is baking indication system if we need to bring it to ships are going to do it, i need 10 on this channel, come help me. on those kind of industry level kind of scenario practiced, tried? .. >> and through them we can get assistance to the ship very quickly. elliott mentioned the willingness and desire for us to

continue to workxd together as e cruise industry, but that's been happening for manyñrñiñrçó year. each other, and we willñi provide shistance5a asñi requi tñr wasçó portrayed,qasñi requi know, theokñiwpwtááq&ñi safelyñx days,xd sortñr of what's the net a quick ere. tkçóçó responae=ñi and st(if, but what'sçó ançó emergency? üous if you can givexnusxd a sense of the rd of actual incidentsñr thatñiñr t center responds to.ñiçóçó of mobilizing the emergency response centers, çó 8h

orñiñrñiñiñrnofñiñixdñiçóñ2iç?á

>> if they're confined to a wheelchair or a motor scooter, that is noted on embarkation and specific, specially-trained crew are assigned to those passengers so in the event of an emergency we would match them up and insure that they are brought to, with assistance, brought to the muster station. >> you mentioned several contingencies, we all have slightly different ways to handle. we have to assist people with disabilities. in terms of what we call the youth immigration plan, all our

kids and teenagers, they get basically wristbands with the stations, and we explain this to the parents on boarding, and we always tell them the best thing to do in case of emergency is not to wander around the ship trying to find your childs, but actually go be to your station because we have trained our crew to bring the child to you, and that will be the quickest and safest way to reunite yourself with your family. so for children that have, that are under our care and at our facilities, we basically are staffed with bringing them in an organized manner, and we do this during the drills for kids that are running around on their own and they have the wristbands, any one of our crew are trained to basically guide them and take them to the right stations. so we try to make sure the parents understand that on day one because i think the best way to reunite yourself with your family is trust that we will do the right job to get them there. >> yes, please. >> yeah. from the simulation point of

view, there are different categories of people, some related, and there are already also people with a really low walking speed simulated. perhaps it's not simulated that people need help, but that is an operational process that is considered in the simulation. so it is not actually simulated, but there are really slow walking speeds simulated. >> okay. thank you. that's very helpful. now i'm also fascinated by the vertical chutes. i know that you practice mustering, but is there any practice in the vertical chute, or how does that work? >> the question was on how you manage disabled people or -- >> no. just on a general question of the vertical chutes and how that works. like i say, i'm sure you -- i know you do the mustering drills, but do you also do anything to let somebody have a

clue where what this vertical chute is going to be like? >> typically, there are onboard the ships where that is used in connection with the evacuation of passengers, then there are instruction videos that are available over the pr system aboard the system or in the cabins. you could say for cruise vessels it's more an issue of educating crew members and picking crew members familiar with it -- making crew members familiar with it because the chute systems onboard the ships are primarily and on some cruise lines even only used for crew members. and they can be educated in the functionalities. >> and on the mustering point, is the mustering the same for the ship as lifeboat as it is for the evacuation, or is it two different types of mustering? >> that's the same mustering. >> okay. and then my last question goes to the man overboard question that came up before. how often does that happen? i don't have any sense of what kind of numbers we're talking about in terms of man overboard. >> i will tell you my experience as captain.

i've been 23 years at sea, i've been captain for 12 years. i've had one man overboard situation. happened during my last contract at sea. i also have through my life been involved in rescuing people at sea, and i have been involved in several rescues totaling probably about 20 human lives that didn't come from our ship, but we happened to rescue. operations have rescued close to 160 people at sea that didn't belong to us, and we have received four or five commendations for public service for doing this. that doesn't really take away the other problem that when somebody goes overboard for whatever reason and, unfortunately, many of which sometimes are volunteer in some nature, is really -- we do our best to save the life. and i cannot tell you as a

captain i've had only one experience even though you know you did the impossible, it stays with you, you know? we try to do our very best, but it's very difficult. also we have some enough later to know that in many cases when the person goes overboard even when you detect it and you react quickly and you find it, in many cases the same impact from the heights makes, unfortunately, this a tragedy. so while i continue to encourage technologies that will help us detect this and that would be great, i've had to also put my experience to know that that will be great that we can recover the person. we'll be less optimistic about the total percentage that that turns into saving a life. but if you're saving one, that's a welcome addition to safety. >> okay, thank you very much.

>> want to go back to some, your experiences with respect to the simulated evacuations. so to help me to understand, what is the lifeboat capacity on any ship? what percent of the souls onboard? >> the capacity was 75%. >> so what happens to the other 25% of people, where are they supposed to go? >> they're using the other equipment onboard which will be launchable life rafts or marine evacuation systems. >> and marine evacuation systems -- >> those are systems wees capeways like the chute -- with escapeways like the chute or slides. >> okay. so what confidence do you all have with respect to your simulations that they are actually representative of conditions? you've had a number of different

questions that have gone to some of these factors that, you know, in the video that you ran, mr. calouri, it was three healthy men, you know, simulated walking. when i've been on cruises, that's not what the population generally looks like. so help me to understand how much confidence you have in your simulations that those actually replicate what we might see in a real world situation. >> yeah. >> maybe i'll just go down the line. obviously, dr. povel, you've worked the simulation. >> yeah. the video's just showing the principle, of course. but if you look on direction times, especially for the cabins considered, that they are considered between six and twelve minutes roughly. and so the corridor, the first

corridor will not be that crowded as you may expect because they are not just jumping all out of their cabins and standing in the corridor. of course, that cumulates at the staircases, and that was also shown in this example video that they come from different directions, people, and, of course, gathering together, and the software is then assessing how many people are there and if there's a congestion or not. how reliable are the samelations? -- simulations? i said before the small items like corridor stairs, congestion , combining points of flows, that is tested by small tests by the universities and all over the world. there are some bigger tests run,

but the problem of bigger tests is if you want to, for example, identify the reaction time that you cannot run with 200 people an unannounced test to get direction time just for insurance reasons, just for the safety of the people attending. >> okay. so how much generally, i would -- the question is how much confidence do you have in the simulation? that they represent real world conditions? >> so i think, i believe the simulations are really good. we do that for many years, and we have a safety factor considering uncertainties, so i think with 25% plus safety factor we are on the safe side. >> 25% means --

>> that is a safety factor for the simulation of -- >> you've added 25% to what the expectation is? okay, so you feel confident that this represents real world condition? >> yes. >> and anyone else on the panel have a comment on this? and if you could do it quickly, i -- >> information with the capacity on an mes system. one of the systems that we have has a capacity of 908 people within 30 minutes. that sounds as a high number, and that is done in two passageways. a requirement from our regulatory body is that that is conducted as a physical test. it's not a simulation. we actually had to go out and get 908 people, up to 1,000 people with a representative demographic representing passenger, normal distribution, and it's from 20 to the age of 60, not to bring anyone in harm's way. and then we simply do a race against the clock. and we are not allowed to instruct the participants to a

more in-depth as actually you would do in connection with passengers onboard a ship. >> okay. be so it sounds like there's some combination of simulation and actual testing that goes on. in the aviation world, we actually have to -- before the aircraft can be certified, they actually have to do an evacuation test with 50% of the exits blocked with -- >> that's exactly the same we're doing. >> okay. so my question would be we did have an actual event, the costa concordia. how did the costa compare with what your expectations were with your simulations? did it meet or exceed the expectations in the simulation, or were there problems? and i know that you all aren't involved directly, but from what you know and what your roles in the industry are, have you made changes based on what came out in the costa? >> yeah.

