestablish the policy on drugs, to rewrite them and it is essential to have public health issues as the secretary just mentioned that consumers shouldn't be criminalize pitted and the four agreements begin to come up as a type of consensus in the americas on which there are not a great difficulties in agreeing to be a also, it has become clear that there are those that dissent to the head

and they are finding in methodology plans where the discussion can take place. now, the americans are showing a humanitarian attempt to handle violence. not latin america in particular. it is 8% of the world's population we have between 36 to 42% of the homicides on the entire planet so there is a debate on drugs as it generates violence and there are difficulties in determining what point the drugs and violence are related structurally and how this is affecting our population at such high levels. also, there is a disagreement as to how in the americas the criminal economies flourish and

mutate at tremendous speeds. and some of us agree saying that we need to be careful about developing high hopes as to whether this policy will be like a silver bullet to solve the problem of violence and also to eliminate the criminal economy. take columbia for example. colombia has the lowest level of illicit crops, cocaine statistics. and yet what is the tragedy that we are facing? we have crime in colombia that has led to illegal gold mining and this leads to a structural violence of that is in similar proportions to that that we have seen and there are so many people that are dedicating their lives to the illegal production.

so now a very methodological point which is not necessarily a difference but it is an extensive debate which includes the general subject of drugs but also with the understanding that the spectrum in the regard consumed by humanity are many different by nature and have different effects on one from the other. so we have a general debate, and we are beginning to take on in the americas a more correct approach, which would be to focus on handling marijuana. he has a very interesting theory to talk. and you have also another approach. and so, this is where there are some disagreements and something

which confuses the public opinion and it will begin to eliminate this confusion because in order to attract attention to this debate what has been done recently is to speak generically about legalizing drugs. and this is a political and a tautological and a technical difference. we are talking about dealing with and establishing political policies the will deal with decriminalization, legalization and other aspects with regards to drugs. generally, talking about some drugs that are moving across our borders to the extent that is incredible. so, i will say that now we are facing a world that thinks of this report, which unifies and converges the point of debate

and it leaves behind what was left in the past. in other words, information which is the lead regarding the history of drugs in the america. i would say in the world leaves much to be desired. there is a lack of information and conceptualization with does not allow us to have a true foundation for our debate. and i would like to give you an example. when you add up, for example, the amount of drugs that are ceased by the authorities in the world, it's something like a circus in a way. the amount often that is given is more than what is produced in the world. so, let's say four countries príncipe tiffin this -- participated in this. they also -- another lesson learned from the past is the following. good practice, public policy to

handle the matter of drugs is not sufficiently documented. and it's not credible because the idea was sold under the political prism to sell success without properly handling of the challenge that lead to failure. and when we look to the future, which undoubtedly this is our pieces and i agree with the report in this sense that any decision that is made by the world, whatever decision is made in the americas with regard to the issue of drugs will require a new institution of the which is more legitimate, efficient and capable. also, closer to the real world of drugs. we cannot imagine a new political policy, public policy

based on those that lead to a lack of confidence and trust and that are out of date to get the system of police in latin america for a single lender a huge crisis of confidence and credibility. this new institution now the fed appears to be necessary to advance in the future with more success than in the past. >> you touched on several topics that have to do with consensus and a violent perhaps we can touch upon a little later. we haven't discussed drug trafficking linked to the peace negotiations and the eradication of crops in colombia.

these are topics we can revisit. i would like to touch upon whether we are looking at decriminalization and what is the position of the oas. there are policies by the state and there was a member of last thursday that communicated to the states of washington and colorado that was a against international conventions with respect somehow authorizing the states to continue with their policy of approval or liberalization of the use of

marijuana other than the purpose of medical and it seems that this is a domestic policy that is directly approached to what the status quo was. so i would like to hear your opinion in in that regard. mr. secretary. >> thank you the oas and the american dialogue very much. i appreciate the invitation. i could not agree more with what the general mentioned that drug policy reform is certainly a global issue. i don't think that there has been any stronger partner or any stronger advocate for drug policy reform. over these last four plus years than the united states committee