as we heard yesterday, there were some operational things a little bit wrong, went wrong. not only the navigation after colliding processes, but we did not simulate this vessel, so i cannot say anything on how the performance of this vessel was simulated, and we did not run the simulation after that incident. we don't have information where the people were located, how many were distributed onboard, so that is hard to simulate something that you do not know a lot of. >> captain zini? >> ms. chairman, thank you. maybe i can approach the same question from the side of a

captain onboard the ship. being in many buildings and seeing simulations taking place, i can see -- [inaudible] onboard as consequence of that. so certain doors made wider, certain access to platforms -- [inaudible] efficiency. so while i don't really have the capability to comment on the details of the simulations and that's really beyond my abilities, i can -- [inaudible] of conducting them and the physical improvements that does to the ship, many of those elements. second of that without really trying to refer to any particular incident or issue, but we know as captains that that it's great to see all the simulations taking place to give us ample amount of time. but we don't really want to pass the time. be -- so if we have any situations that put us in the slightest doubt that we may need to abandon ship, part of what we

do as captains is to start the process immediately. that's my respondent as captain, to assemble the guests and get the machinery in the right places as quickly as possible while i'm assessing the situation. if i have to dismiss it, i'm sorry, i apologize, and that's how it is. but i think that's -- you need to understand as a captain that that's your primary responsibility, because while all this wonderful work has been on the design, we are not going to be counting how much time we have. so we have to make sure we act quickly and efficiently. just as important, the use of public address system. we have emergency signal, we have many ways to training to make sure that we do this effectively. the leadership from the bridge, the communication with the guests and the use of the public address system to calm people, to reassure them, to assert leadership so they know that you are in charge and you're doing all the right things, and you keep them informed is critical

for keeping the crew informed, the guests calm, the evacuation process much more smoothly and effectively and really can help you save a lot of time and be finish. [inaudible] so i think while we continue to enforce the design, and i welcome any improvement that can done on that for the future, it's very important we also operate according to with those principles, and i think every captain understand today. >> i think the challenges in a simulation or in a drill it's easy to talk about what the expectations are and how to be calm and things like that, but when actually something happens, that is the opportunity to understand the that things work as planned or designed. and the costa concordia, they didn't call for the evacuation until they were already heeled over 12 degrees, they had problems with access to a lot of things, so things didn't get launched. things that did get launched weren't very full.

in another situation i think the question is do we have the capability to evacuate, launch and rescue the number of people that can be on a cruise ship? and, you know, the simulations are good, but we had a real life scenario, and things didn't go be as planned. >> if i'm loud, ms. chairman -- i'm allowed, ms. chairman, i mentioned in my previous experience i had a situation with a man overboard, and when somebody mentioned there was a man overboard, we started the search, but also we decided to muster quickly because we didn't know if it was crew or guest. this happened early in the morning, and while you can say the conditions are different, the guests were informed we were doing mustering, and the mustering was in very good timing, and the return provided us accurate information to determine who was the person missing. so i have experience on the ship that i have commanded with the new simulations and the design that under this circumstance that's the best i can offer you as real experience, the system

has worked. >> is there any additional comments from the panel? >> just very quickly, chairman, i think also the lessons learned from the concordia drove a number of the initiatives that were processed through clear, particularly with regard to passenger mustering in terms of recording nationality of passengers, additional life jackets on the ship which exceeds regulations which, again, i think is indicative of this cross-collaboration of the industry in improving the criteria. >> thank you all very much. and, panel, we did use all of our time here, so we won't be coming back to you for an additional round. we'll reconvene at 2:55. ♪ ♪ç

♪ >> congress is on their second week of a two week recess. the senate will consider nominations. the house hasn't announced the schedule for next week, but one of the issues that will be discussed at least off the floor is federal spending and deficits. we spoke with a member of the fix the debt campaign this morning to examine the trend of shrinking federal deficits. >> host: maya macguineas who is the president for the committee of a responsible federal budget back at our table this morning, she's also a

steering committee member of the fix the debt campaign. let me ask you about the headline from the congressional budget office recently. the deficit will fall $492 billion in 2014. what's happening? >> guest: well, that's the good news. it's sort of the good news. the sort of good news is that our deficits are coming down in the short term, this year, haas year, next year, from what we were thinking they would be and from where they were before, and that's encouraging because a lot of it show that is the economy hasn't fully recovered.they the fiscal situation that was so bad after the financial crisis in 2008 and blew up those deficits to a trillion dollars isio improving. but the truth is, and there's two reasons it's not as good as the news sounds, we don'tprov actually need to focus on getting the deficit down in the short run. e know that these numbers are huge, and i know what i focus on is or worrying about budget deficits, but the real problem n isn't this year, last year ori n the next year.t the larger deficits have in some wayge helped to compensate for that. the real problem is that the

deficit looking out into the future so large and projected to grow at unsustainable levels. so the deficit may have actually come down too quickly in the short run, but the real issue is we have done basically nothing that has really fixed our long-term debt problems, and we are still looking at a mountain of debt, and we're stilldone looking -- and we'll talk more about this probably -- butfixe politicians who don't really want to deal with that mountain of debt, that's the real challenge. politicians don't wanl with that amount of debt. host: the deficit is going to fall. >> host: here's a headline from cnbc's web site. why is no one cheering the falling deficit? >> guest: well, i think the president, for instance, is cheering the falling deficit. he has made one of his talking points the fact that we've cut the deficit in half. and i think, again, sort of the irony of that is, one, the

president and a lot of his economic advisers have said the deficit's coming down too quickly. we are worried about the effect on the economy. so you maybe don't want to cheer those immediate short-term improvements to the deficit. but also when you're talking about it comes down in half and those numbers that you just put out, it sounds really good. the truth is, you have to put it in a broader context. the deficit was cut in half over the past four year, but it grew 750% in the two years before that. the debt right now is twice as high as a share of the economy as the historical average. it hasn't been this high since we just came out of world war ii. and after a war you expect the debt to be larger, but you have a plan to grow your economy and bring your debt down. right now we don't have plan. what we have is an aging population, health care costs which have improved somewhat but are still growing too fast, faster than the economy, and a lot of programs that are expanding much faster than our tax base is. so you could, you could shear the improvement in the deficit,

but it's not really the best thing for the economy to make the focus of the deficit now and that we haven't done anything critical to get control of what we need to for the longer term. >> host: what has shrunk the deficits so quickly? >> guest: well, a couple of reasons. one, a number of the reasons the deficits were so big was the result of the economic crisis. when i to you have -- when you have a recession, one, you have automatic stabilizers or changes in your budget where less revenue comes in because we're not collecting as much taxes because people aren't doing as well, and more money isn't spent on programs that are helping people in need. so unemployment insurance, food stamps. a lot of money goes out there. so your deficit grows automatically. two, we spent a lot of money on stimulus programs. that stimulus is unwinding, so a lot of those costs that were in the budget growing the deficit before have come down. three, we made a number of policy changes, so as everybody will recall, we've had these nail-biting moments in the country. the fiscal cliff, is the sequester going to hit, are we going to shut down the answer --

the answer was yes -- are we going to default? luckily, the answer was no. we made some policy changes. the biggest ones were we put in spending caps on some defense spending, we put in another round of that called the sequester which is those across-the-board, automatic cuts. and we raised some revenues around the fiscal cliff on people making $450,000 a year and the well off. those policy changes combined with the economic improvements and the ending of the stimulus have brought the deficit down from a trillion dollars to half a trillion dollars. i would also those are still huge deficits, half a trillion dollars is a huge, huge deficit. but, again, when the economy's weak, it's not the biggest concern we have. >> well, if you kept these policy questions in place -- changes in place, would that be a good thing? >> well, the changes are really dumb. we have really made fiscal improvements by looking at the wrong parts of the budget. let's take our spending cuts. we did across-the-board spending

cuts for the most part. there's a lot of savings you can find in these areas of the budget, but you want to thoughtfully think about what are the programs that are outdated and we don't need anymore? what are the programs that are performing really well and we with need to spend more money on? one a lot of people point to is infrastructure. we have been underfunding infrastructure in this country for quite some time. but we want those spending caps to push policymakers to be more thoughtful about what's working and how to pay for them. they don't do that. in the end they say i don't want to be held responsible for making these tough choices. we're going to do these caps and not make as many choices. two, the way we raised revenues, we raised tax rates. when you raise tax rates, it means that people are going to work less because their incentive to work is less. there's a huge opportunity right now, the head of the ways and means committee, chairman camp, has really pushed a plan to do this. but to reform our tax code. listen, we all just paid our taxes. we know that nobody likes the tax code as it is.

the same goes true for businesses and families, that the tax code is too complex. it's filled with all of these tax breaks, the deductions and exclusions and exemptionings that makes the tax coat incredibly complicated and like swiss cheese. we have a chance to reform a lot of those tax breaks and actually bring down rates, but you could still ask people to pay more in revenues if you wanted to close the deficit, which i think we need to do, but in a way that would help grow the economy. so we raise tax rates, wrong way to get revenue when we should have been reforming the tax code. the third piece is what we haven't done. we haven't dealt with the biggest challenges of the budget which is the aging of the population and health care costs. social security, medicare, medicaid all need to be shored up. all of them face huge financial challenges, and we're doing this country an incredible disservice by pretending we can just sweep those problems under the rug. and at some point down the road, frankly when it will be too late to do it in a smart way, somebody will get around to

fixing these programs. the disability portion of social security is on track to run out of money in 2016. nothing is being done to fix this. so our entitlement programs are the biggest problem in the budget. we need to shore them up, we need to strengthen them, we need to fix them, and nothing's being done there, and that's probably the biggest concern. >> host: is that why the cbo said we face trillion dollar deficits again in 202? >> guest: you bet it is. it's with entitlements and the fastest-growing part of our budget, interest. and this is the biggest wasteful item of our budget. i know people will call in and say we're wasting money here, here, there are a lot of places we waste money, but they tend to be smaller line items. the biggest part of our budget, the fastest growing part of our budget is interest payments. keep in mind our interest rates are already very low. if interest rates were to go up, that problem would become even worse. so when you look forward and you see these trillion dollar deficits, it's because we haven't fixed our entitlements because our interest payments are growing so quickly and kind of falling on top of themselves and growing and growing and

growing and because we don't raise enough revenues to pay for what we spend. we want to spend a whole lot of money, and we don't want to raise the taxes to pay for it. basically, we're handing that bill to our kids. it couldn't be more irresponsible and, yes, the big problem looking forward is those programs we haven't dealt with and our unwillingness to pay for what we do want to spend. >> well, the supreme court refused to overturn a michigan law approved by voters. the justices said in a 6-2 ruling today that michigan voters had the right to change their state constitution in 2006 to prohibit public colleges and universities from taking account of race in admissions decisions. "the new york times" reporting that in his opinion in the case justice anthony kennedy wrote, quote: this case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it. there's no authority in the constitution of the united states or in this court's precedents for the judiciary to set aside michigan laws -- [inaudible]

to the voters. several members of congress disagree, and they have tweeted out about this. congresswoman corrine brown of florida says i'm disappointed in today's scotus decision. this from congressman bob braidty of pennsylvania: >> president obama plans to visit n today near seattle where a mudslide last month killed at least 41 people. cousins of homes -- dozens of homes were also buried. we'll have live coverage of the president's visit today starting at 6:50 eastern. and then the president will head to aiz what -- asia. he's expecting to spend the rest of the week and part of next week in japan, south korea, malaysia and the philippines. president obama will be the first sitting u.s. president to

visit malaysia since lyndon johnson did in 1956. we are featuring booktv in prime time. tonight, stories from the white house beginning with diane jacobs and her book, "dear abigail: the intimate lives and revolutionary ideas of abigail adams and her two remarkable sisters." and joshua zeitz, author of "lincoln's boys." and finally, robert clara, author of "the hidden white house: harry truman and the reconstruction of america's most famous residence." that's booktv in prime time all this week here on c-span2 starting at eight eastern. >> for more than a year, there have been allegationings and insinuations -- allegations and insinuations that i knew about the planning of the watergate break-in and that i was involved in an extensive plot to cover it up. the house judiciary committee is now investigating these charges. on march 6th i ordered all materials that i had previously

furnished to the special prosecutor turned over to them. these included tape recordings of 19 presidential conversations and more than 700 documents from private white house files. on april 11 the judiciary committee issued a subpoena for 42 additional tapes of conversations which it contended were necessary for its investigation. i agreed to respond to that subpoena by tomorrow. >> forty years ago on april 29th, president nixon responded to a house judiciary committee subpoena for additional watergate tapes. his response, plus reflections from former journalist carl bernstein sunday night at 8 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> the associated press this afternoon is reporting that u.s. senator john bozeman is undergoing surgery at an arkansas hospital.

his office issued only a brief statement this morning saying the republican is receiving excellent care. his staff would not say what type of surgery. the 62-year-old senator is having but more information will be released later. a discussion now on the evolution of american intelligence. a former cia scientific intelligence officer talks about the changing nature of intelligence gathering. eugene poteat. this hourlong event is hosted by the institute of world politics. >> we're going to go ahead and get started. there will be some people coming in as, i guess, as traffic allows. but good evening, and on behalf of the student body, i'd like to welcome you all to iwp this evening for this event's lecture entitled "the changing face of american intelligence: or from oss special operations to

analysis and high-tech reconnaissance, back to the special operations" with mr. eugene poteat. more than 20 years ago, the institute of world politics was founded as a graduate school of national security and international affairs dedicated to developing leaders with a sound understanding of international realities and the ethical conduct of state craft based on knowledge and appreciation of the founding principles of the american political economy and western world tradition. this evening we are especially pleased to welcome you all here as our guest lecturer, mr. poteat, is one of the many fine professors that has helped iwp what it is today by preparing many of our graduates to venture out into the world of national security and intelligence ready to meet the distinctive demands and challenges of the probe negativeses -- professions today. mr. poteat is a retired senior cia scientific intelligence officer and the president of the association of former intelligence officers, also

known as afio. he was educated as a physicist and holds a master's in state craft and national security from iwp, i believe the class of 2009. and in his career in intelligence has included work with u2 and sr71 class of aircraft and various space and naval reconnaissance systems. he also managed the cia's worldwide network of monitoring sites. he holds patents on covert communications techniques. his cia assignments included the direct rate of science and technology, the national reconnaissance office, technical director of the navy's special programs, office of -- office and executive director of intelligence, research and developmental council. he served abroad in london, scanned scandinavia, the middle east and

asia, and he's received the cia's medal of merit and the national reconnaissance office's meritorious civilian award for his technological innovations. following mr. poteat's lecture, we're going to have a brief five minute break where we'll ask that if you have any questions, you write them down on the cards that were provided on your chairs, have them passed to the side where we'll collect them, and that way he can go through them, and it'll just help a little pit with the q&a -- a little bit with the q&a session afterwards. and now without further delay, i'd like to welcome mr. poteat back to iwp, and here you go. [applause] >> perhaps in the future you'll have a lectern that has a flat