and i would like to reflect on that for a few minutes. we produced in our office as an adviser to the president of the drug policy the president's drug control strategy and all of the federal agencies that are involved in not only federal law enforcement, but perhaps more importantly, looking at our drug problems and public health problems as a provincial problem and certainly producing the demand. when i took office and was confirmed by the senate over four years ago, i made it very clear that to continue to talk about the war on drugs and to utilize that metaphor was a huge mistake because we all know not only you and the audience, but certainly people in all of the countries that are represented, we all know how complex and difficult the drug problem is in the world. we believe that continuing to talk about this and either a war on drugs and we have a long

career in law enforcement none of my colleagues talked about the of war on drugs. in fact, the phrase that they would most often use is that we could not arrest or incarcerate our way out of the drug problem. and recognizing our responsibility as a shared responsibility that was echoed by the secretary john kerry at the oas meeting that was also a part of secretary clinton's remark recognizing our shared response of the body to produce our demand has been an important part of that. along with that has been our responsibility also to be helpful in looking at drug prevention programs that work and treatment programs that work. a great deal of the wiltz research in both of those areas is either conducted or is funded by united states. and so, when we look at being a global partner we certainly understand that responsibility.

that is more than just information sharing and interdiction and law enforcement. it is this different approach. but meter single approach on the war on drugs nor the approach of legalization even begins to address as we know how complex the drug problem is in the world law enforcement is often going to play an important part in the world that we know for the drug courts as many of you know through the drug courts that have been instituted in other countries people often go into treatment and they can be quite successful through drug treatment as a result of the intervention of a law enforcement agency. the first part of our strategy is really about prevention. we know prevention works and we know it is costly to the lives of people and quite frankly to taxpayers.

the strategy points to an important role of public health officials. it emphasizes the importance of treatment and now with the affordable care act, also known as obamacare, millions of americans are going to be able to access a treatment program that can be successful to them so we can see a tremendous game changer here in the united states. our counter drug ever to as the emphasis on prevention and treatment and the drug prevention treatment have a cure in the united states including immunities' organizations. oftentimes i don't think that it comes as any surprise to anyone here when someone like myself coming from washington, d.c. is going to california or texas or

vermont and telling people what they should be doing about the drug problem oftentimes that is not received well. what is most important is the voices to a very high degree the voices of local people. and when those parents and coaches and teachers have the information about what policies, it can make a significant difference. we have seen that throughout the world and others have demonstrated some of their work. so the expectation of these kind of programs is particularly helpful the important work that we do together is reflected in reducing the demand for growth, for example here in the united states. our appetite just since 2007 is down dramatically. it is down by over 40%.

and that is by every measure that we use putative and believe me it is a tremendous number of measures to the and so, we have rediscovered demand and we must do more. we have reduced in the united states in that same time period our demand for that amphetamine. and we have to continue to do more and we have utilized all of those resources that are important. i think the reports that the general talked about on the oas report is one that we were and are very supportive of. some of the ideas that are experienced in that report can certainly be instituted under the existing u.n. treaty and i think that is an important distinction to make. we don't think here in the united states that legalizing drugs is going to promote public health, nor is it going to reduce violence and crime.

i think the very distinguished journalist in mexico reflected very well in a lengthy interview on the news hour of how important it was that people recognize the cartels have numerous funding streams that quite often the funding for the revenue streams for the cartel's involving such things as kidnapping and extortion etc. are often far greater than what can be gained from drug trafficking. so i think it's important to keep that in mind and it's also important to keep in mind even with the changes in washington state and colorado that marijuana still is against federal law. and that when it involves someone under the age of 21, there are also criminal penalties that are attached. i think that the oas and general assembly in guatemala and secretary kerry's remarks -- and

i was privileged to accompany him to that -- it was an important discussion because again, as it was mentioned, we are all very much in this together. there is no such thing as a production country or a transit country were a consuming country. we all have great difficulties. we produce a lot of marijuana in the united states to get wheat producing of methamphetamine. and as many of you know, prescription drugs are a significant problem also within our country. so looking at how we can view and deal with this problem holistically without finger-pointing i think is an important step in the right direction. and i commend the oas and the oas study for the work that we have accomplished. >> [inaudible] >> translator: your comments

were very good. i could even say that the statements of 40 years ago and obama's government and your office and looking for alternatives not only closing the report of the oas at some point we have to try to reach a solution in the guatemalan government, its president and the minister of foreign affairs have been very categorical in calling the attention to an area where the figures that we heard from the general are being seen violent and the fever if you will against organized crime against violence against the youth. what can you say?

thank you very much to our friends at the oas for the invitation. maybe i should begin a little bit before in history. part of this decision had to do with a feeling that we had a problem with a strategy that was being implemented because the president was in charge of the fight against drugs since the beginning of the 90's. and he came back to the government 20 years later and found out that what they were doing was exactly the same. the problem was greater. the law enforcement had decreased its power and the criminals had increased their power so it wasn't an ideological issue it was factual. so the government was here to do

something. he couldn't go sit himself in a room and try to find and think of solutions. succumb he was asked how did he find the drug problem 20 years later and he said it had failed because no solution was found. i see that the efforts to combat the problem in the same way that it has been done is the same manner and yet the problem is increasingly worse. and he wasn't just returning to violence and crime, but he was also referring to the strength that the criminal organizations have gained the and what apparently fell law enforcement was increasing it wasn't as strong as the criminal groups. so they said something has to be done. i come from the economic field.

we always have a difficult economic troubles. but we always had the opportunity as economists to say something with a week agree with the political role or the monetary policy or not and for me the president if somebody was saying that something was wrong, nothing should be said that you have to rename -- remain silent and it was wrong to give your opinion. was very strange because it would seem to me that the drug policy had to be kept out for the public debate and that was rare for the countries like guatemala and the rest of latin america and the u.s. where we have a democracy. we should discuss everything that is public. we don't have the censorship to media. we are not delivering of the freedom of the press.

yet there was a feeling that you should not encourage the debate against the drug policy. so i think that the fact that we realized that there was almost no discussion on the drug problem that was the first thing that we wanted to handle and if you placed that something was wrong, then you might be attacked by the politicians or other people who would come into your party and then everybody else. you cannot say that everything is a failure. so that was the first thing to do. the president was and is convinced that a discussion is positive in order to get some answers and solutions and with the assistance of the president and other latin american presidents, we arrived last year

looking for a response to a problem. if this isn't working then we have to look at what we can do differently. .. we had this general assembly of oh, yes, to reflect on this. but as secretary-general knows well, just the drafting of the declaration was already a very good exercise. before we ever started talking

about the report itself because the discussion started in february and by then we didn't have any studies or investigation. but we started talking about this, about what can we do, what should we look for? somethings have been mentioned already, and a lot of people have begun discussing about it. there's a social problem approach that has to be addressed maybe. it will be addressed differently than the health issues. did we seek -- did we see sanctions for crimes, drug related crimes are different. all the social are different to those who are in jail are the poor and minority. those are the jail populations. but there's more. we have to find out why, why is it minority's and for people that end up in the jails? why isn't it crying exclusively

related to that? so we are saying there's other dimensions that go beyond the issue of security. i think that was the one topic that we were able to confirm that the drug problem is a multi-dimensional problem. and it has to have an approach like this. we have to have enforcement, legal enforcement. it cannot be the only strategy. we have to break with this paradigm that legal enforcement is the only answer to the issue. i think there's other things that fall into play. and i think this is been the most productive of this discussion. there's another state of law that we have to maintain. we have to combine crime network. that is a responsibility we have torture citizenship and their security. but if we only look at the drug

problem, through the criminal prism is limiting it. so that's one thing that we learn. then we went further to think we have to look at the health issue, the social issue. criminalizing many things that shouldn't be criminalized. so small use of drugs shouldn't be criminalized. it is in some places and it is in others. there's levels of behavior, drug-related behavior but they are small-scale that you can solve it through a social response, social policy. and then the fact that most of the criminals, drug-related criminals are young. so we have to bring those people back. the president has said it more than once.