place to set a cup of water. [laughter] excuse me. i want to be sure that i can be heard all the way in the back with this new microphone. does it work okay back there? great. well, it turns out that the cia got into the intelligence business really in a very strange and interesting way. during world world war ii, the e of strategic services or oss was our intelligence arm during world war ii. at the end of the world war ii, however, the head of oss -- whose name was william donovan -- had the idea that we

needed an intelligence service in peacetime. that's a rather radical thought. but the invasion of the independent agency that did not interfere with any other intelligence activities such as naval intelligence, the fbi, the army intelligence, the state department, so we had a lot of people that were interested in the subject. but when donovan came up with his idea for a new central intelligence service, he ran into a lot of trouble. everybody thought he was infringing on their turf, and they all objected. and it took three year year

years before washington could settle down and agree on the national security act of 1947. it turned out that president truman had been ignored by president roosevelt during his tenure. and when roosevelt passed away and president truman stepped into his shoes, he had no idea what had been going on. it's interesting that joseph stalin -- joseph stalin, the head of the soviet union, knew about the american atomic bomb before harry truman did. that's how bad he had been kept in the dark. so it was decided this warfare in washington went on for three years, and finally something

unusual happened. the congress stepped in and did a good job. they fixed the problem. they decided that we did need such an intelligence agency. it would be independent, and they passed the law, ask can they modified -- and they modified it, and it was finally passed, however, in virtually identical to the plan that donovan had had three years earlier. so his, he prevailed. but something happened. he wanted to be the head of that new central intelligence agency, but harry truman did not like donovan. they couldn't get along. and harry truman said i don't want anything to do with any cloak and dagger types. and yet something happened when that national security act was

passed. churchill made a visit to independence, missouri, and he made his famous iron curtain speech. we all, every student knows about that iron curtain speech. but shortly after that event truman, who didn't want anything to do with cloak and dagger types, did something unusual. he signed the marshall plan which went on to save western europe from falling under the communist hold. and then he did something else most unusual. he dispatched the new cia to southern europe to save italy, turkey and greece from being taken over by the communists. now, the interesting thing that

happened, the original cia had been staffed by donovan's oss boys. they knew two things. they understood the threat from expanding communism, and they knew what to do about it. it was not to collect secret intelligence. they knew what was going on. communist world. but they knew covert action was the answer to it. as a matter of fact, that cia i succeeded. they went to italy, and they worked with the catholic church in italy to take over the election, and they defeated the communism who was trying to take over and run the italian elections and convert it to a communist nation. that, the man that was working with the cia side was james

angleton, and he was working with a priest who was a bishop in italy. that priest later went on to become pope paul, so you can say in a way that the catholic church and the pope was working with the cia in those very early days. well, they succeeded in italy, but then they moved on to turkey where they did the same thing, they succeeded in defeating the communist that was trying to take over turkey. but the most interesting they had was in greece -- interesting success they had was in greece. the communists had advantages there in that very rocky, rough terrain, but the cia got a boatload of missouri mules and took them to greece. and they were able to outmaneuver the communists in that terrible, rocky terrain.

so it's often given credit to their successes embraced to the missouri mules. well anyway, they had these incredible successes. but the thing that one wonders, why is it that truman made the sudden change that he didn't want anything to do with cloak and dagger types, and suddenly he's dispatching intelligence, and east a strong supporter of it -- he's a strong supporter of it? well, it turns out that when churchill visited missouri, made his iron curtain speech, it is said by many people that he educated -- three days after his famous speech, and there was a period of time where he was alone with president truman. and it was that time that he educated truman on the threat

from the soviet union. as a matter of fact, had president roosevelt died four months earlier, guess who would have been president of the united states? a communist. the vice president in that early times before truman turned out to be a communist. nonetheless, the covert action was the order of the day. the cia didn't succeed in every case they tried. as a matter of fact, what they did was beyond belief. they were also after they're working on italy, turkey and greece, they were also dropping agents behind the communist lines in albania and eastern

europe. they were parachuting in these young men with radios to infiltrate and be their behind-the-lines eyes and ears. every one of those 300 young men that was parachuted in behind the lines were compromised and picked up and never heard from again. the reason is it was a joint operation with the british, and it turned out our famous ken philby who was one of the british agents that was actually working with us on that operation turned out to have been the spy for the soviet union. so he compromised the operations. it was some time later before, when philby defected that we realized that we'd been had.

nonetheless, the covert action continued, and some of them were successful. that was an interesting operation. i'll bet you've heard about it. the united food company owned a lot of land in guatemala, and they had, they also had built railroads in the country, and they built a port. of course, it was all about the banana monopoly owned by the rockefeller corporation. interesting. president arbennes who was the president of guatemala and his wife in particular were leftists, and it was understood that they wanted to nationalize the united fruit company in guatemala. well, when that word got out,

united fruit went to work in washington and set up a campaign to discredit guatemalans from nationalizing. as a matter of fact, the cia then was planning a coup to eliminate arbennes in guatemala. well, they succeeded, but it was interesting that when we realized that in washington it turns out that the secretary to the president eisenhower at the time worked for united fruit. the u.n. ambassador, henry cabot lodge, had been a stockholder in the united fruit. the dulles brothers, the head of the cia, alan dulles and his brother who was secretary of

state, both had worked for the bank which was a partner of united fruit. well, it was clear that that coup by the cia had full backing from washington. and it was a great success the cia created a small private air force and army. and that they had one plane -- they had two planes. one of the planes dropped one bomb on guatemala city, and arbennes fled. [laughter] that's an easy way to handle a coup. but the second plane dropped a bomb on a ship leaving the harbor. they thought it was a czechoslovakian ship that was bringing in arms to arm the rebels. well, it turns out they made a mistake. the ship was a british ship hauling bananas and coffee from

guatemala. so covert action was discredited after a while. but today had one last a time that was very important. eisenhower had approved of a coup against castro's cuba simply because it was clear now there's no question about soviet communism entry into the western hemisphere was through using castro. well, the cia was called on to do another covert operation. this is an old story, but it was interesting in that eisenhower approved it as a covert operation rather than as an overt operation to eliminate castro. and the secretary of state proceeded to plan operation. and under the assumption that castro was not yet fully in

charge, in control of cuba. but at the same time, the cia analysts had made it clear that castro was completely in charge, be and he had jet fighters, and the cia had old world war ii piston engine bombers. but jfk came into office at that point. and went he was briefed on -- when he was briefed on the cuban operation, they made changes. they changed the entire plan for the operation, they changed the landing site from the original place over to this swamp called the bay of pigs. now you know where we're going with that. they also said we will not allow u.s. military, meaning in this case the naval aviation, to back up or support this operation to

insure that it succeeds. well, kennedy said i will not allow u.s. military to support this operation. but the cia perhaps made a bigger mistake. they decided to go ahead with the operation in spite of what the president had said. it's a good guess as to what happened. the kennedy brothers thought they knew more about covert operations than the cia. there's one theory that the cia meaning dick bissell, the head of the operation, believed that if the operation would fail, the u.s. navy would come to their rescue. but we know the story. it was a dismal failure. and i think that the cia's

covert operations came to a screeching halt that day. that was the end of covert operations. now, during this time the cia had no spies inside the soviet union. they were not doing spying. they were doing covert operations. but the cia had man named sherman kent who also had come from the o is ss -- oss, and he had been an analyst. and he believed that an analyst, an analysis could coall the intelligence -- could do all the intelligence work that needed to be done. as a matter of fact, with covert action dead, sherman kent became the leader, if you will, of the cia de facto leader. he believed that he and his analysts could produce volumes