this fight is also a fight to recover or keep our youth. they cannot, the criminals cannot win them over. we must keep them with us. so the declaration also mentions. we are at the time of the threshold of, we need to make the decisions now. i think decisions can be made in the hemisphere without having to discuss convention. at some point will have to talk about the conventions, but i think that many can be done without discussing the conventions aren't revisiting them but i think we can discuss and see how we do things better. that requires our online the. one of the climate thinks that has to be done is what kind of cooperation will be given in this area come in the field. because of operation shouldn't

be just for i don't know, 90% for law enforcement, 10% for the rest. i think the percentages should be different. cooperation assistance should be done for yes, enforcement of the law but also so that the youth can come out of drug trafficking and so that the population in the cities can develop. so we have to talk about human policy, social policy so that the youth to recover their own lives. >> thank you so much. now moving on. also from the point of law enforcement i'd like to hear from you how, who has had this experience from the other point of view, not just defense in your country but also justice. in a recent letter which a group of ministers and justice and defense and brazil sent to

congress for a law that i believe is handling mandatory hospitalization of drug abusers. to receive treatment and also to handle the personal use amount of trucks with regard to the law. we have had other expenses in colombia and other countries, so how should we handle the subject of law, the law according to climate experts and brazilian experts and many of our countries, it's been expressed as institutionalization with regard to this aspect of drugs in general. to what extent can we carry out a debate that will lead us to the conclusion so that it doesn't end up with organized

crime? i believe that what we need to do is to see that the situation with regard to treatment of drug abusers as a health issue is not for traffickers but those who consume or abuse the drugs and this has to do with all the aspects of the legal aspects, from planting to harvesting to production and sales. so total legalization of drugs is the aspect from planting and harvesting to of use or consumption. so we need to look at treatments. criminal treatment of the traffickers and then health treatment for those consumers who are addicted to the drugs. it's essential. you can have two types of treatment. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: consumers who

depend on drugstore addicts of the drugs and to make their money that way, so those who use drugs but are not addicted to it will have certain administrative consequences, or should we leave it as if nothing happened? the person who is not addicted to drugs, which could exist because there are many different relations with the drugs. which of these drugs will be legalized? marijuana, for example, if we legalize marijuana then the consumer who is not addicted to a drug or depend on the drug, what are the treatments we will provide? will we allow them to use the drugs freely, or handle administrative issues like treatment and public services. these are administrative punishments, that type of punishment. now, the person who doesn't,

isn't addicted to drugs but because of drugs carries out illicit activities like robbery and burglary and whatnot, so the fact that the person uses drugs is an aspect that makes the crime or serious come or not. we have to ask if the combination should be considered as making it a worse crime. so we have two possible paths. either we should have a voluntary intervention, a person shows their willpower or will to be assisted, or a non-voluntary intervention, which is mandatory. so if we could bring someone in in an obligate tour with our mandatory wiccan who would be able to do this? with it the family, authorities?

and who can decide? would it be a judge or a doctor who we decide? if this is to be accepted. if it's his the physician then this person has a thesis that at some point could believe that it should be, that the responsibility of this position to make a decision, the could be prosecuted as well so this would not work. because it has consequences, legal consequences. so now, if the dependent or add commits a crime, -- drug addict commits a crime, a factor of this person being an addict to drugs about be the same the person is not an addict?

why is it considered a worsening of the crime if the person has proven that they have a will to change parts of the person was not an addict, it would be an aggravating factor. and four the non-addict, consuming the drug is not a factor that makes the crime or serious. how can we solve this problem? when we speak come and i believe that what was mentioned, the work of the oas, and my friend, oscar, working for some time in colombia, with brazil, and the minister and secretary, we need to find solutions to problems that are consequences of this aspect. we need to make a decision and see what the results of these decisions are legalize, when, how much, what does this mean as far as personal use or not?

is this personal use come with his personal use? is this according to the judge or absolute security? decision, is this a decision of the judge or security? if it's the judge's decision then there has to be a public defending make sure that this person has the rights to defend him. so what is this about the first decriminalizing or penalizing? we can have tough treatment or a lighter treatment. how do we do this? how do we decide? and i believe, maria emma, on a macro level bat it's already clear. but how can we make the micro decision? it's very easy to make a uniform it on a macro level? but would you come to the micro

decisions it's much more difficult. in brazil, for example, it was very important to carry out investigations of criminal bans infiltrating people to place a police officer in the criminal gang. so what are the crimes that this officer can commit? because if you're going to put someone in the middle of a criminal group, then what are the crimes they have to commit? if this person has no right to commit crimes than he will be dead. you will be killed by this criminal group and it becomes very complicated them. so there's another interesting problem which i think is very interesting. if we say that drugs are transnational, we will agree with that, correct. production is in one country, produced, manufacturing and another, consumption and

another. in latin america if we look at different treatments, how to deal with different points in the develop of the drug. one country, let's say, legalize for kind and another to. what will happen? we will have issues not only with sexual tourism but drug tourism. what other problems that will arise out of the different handling of these issues? what about legalize drugs will be a commodity. and what's going to happen there? it will be a commodity look at brazil. brazil has a tax among the states for merchandise how will we handle drugs moving truck the country? how will we tax this?

we have to put us on the table to discuss declared among politicians so they can distinguish between these subjects. but we cannot begin without having the total design of the whole matter. because the problem itself, defied the prom is part of the solution. it was mentioned and brazil is very clear, the neighborhoods, poorest neighborhoods in brazil where the works of the miner here because miners had no other work. and the drug traffickers who were controlling this have as well -- the finance having of people, treatment for people, we have something which was called ghetto net. in other words, it was like a

net linking directv and drug traffickers distributed all of this throughout, for free. this was a group of problems that need to be faced to anything discussing the macro aspect now, so we need to begin to go on in more detail about the micro aspects. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: >> thank you. we will be closing with jorge. we are hoping that mexico does not become like colombia, and vice versa, but there's 50,000 people dead. and if we look at the policy of the calderón administration and

what was happening there with the war on drugs, but we have had similar problems and we've lost several generations in this process. how would you close after the analysis we've heard that we need local similarities? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thanks to caf, oas and the dialogue. all the dilemma that we have heard are very valid and we should reflect upon them, not necessarily before we start but we should keep them in mind and we should also reflect on the other side. as well as looking backwards.

because mexico has experienced living hell during the last six years. not just political debate. it's 7000 dead, 25,000 disappeared, $25 billion in addition to what was being spent before. it is deterioration of the country's image in the world. the minister will understand that last year foreign direct investment in mexico as a percentage o of the gdp was the lowest in the last 40 years, lower than pre-nafta agreement that was negotiated. that has something to do with the 7000 dead come and nobody wants to invest in our country

in those circumstances. they tell us get over that. and then we will look to invest. would we have not seen the results this is something we would have to deal with. the current state of affairs in the country. we spent a lot of money but we don't have anything to show for it. and something that has to do with the former governor, president calderón started the war, his war. and i want to underscore, he can't say that it was someone else's. he decided to do it.

he started it in december 10, 2006, and and at the request of the governor, this is open to questions whether -- and president peña nieto started his policy on organized crime by sending the army. after six years of the calderón wars, worse than ever. and not according to the critics but according to the new government. with the use -- what's the use of having the argument for six years? the second example, quickly, there has been tremendous strides for good reason of

having captured 72 of the 129 liters. greatly, but the previous government strive for the same thing so i don't know how they could both capture all the bosses. we wouldn't have any. we wouldn't have any leaders. so we could declare the war being won, and we can go home. that would be even better. just quickly to finish. the high cost of this war with practically no results. and there's also another trend from within mexico may not be the same as if you're in the u.s., which is three things happening at the same time. one is the major growth of the

u.s. states that have legalized marijuana for medical use. and the definition is very wide. new jersey, very gentle as california. i would rather live in california and not new jersey, but people can live wherever they want. now, the legalization for recreational use, the case of colorado and washington, and thirdly, i admire and i applaud the obama administration of not fighting this, not to allow it or condone it, but not to fight it was resisted. and i think it's a very wise and

bold position. but if you look at it from the mexican border on our side, what is the logic of sending our soldiers to burn the fields of marijuana and to send drugs and trailers to the border or one of the narco the border with california if the marijuana that makes it to the us can be purchased at the 7-11? the drug cartel have told me that they're looking at begin a narco tunnel to denver directly. and what is the logic behind that? there is a logic. it is absurd. and i would like to finish by paraphrasing someone who i think

was going to be a speaker here and could not attend. what can we tell to the last u.s. soldier who died fighting drugs? before he dies. you are going to be the last one because after you legalized it. and who's going to say that i was taught about secretary kerry, speaking about the vietnam war applau. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. i think we have a half an hour as we begin a little bit late. i have a comment from everyone because i think this topic is interesting to all the ones who here would like to participate and ask questions.