of ensilo periodic information about -- enpsych low periodic information about every place in the world, and when the policymakers needed anything to know about a particular place, they could give him a stack of papers with all he needed to know about it. gigo, garbage in, garbage out. made serious mistakes. as a matter of fact, in the mid 1950s the biggest question of the day was that the military attaches in moscow were reporting back that they're

parading these icbms and missiles through the streets on may day parades and flying overhead are very modern jet bombers, the likes of which we had never seen. and they had modern jet fighters. and the panic struck washington. the panic was are we suddenly outgunned by the soviet union? do they have air superiority? furthermore, they had already exploded -- they had stolen and exploded their own atomic bomb. and now they had the means to deliver them. missiles and bombers. so it was called the bomber and missile gap. is the u.s. in trouble? eisenhower turned to the cia analysts and said what's the answer? they had no answer. they had no clue about whether or not we had military advantage

or inferiority. eisenhower, however, had experience from world war ii from photo reconnaissance, and he called in his science advisers at the time, and this was an amazing group of men. there was the president of mit, there was william baker from bell telephone laboratories, we had the president of stanford university, and we had that kind of talent. we had a man named denny lamb who was one of america's greatest innovators. he had invented the polaroid lan instant photography and polaroid, and he was very -- but these men working with eisenhower came up with a plan to answer the biggest question of the day, the pom and missile

gap -- woman and missile gap. they -- bomb and missile gap. and eisenhower called a special meeting. he called in the head of the cia, the head of the military, the air force, secretary of state, secretary of defense and so on. and he read them orders. there's three things that have to be done. the first is he looked at alan dulles and said get spies inside the soviet union. that's your job. yes, sir. then he said, we will do photo reconnaissance. we will go look at -- we will overfly the soviet union and see for ourselves what they've got. missiles, bombers and fighter planes. and he said that plane will have to fly high enough that it cannot with shot down by russian missiles or fighter planes. but, he added, and the air force

in the room said, oh, we know how to do that. we're in the airplane business. eisenhower said, no, i want the cia to do it because it has to be done in secret. and you recall, eisenhower had -- if you recall, eisenhower had said he had ideas about the military industrial come for example. he said you've got to do it in secret. but the air force with your resources, you support the cia. he said the third thing, that plane will eventually be shot down. so let's start building satellite reconnaissance to replace the airplanes. and, again, the our force knew how to do that. they were working on missiles. he said, no, it's got to be done in secret. i want the cia to do this. ..

they had the design for the u-2 before it was ready to go, but a plane that couldn't carry bombs and had no guns but now the cia has the job. lockheed martin had that plane flying over the soviet union in less than nine months. not sure we could do that nowadays but that is how it was. now the plane lasted four years

and it came back with the answer to the bomber and missile gap. there was no bomber and missile gap. u2 was able to count the missile sites, the bomber factories, airfields and so on and the u.s. now, understood they had military superiority over the soviet union. because of that, president kennedy during a thing called the berlin crisis in 1960 when the russians were trying to get the u.s. and allies out of berlin so they could take over all of germany, western germany, jfk made the statement, no, we are staying in berlin. now the reason he could say that and he could call khrushchev's bluff was because he knew that the u.s. had military

superiority and khrushchev had known it all along. so we didn't go to war over that. the same thing happened again later during, two years later in the cuban missile crisis. russia had been slipping in missiles to try to counter, if you will, checkmate, u.s. military advantage and military superiority. so they brought their short-range missiles to cuba. the same thing happened. khrushchev had no choice but to back down but he made the right decisions at the right time. we avoided nuclear war because the u.s. had military superiority and khrushchev knew it. kennedy made a couple of mistakes in dealing with that. however, he agreed that with crew chef we would not interfere with castro.

we will not invade cuba. and the russians can stay in cuba but get the missiles out is all that mattered. and he kept secret the fact that he had agreed with khrushchev that we would remove our missiles from turkey and italy. so that was a quid pro quo but it was kept secret for six months. kennedy wanted credit for blinking second and khrushchev missiles, our missiles out of italy and turkey. so that was the a fair trade it seems to me but that was the high water mark between conflicts between the u.s. and russia. thereafter, we had something called mad, mutual assured destruction. that kept us, in other words, it kept the cold war from getting hot. well, the technology didn't stop

with just the u2. it turns out that the satellites had problems. there had been, it started at the same time with the u2 but oddly enough they had 12 failures in a row and we never thought that it would ever get that satellite working. so as a backup the cia started another program in case they never could get the satellites working and that turned out to be an airplane that could fly so high and so fast, that even the russian missiles could not catch it. and that was called the a12 ox cart airplane. you know it as a different name. you know it as the sr 71 black bird. but airplane turned out to be so advanced that nothing has matched that today and it has

been over a half a century. the plane is still the highest flyer, the fastest airplane ever made but there was a secret part of that aircraft project. it had to be invisible to soviet radar. that watts first effort the united states made to develop and build a stealthy airplane. i was very lucky in those days. i worked on all of those projection. i thought i died and gone to heaven. was wonderful time to be alive and be there. nonetheless on the 13th attempt to launch that satellite it worked. and they got, they got more intelligence from that first satellite operation than the u-2 got in four years. it was like turning on a flood

light in a dark warehouse. you could see everything. now, you're not allowed to turn on your cell phones but i forgot to turn my off. i'm terribly sorry. anyway. well it turns out, that the. seems the technology that came out of the cia in those days, the 1960s, they had the most advanced research and development capability. don't ask me what it is like today. i've lost track of what is going on over there. so i described three phases of intelligence, covert operations, came to an end. analysis only came to an end. and the science and technology which worked beautifully.

now it turned out that the cia did get spies into the soviet union to do their job. so, but then, something happened to change the world. it was called september 11th, 2001. the united states had thought that terrorism attacks occurred overseas in the middle east, in africa, against our embassies and against american ships in the persian gulf and so on but now 9/11 occurred. it's, it is here, it is in front of us. so, the cia had a small group called special activities division. it was the only paramilitary covert action group in the country that was ready to go into afghanistan immediately to

counter the terrorists overseas. so they are suddenly back into the covert action after all. well it continued to develop in such a way that the new enemy, they don't wear uniforms. they hide among civilians. they're happy to die just to kill you. it's a different world. what was the solution? how do we counter that? guess what? it's back to covert action. but it's a different kind of covert action. as a matter of fact, what we have now is, we have intelligence collection taking place. we have military humint collection underway. we have, we have the special operations command in florida. and everybody knows the perfect

example of the perfect covert operation. it was the seal team six boys that went to pakistan and finally caught osama bin laden his comeuppance. that was the new type, new age of coy vert action. it brings in all the elements of intelligence. but the technology is there and the the ca's predator -- cia's proceed tore drones. humint from the field. cia has humint service that does the tactical in the field collection of the satellites are beyond belief now. the, the real time imaging satellites are incredibly effective. yeah, they say you can read the license plate of a car if you tilt it up just right. i've not seen it but, it is

impressive nonetheless. the and then, this new age of covert action is very effective. and it's the current age. so if you go back to covert action. let's go back and look at it again. let's look at the, let's look at the greek and the trojan horse. that was a covert action. thomas jefferson sent the marines to shores of tripoli when he was president. that was covert action. it is with us forever but it has changed. i think we finally got it right at the present time. i want to leave that with you and i will try to make this as condensed as i could. but i would like to give you the opportunity now to, if you have questions, to write them down. i don't guaranty the best answer but i will give it a try.