it is frightening because we have the two scenarios, the health issue problems and legalization issue, decriminalization. i think we have made some progress. i think this vote is sort of useful. secretary, we had the vote map where we can talk about this at the oas. i understood from michael on friday. i think the general will also participate. i think you also can use would've asked what actions to begin. so we haven't stopped. the report was not delivered and it is at somebody's desk. it seems like it is being worked on. this is i think for the benefit of everyone. something is happening. that is, together with everything that's happening is sort of a roadmap as to what to do. but other than that, we still

have the issue of organized crime in. and so it's a double side or two sides of the policy. so what do we do. how can we do this when max can say we have domestic policy that starts becoming so different from one state to another. that you let it go and that's what the prosecutor general said, foreign affairs or foreign policy regarding drugs as indicated in colombia for example. progress has been made. and we went from receiving assistance to providing assistance in colombia so we could have some comments, secretary, if you could.

>> i think ther there's an impot distinction to make from one, former senator foreign affairs, and that is on my trips to mexico and my visits to mexico come in looking at the cartel violence, for example, it's so much greater than the discussion around the marijuana. when i look at over 50 people who were incinerated, killed by cartel violence in the casino, it had nothing to do with the marijuana. it wasn't the war on marijuana. in fact, it had nothing to do with drugs whatsoever. it was a crime committed by an organized criminal group of extortion fix i think when we talk about war on drugs, and we

specifically focused in on marijuana i think we're making mistakes by concentrating partly on the. governments have a duty and responsibility as general oscar naranjo when the head of the colombian national police to protect the people that they've taken an oath of office, as i did in seattle deserve to protect them from all types of crime. and again, focusing on marijuana i think doesn't add to the debate. >> i'm sorry, but i didn't think -- the one discussion, i agree florida -- [inaudible]. some of the issues have not been discussed. the broader issue, fernando said this is all encompassed in the same group, everything is bad.

i remember when the first time -- [inaudible] presented the report of the group. what are we talking about? there was some insulting questions. so we said let's not reduce this. the other thing is i think you have the fact that $150 billion generated is a lot of money. this is business. gangs, criminal gangs are like any other business organization. many of the things, the other crimes that are committed also in drug trafficking. that is a fact of the matter. human trait, that's very, very

clear. but there are connections. but the thing is that we are open to discuss which i think is very good. it's very clear that violence is not the answer. we cannot do that. i think that we should deal with -- [inaudible]. there are reports coming out on that. i disagree that, and i think we agree that purely for police and violence counter action is not good response. i also do with former foreign minister -- [inaudible] there are drugs that are more damaging than marijuana. alcohol is one of them. more people die, i mean common

everywhere i go, the last time was an assembly of religious ministers in chile. they started type of marijuana and ended up talking alcohol. alcohol is consumed by a lot of people and that is a legal drug. they are forbidden to sell to young people. they have have licenses to sell it. i mean, i'm not saying i'm in favor of legalizing marijuana but it was legal once. no one will ever legalized call anymore.

[inaudible] the alternatives do exist. i agree to do something and i sent our friends from peru, i'm glad you had to be waiting precisely. but that's not the point. we begin working on that and by the way, concerns, not that i saw my friend over there, consensus is possible. i have here in the audience for of the authors of the report. [inaudible] a lot of things will be started in the report. to some extent weather was necessary to do some subchapters

or not. you go to a real problem, you find that there's a lot of common ground because people are afraid. they want solutions and so forth. so thank you very much. i just wanted to make this comment that really isn't good discussion, but we have progressed. the first person to raise their hands -- [inaudible] good morning, secretary. what time did you roll your first joint? [laughter] we have real problems with that. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: working in intelligence and what not come

yes, we would have to discriminate between the two worlds that have to do with this problem of drugs. the world of the consumer and the effects that it has on people, and that of a criminal economy that in some cases leads one to see how this world operates, and which rakes down the states. in the colombian case, to be clear, in colombia we have not resolved the problem of drugs related to abuse of the drugs. but what we have been able to resolve is, two years ago, a decade, colombia have had a checkmate with criminal bands that had funds that were affecting the country so seriously. and so they broke down and the

first consideration is that when. and then to fight criminal colombia which is the rise of drugs is to use democratic values but if you were to ask me what is the most harm done by drug trafficking and latin america, that it destroy democratic values and installed mafia values, corruption became a part of, or is a part of this mafia men county. so there are affirmations as mentioned the foreign minister, which clearly described for citizens. it's difficult to understand when we speak, of say, of seizing, capturing the kingpins, for example. the truth is that it is evident