>> so at this time, we'll have you, if you haven't already written your questions down, go ahead and take a few minutes and pass them this way. and we'll collect them and bring you the cards and, that was wonderful, thank you. [background noises] >> it is true that i only covered a couple of examples of

covert operations but they have taken place in everywhere. they took lace in vietnam. they took place in laos. and, some of the covert operations during the korean war were impressive. they were very effective but there's always failures that go with that. but, i think the, not all of those covert operations have been publicized to date. a lot of them are still classified but indeed the question was asked, were there not covert operations in laos and cambodia? you bet. there was plenty of them. i hadn't planned on going into all of those. i picked just a couple of good cases that everybody knew about. oh, there is a second question.

it turns out my, my generation wrote cursive and now most people, they scribble print, so give me a second to try to digest this. there is indeed a question about the church and pike committee hearings. indeed that was a watershed i think was probably did more good than harm, although church, pike and church himself made a comment long after the hearings that he probably overdid it but a lot of people don't think he did. there had been some early problems that happened in any bureaucracy. under alan dulles, he did not give, i think, sufficient adult

supervision to the ranks in the cia and many parts of the agency did run rampant. as a matter of fact, you remember the operation where the, one division called technical services division, had been experimenting with lsd and they had, they had in fact been dispensing lsd to people that didn't, not aware of it and that did cause a death and that, that was really the, single most important issue that the pike raised there. they also had, the cia had developed a gun that could dispense or shoot poison dart and i remember the senator church, holing up that -- holding up the gun in front of the tv cameras and waving it.

it was never used by the way, at all, but it got a lot of publicity at the time. i think that the church-pike committees served one purpose and that was it caused, it created the committees that gave oversight to intelligence. and that was necessary. before that the only oversight the cia got was from the armed services committee and i remember hearing one of them say about a planned cia operation, good, do you have all of the money you need? those days disappeared after the church and pike committees. and i think the supervision and the cia took a turn for the better after that. thank you. here's a good one.

in the past several years we've lost two stealth aircraft into the hand of the enemy. has our stealth technology been compromised or is it obsolete? not at all. it turns out that indeed, my prince pill job during much of these days was to work on the stealth technology. eisenhower made the comment that that fast, high-flying stealth airplane will not fly over the soviet union unless you prove to me it's invisible to soviet radars. and indeed that was one of my jobs and it was one of the most fun things i have ever did. i might add that we gave, we answered the question, what we did, by the way, i will make this brief. but we generate ad electronic

aircraft and we could spoof the soviet radars thinking they're seeing a stealth aircraft. we could vary the size of the radar target and we could therefore listen to them and determine the smallest size of a blip on their screen that they could see. so, but the answer came back, the soviet radars were good and they could detect that stealth airplane that we had. and so it never was permitted to fly over the seven yet union because of that. but, the answer we got from knowing how small of a target the radars can see, that information was passed to lockheed corporation and they, guess what? they then designed and build the f-117, which was indeed invisible to the radars. but one got shot down, as you remember over the boss nia. what happened is, the plane was

operating out of the base in italy and it, and there are spies all around watching the f-117 stealth fighter take off. so they knew, when it took off, they knew about it was going. when it got over the target area, the 117 opened up its bombay doors. then the radar could see it. they knew it was coming. so they fired the missile and knocked it down. fortunately the pilot survived, so on. they designed a whole new generation fighter planes, the f-22, the f-35. they're not intent to be completely invisible to radar. all they need to be as a smaller target than the enemy that they're facing.

so they have an advantage then, of getting, firing a missile before they can receive one. so the stealth is still valuable but it's, it doesn't solve all the problems. has that answered the question enough? that's how they shot it down, was simply, waiting until it opened its bombay doors. this is interesting question. what do you see as the next challenge for the intelligence community? we see that already. obviously the war on terrorism and islamic terrorism. it will not be one by our having bombers and missiles and satellites. it is going to be one fought

primarily two ways. good intelligence, covert action. you've got to be able to identify the enemy before he can do his damage. now that comes up to the one question we all understand. metadata. monitoring communications is one of the most effective tools we have. and it is one of the most difficult ones for the american public to accept. i might add that president lincoln during the civil war, the telegraph was brand new and he set up an operation right away to monitor all telegraph communications from any and everybody. but we were at war and the people knew it. so there was no question about the value and role that modern communications had in those days. as a matter of fact, many newspaper reporters ended up in

jail because they tried to report what lincoln was doing. but metadata does not listen to your conversations. it simply identifies numbers, who calls, when and so on. and that then they have programs then to put it together to try to identify potential sources. but it's, i think that's the challenge, is do we get over this or not? if we give up too much intelligence capability, we lose the war. what is, this is a similar question. what's the greatest intelligence advantage we have today? i wish i could answer that honestly but i think that, the united states is multicultural. we have more capability in this country from terms of language,

cultural background, skills and so on and that's our advantage. but it's, you know, it's, it is "mission: impossible" right now. i hope nsa survives. i like, i can only hope. we have someone here that knows a lot more about this subject than i do. perhaps i would have to ask him to answer that question. but it goes back to world war ii. the cia, actually the, in the balkans in the 1940s, what used to be make of, 2671st reconnaissance brigade. i'm sorry, i will confess i

don't know the answer to that. early '40s, would have been during world war ii. i don't have a good answer for that. i bet the person who asked that question knows the answer but i would like to hear it. any volunteers on that? all right. no, we have to move on now. the, what's next for american intelligence? what technical concerns are you most, how will that impact covert ops. the technology is changing drastically but i think the, everyone in, in this room has an iphone and an ipad and a computer at home and, the world now is awash in communications. the challenge that the u.s., i think, intelligence has is

taking advantage of that. in some ways, it is sentable to the american public, you know, americans always have a love/hate relationship with intelligence. let me remind you that in 1923, the secretary of state made a statement. he said, he found out that the state department had been monitoring communications of the enemy. and he made a statement, gentlemen, don't read each other's mail. henry stimson was his name. and the congress passed a law called the communications act of 1924 that said, it's against the law to monitor anyone's communications, including that of an enemy.

that was the law of our land. however, the army and the navy broke the law and continued to be experts in monitoring and breaking codes, just in time to save the united states in world war ii. as a matter of fact, the battle of midway, the japanese had a superior fleet. they were going to finish us off with one final operation at the battle of midway. but, the u.s. had a lesser capable fleet but they defeated decisively defeated, the larger japanese fleet because they were navy, had broken the law, and was reading the japanese codes and so we were able, the american fleet, because of that advantage, won that battle, which essentially, i think, saved the united states.

if they had lost that battle, we would have had to, reach an agreement or truce with the japan as much on their terms as ours but we didn't have to do it so the, communications everybody uses it. that's the challenge and we have to be able to manage the control of that. now communications is changing. the enemy now knows thanks to mr. snowden how we do it. therefore, they're changing their way of communications, so it will make it ever, ever more difficult. that is the biggest challenge we have, is because of the loss of that important technology. yeah, what does the future of

the intelligence community look like in light of the recent communications, rather the recent criticism from congress, from the congress? well, doesn't look too good, does it? it turns out they're claiming that the cia has been monitoring the congressional traffic of the intelligence committee. the cia has responded. i think that, i fear what would happen if we don't allow that. i don't believe for a minute that the cia was tapping the congressional committees telephones. i don't believe that. so, all i can do is give you that opinion but, i know, i don't think they would ever consider that. they might want to do it but they wouldn't dare.

it's going to affect the agency, the cia nonetheless. the criticism from congress is never, it is not a good idea and it causes heartburn everywhere. because of ed snowden do you believe that the intelligence community will revert back to the nature it was before 9/11? not at all. i don't think so because if it reverts back we have a serious problem. without, without, before 9/11 we missed it by the way. and how is it we missed 9/11? we didn't see it coming? weill give you a short war story. till will be very brief, i promise. but the morning of 9/11, i was

having a second cup of coffee and reading the paper when the phone rang. and it was a friend that i had known from the associated press and it was early in the morning. he said, gene, is your, is your television on? and i said, well, yes, but i never pay any attention to it. turn around and look at it and tell me what you see. and i turned around and i looked at the television and i saw that first tower burning. and while i watched, i saw the second plane fly into the second tower. and, i'm on the phone with the associated press fellow. and he said, what in the world is going on? what are weird accident. i said, it is not an accident. it is a terrorist attack. and they have their own trained pilots. he said how do you know that? i said, well, no american pilot

would do that, even with a gun to his head. and then he said, i said, it has to be a trained, they have their own trained pilots. anyway, he put that on the associated press right away.

you check the schools and you will find the name there. i know one young man taking flying lessons and he ends and interested in landing he just wants to fly the simulator. the woman on the phone says has this man done anything wrong yet and i said i don't know that. isn't that your job, she said. no, that's not my job. i can't do anything until after he's committed a crime and he hung up on me. i did go to another friend and i got the message to the fbi, checked the flight school and in less than 24 hours they named all of those men.

so, that right now the problem that we face is that all of the advantages we have could go back to before 9/11 i think the terrorists would have a field day. i am not answering all the questions i'm sure. how is my time holding up? to believe that the community properly separate and this is from policy decision-making. i am not a fan. he just about ruined intelligence. it goes back to what i said

before. an analysis only works if it has input from intelligence collection. now there is a problem when the policymakers -- here is the bad news. intelligence works for the presidents of the united states, not anyone else. the intelligence can use it or he can ignore it. sometimes the president doesn't want to hear the intelligence. he may have other reasons that are legitimate but he won't take action and ignore that particular intelligence. that's the way that it is. he is a boss. the incident in 1964 i believe where president johnson felt

that they were attacked by the torpedo boats and he used that to start arming and expanding the war in north vietnam. he started bombing hanoi that day. it turns out that they were in the white house and they heard that decision. but the head of the cia knew that they had information that there was no attack in the gulf but johnson went ahead and made a decision ignoring the intelligence to bomb north vietnam. i thought maybe we should have bombed it, myself, that he has the power, so it's his nickel. policymakers depend on the

intelligence in practically every case. i don't think there is any problem with him being ignored anymore. they've proven to the point that it's credible now, think that ms. -- thank goodness. i have to turn it over. this is a long one. this question deals with covert action in that the early directors of the cia resisted taking over the covert action, and that is true in the office of policy coordination responsible for the covert action was outside of the cia. that was in the early days when

it wasn't clear exactly how they would be organized and operated. it turns out to do you agree that the cia was initially skeptical of covert action. the cia was manned by covert operations experts. dennis fitzgerald -- and i know those people, they were covert action specialists. they know how to do it and they succeeded with it until they got to the bay of pigs. as ait's a kind of things diffe. after they settle down if you look at the operation, the covert action is the key to success that we are doing right. so i don't think it matters. i think that it has been slowly effective. and by the way, there is even a new intelligence agency that

works into this covert action. it's called the national geospatial intelligence agency. that is a group that has access from every sensor and of every type from every satellite day and night. this organization is the one that helped plan the operation to catch osama bin laden. they built a model from their sensors of the compound and they even planned the route for the helicopters in and out. they have that capability. now there is no way that we can give up that capability right now three of covert action i think is being done right. it took a while for. i will stick around for a while

if you have questions you didn't want to ask in public and that always happens. thank you very much. i enjoyed it. [applause] >> we are learning this afternoon arkansas senator john boozman is recovering in a local hospital after undergoing heart surgery this morning. he was scheduled to speak at a highway bypass road and cutting. he was in his home district. senator boozman is expected to make a full recovery. the arkansas congressional delegation said condolences. here's what they had to say. mark prior fortunate to call him a good friend and trusted colleague looking at his family and friends in prayer. this from congressman tim burton by prayers

near seattle in mudslide last month killed at least 41 people. dozens of homes were buried and we will have live coverage of the president to visit starting at 650 eastern. then president obama will head to asia or the trip that begins tomorrow in tokyo. he's expectehe is expected to st of the week in japan, south korea.com malaysia and the philippines. he will be the first president to visit since lyndon johnson in 1966. c-span has a discussion on national security whistleblowe whistleblowers. the authors have written about the white house and c-span has a major history tv prime time with the life of malcolm x.. it begins at eight eastern tonight on the c-span networks.

>> we are invading the computationaembedding thecomputo our environment. some technologies disagree on this but i personally consider the smart phones we carry or the population carries around with us to be a trademark example of things. we are becoming human sensors because we are all carrying around an extremely powerful computer in our pocket but it also takes the forms of different centers that exist in the world around us before the education readers that we pass underneath on the new jersey turnpike at takes the form of the weather sensors that are all around us. certainly surveillance on the cameras that select the data and send it somewhere else. this is all a part of it. it's embedding computers into the real-world. >> the editor of the futurist magazine on the world that anticipates your every move

saturday night at ten eastern and sunday at nine american university's washington college of law hosted a discussion on legal issues facing documented and undocumented immigrants. a panel of legal love the kids examines issues such as people offering services and hospitals supporting immigrants for those that can't afford to pay for medical care. this is about two hours. >> good afternoon everyone. thank you so much for coming. thank you for this great conference and i would like to think the panelists and everyone

who puts the conference together forgiving so wonderfully of their time. as we said my name is fernando and i am of the hispanic bar association of columbia. we are in our 37th year. we love to partner with american university in to support a very significant cohort of the latino student district here in columbia. we do this because it is the right thing to do them and we do this because we are here to support those of you who are practicing lawyers right now as well so it is acdh.org so you can check out all of the benefits including an annual convention that we are going to be putting on with the hispanic bar association in september. so we urge you to take advantage of those opportunities that we

provide for the organization and one of the focus is that we offer is a focus of serving the community. as the justice sonya sotomayor said ours is the only profession where helping others is a only part of our training. we may not have an actual requirement to provide the service depending on the jurisdiction, but we do have a duty to serve the community because again, being a latino lawyer, you have an amazing amount of power. latino lawyers bring their families out of poverty. latino lawyers and those of you that are -- you don't even have to be a lawyer those of you in law school you are already getting people coming to you asking questions and the answers of course which you don't know. you probably haven't even taken those classes but so n. so is in law school or an answer.

the degree holds its attorneys and esteem as a good indication of the power that we wield and it's important to yield but for the benefit of the community. you will hear one aspect of public service just to protect the vulnerable community from those practitioners who shall we say are somewhat lacking in their ethical duties. so i think when i was in law school you had to take one class, you have to take one credit. really it's interesting how you've just need a small amount or at least i did in law school but it impacts everything that you do. and as a lawyer you have to think ethically every minute of the day and you also have to do that with respect to legal services that you provide with a paid or not.