that this type of criminal must experience the rule of law. and society has a clear view that this kind is not allowed and the for success will be that life of crime does not pay the and on the other hand, latin america we have delinquent's, some of these kingpins who have been working there 25 years in working as they have never been captured and they been untouchable basically. so people do not receive the message that a kingpin has been working for 25 years is a friend of politicians over have bribed police. it creates a lack of confidence in democratic values. and it creates an imbalance because of the anarchy that

exists. because in the end when you compare trust in democratic values versus criminal economies processes it will be a direct relationship. where the sake flourishing criminal economy, and it effects the politicians and the people who should be representing the population. so two more points. the way things are today looking towards the future will need to have two tactical challenges. and one is that maybe we're being -- we're not seeing in the americas now, the strengthening of the prohibition strategies. the truth is that in the assembly of vienna, the convention of vienna, there are positions in other areas that indicate a radical prohibition

is a result of solution for some. this contrast with legalization and these politicians to defend democratic values, it's essential. i go to some nations and i said, how can you find that you? didn't have crime or drug trafficking are addicts? it's easy. in the nation, countries, but either shot or they have a death penalty or life in prison. so we mustn't lose sight of the fact that in these areas this is the case pics of the other point would like to bring forward is that if this debate is not progress for making decisions for reasonable solution, then the debate will be overcome by the trends in abuse or consumption of drugs. of designer drugs and others versus production of natural

drugs. so the truth is that designer drugs have attracted the consumer and brought to them a type of drug that is not shameful. they don't have to hide to use them. they don't hide to inject heroin, for example, or to sniff cocaine. it's something like a little pill pics of the question we have to ask in a practical sense is what authority and what state is going to look into our pockets and purses looking for designer drugs, which could show us the truth of natural drugs and synthetic drugs to set forth a de facto war with, again, synthetic. so practically speaking will begin to have a type of de facto legalization of designer drugs against natural drugs. thank you very much. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: we turn to the round for five questions now. and very quickly, fernando, a quick question. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i think it is to be clear on the information given that we need to be clear that at this juncture of we have learned what -- we know how to control the drug problem, but not the drug trafficking. we have clear data in guatemala. we have dismantled seven of the main areas that were a threat. and there are others that are

more powerful. we need to bring them under control. but the drug trafficking continues as i was saying to the secretary in london. we know how to dismantle criminal networks but we don't know how to put a stop to the drug trafficking. we have to admit that with transparency. also, admittedly, the first thing that surprises me about the war on drugs is that it was not allowed to do, and that the use of the substance to curtail it ca, the only alternative woud be to prohibit it. for me, that doesn't make any sense. if i want a product not to be used, and abandoned in society, that they can't incarcerate a person. but that's like the market

logic, increasing taxes because of the expenditure for society. so i treat it as an injury is a substance, such as we did to alcohol in the past. but i said many deregulate it as tobacco, not alcohol. because alcohol, we do nothing to decrease the use but we have done that with tobacco. so we need more strict regulation, better campaigns to regulate it. but the prohibition itself and the idea that it works is a very weird idea. nobody can demonstrate that it can be done differently. and new zealand three weeks ago past legislation to regulate the synthetic drugs because there is a de facto legalization.

so synthetic drugs have now come into the world of regulations. being regulated. i had a question sort of related. as the negations with the colombian government during the last 20 years, the show of violent behavior, previous insubordination, armed conflict, together with the cultivation of illegal drugs. now, both these phenomena work together, and they have to be included in the conversation. i would like to ask you and the generals your opinion about this topic. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i would be glad

to respond. i go back to a topic that was public discussion has to do with the general agreement signed last year between the farc and the government of colombia where point for of that agreement that is a compromise of sitting to find a solution, a formula for solution of the colombia problem. the mid-of that agreement, the agreement of the farc, is that the topic will be included in negotiations and that it is a solution to the drug problem. they will not be -- there will not be a negotiation that is not other, any other than looking for a way to find the problem to the illegal crop cultivation. granted by section 2 of s. con

res. 22 of the 113th congress, the majority leader of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives acting jointly in consultation with the minority leaders of the senate and house respectively have determined that the public interest warrants a convening of the senate at this time not withstanding the previous orders. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.