you have the same standard of ethical conduct, no matter if your client is paying you money or if you are rendering that service for free. so, this is an important aspect and i would like us to pay close attention to make sure that we understand the importance of serving the community and the importance of understanding that you are paragons of the community beginning with your family. and we are here, the hispanic bar association of dc and all of the other associations in the national to make sure you have the resources that you need to be the best that you can be. thank you so much for your time and i look forward to speaking with you all later in the conference and i will be around until later as well. thank you. [applause]

we are honored to have you before us. >> good afternoon everyone. i name is manuel and i'm the president of the virginia hispanic bar association for the commonwealth of virginia. that is our official name. now, the next group of panelists are going to talk about fraud. those of us that practice in virginia have known long to well the problems in the commonweal commonwealth. i'm proud of that within the last year the hispanic bar association in virginia and its members have taken steps to combat fraud in our state. we have assisted to senators

evans and wexton in drafting legislation to combat fraud along with other latino organizations in the commonwealth of virginia and have written a letter to the governor urging him to sign legislation which would penalize those who exceeded their statutory authority and provided legaprovidelegal advice and serh under the virginia law they are not allowed to do so. is my understanding that governor mcauliffe has signed that legislation and it will take effect july 1 of this year and imposed civil sanctions of those in a notary that practices law or dispenses legal advice. i'm also proud of the fact some of our members assisted local prosecutors in the past year to go after him. our members interviewed potential victims, they were able to comply affidavits which they gave to the prosecutors and

detectives which were then used to prosecute individuals and one well-known individual in virginia, a gentleman by the name of luis rivera was committed of the fraud. now, briefly i would like to talk about this because i think that our panelists may touch upon this in the fraud. the reason i want to bring this up to you is because those of you that our attorneys and those of you that will become attorneys as you know, our profession is a self-regulating one. we police ourselves. those that are in the legal profession i mean those that are not trained as lawyers but those that are out there giving legal advice for taking money from members of our community and

more often than not, causing more damage than good. and i will quickly highlight what he did with our community. he was not a lawyer, he never went to law school. he submitted an application in virginia, paid $5 he became a notary which under the virginia law means he was only able to attest to the signatures on the documents. he was a con man and a savvy business marketer. he was able to convince a radio station in virginia to get him in a one-hour program where he dispensed legal advice on the air come and of course he gave up his telephone number and address for people to come and see him if they had any issues, legal issues that they wanted addressed. mr. ramirez was also able to convince the spanish print media to write fluff pieces on hand, and i'm sorry i wish i had an overhead projector because i have some of those pieces that

were written but i will highlight two of them that are pretty interesting and entertaining. in one he had a newspaper write an article about him that the democrats were considering running him for the u.s. senate candidate to the internal democratic polls show that if he read against the former governor alan and also former u.s. senator that he would win that race. he also had a piece written about him after he pled guilty and was in the way of sentencing that the puerto rican government have just awarded him the title of chief lobbyist for the puerto rican government and they paid him $11 million to lobby state

congressmen and senators to pass statehood on behalf of the puerto rican commonwealth. all that was done to gain credibility in the community and what was interesting about this gentle man is not only did he charge as much as attorneys did in most cases he charged even more and in most cases, he took clients away from individuals that had very good attorneys, convinced of those individuals that he was better and that he had political connections and he would show them the newspaper articles and again, they would hire him and paid life savings and he would then take their cases and more likely than not, people went to jail because of his lack of representation and people were deported because he was not an immigration attorney even though he said he was.

now what you are going to hear from our panelists is information i hope for those of you even if you don't practice immigration that you will take to heart because i said in the beginning we are a self policing profession and i would ask those of you that have significant contact in the latino community to not only watch what the fraternities are doing to our community, but watch what others are doing to our community as well. thank you. [applause] >> it is my honor to be here today moderating this distinguished panel. i think everyone is in for an exceptional gathering of attorneys that are truly specialized in this area and not

just in the policy political debate we hear so often about that in addition with such. and the very rich experiences just by way of background i will briefly introduce the subject but we are going to be talking about for the panelists. in general, we are going to talk about this case you might have heard so much about. for those of you that might not know details on the case in 2010 this case was eventually decided, and it burst largely on the role of criminal defense representation related of counseling clients who also had certain immigration status issues about the broader consequences of criminal convictions on their other potential civil war immigration situations. so, essentially the panelists

here today are going to talk about not just the role that defense attorneys in criminal cases have with their clients and the duties and the ethics behind the role and defend their clients and making sure the client understands all of the implications of any kind of a criminal conviction but they will also discuss about the broad civil law implications and broad benefits and other ways in which the different civil and criminal trials can affect any one individual in any way that t makes the representation constitutionally deficient as stated. so what we want to ensure is that everyone has their representation and has representation that meets the constitutional rights and that is what i think that you will hear largely about what is being done and what needs to be done and the experiences of the practitioners from day-to-day.

first we have ofelia calderon at the speed of 11 in arlington virginia. she keeps a diverse practice including family naturalization business in the asylum cases. and that personal capacity as they support or industry quickly spoken to neighborhood associations and presented in the judges and other political authoritative entities on the issue. ofelia is a member of the bar of maryland as well as the commonwealth of virginia and the district of columbia area she has admitted to practice in a number of district courts in the dmv as well as the courts of appeal for the fourth circuit. she's currently serving as the president as the bar association

in virginia and wyoming ten in membership as you may know in the american immigration association as well as a number of other coalitions dedicated to providing the services to particularly immigrant clients. she also served as the dc chapter chair of the liaison committee to the executive office for the immigration review in arlington virginia through her work with other organizations. she's constantly a speaker and a panelist at the national conference is on immigration issues, web seminars and at the national immigration project in the fall of 2005 in portland oregon. she contributes her time to the board of the pro bono screening project as well. she is a graduate at the university of maryland with a bachelors degree in political

science and she received her degree from the university of san francisco school of law. and next to ofelia is matthew handley, he is the director of litigation at the washington lawyers committee for civil rights and urban affairs. his practice focuses on representing victims of civil rights abuses with a particular focus on employment, discrimination, wage theft, and public accommodations discrimination. he is a longtime advocate for the rights of immigrants and workers who suffered from discrimination at from their day-to-day work. prior to joining the committee, he was a partner at the law firm of cohen where he represented mainly foreign workers who had been trafficked and otherwise abused. while employed here in the u.s. or by u.s. companies, also advocating on issues of disability rights, accessible housing, and for detainees as well.

before joining the minister handley was an attorney at coming to amanda burling and prior to that he served as the law clerk for the honorable william wayne justice u.s. district judge for the western district of texas. before he was a peace corps volunteer in nepal where he served as a construction engineer and he has been recognized also by the super lawyers magazine as a rising star. he graduated with high honors in the university of texas school of law and earned his bachelor's degree from princeton. welcome. next to matthew is jeff -- i'm sorry to jonathan greene from the greene law firm in maryland. mr. greene practices and immigration family law and has admitted to practice before the maryland court of appeals, u.s. district court of appeals for the fourth circuit and u.s. import.

he is also an adjunct professor at stephenson university and he's earned his bachelor's degree from the university of maryland. he's the only attorney to have served as the chair of the state bar association and the dc maryland and virginia chapter and he served as a member of the board of governors and as a member of the national office of the nominating committee. jonathan has advocated for years before the general assembly on immigration and he currently serves on the national conference committee. he is also previously served on the other panels and as the liaison and the distance and as a distance-learning committee. mr. greene has published numerous articles on family law and he's written many others for the school of law journal of legal issues and he's also

published a handbook that was released by the american bar association. he's represented the clients on behalf of the maryland volunteer lawyers society catholic charities. he also served as a guest lecture at the maryland city law school, university of baltimore law school and he frequently serves as a witness and consulting attorney on immigration matters. last we have but certainly not least anne schaufele a staff attorney with the product. the project a new initiative dedicated to provide direct representation to immigrant victims of fraud in dc matters. she's a 2013 graduate of american university college of law where she was the student attorney with the justice clinic