around them, and you could mobilize communities. so i think that's my only lesson from that. >> we still have time for a few more questions. oh. yes. i'm sorry. don't be shy now. oh, yes. there's a question right there. >> thank you. hi. thank you. my name is [ inaudible ]. i'm with birth for the world. you've touched on trade and how it would change. both of these areas i think are areas where we've somewhat failed in terms of making progress. what would you say needs to change in terms of the evolution of multilateral institutions to

move that forward? what has to happen? >> trade and -- >> trade. >> well, those are -- let me start with trade. i think that, you know, there is -- you know, the doha development round and its failure or the only thing that has not happened is nobody's put a stake through the heart of the doha development round. people keep giving lip service to it. i think the g-20 communique was only noteworthy in saying we can't just keep giving lip service to it. we have to actually in a sense either kill it and move on or actually move forward with it. my sense is that there may be different aspects of that round that can be taken along in a global framework. but it's going to have to be parcelled out piecemeal, i think.

i think the notion -- i mean, i think what we are seeing, and it's particularly true in the trade round -- realm and particularly true that a lot of countries are facing major elections and at a time of economic difficulty, just getting public support and getting that sort of two-level game, that bargaining between the domestic politics and the solution set that also works at the international level for trade liberalization is extremely hard. i also think that there's -- and this works for climate change as well as we saw in copenhagen and in cancun and durbin is just the absolute exhaustion with the notion of trying to negotiate amongst 193 countries at these u.n. megaconferences with 193 state representatives and sort of hangers-on like much of us. but i think that -- so i think that what you're going to see, frankly, on the trade front is a greater move towards regional or bilateral ftas, at least for the

time being. the obama administration is putting a lot of stock in its notion of the trans-pacific partnership, for instance, which is an interesting experiment to try to define standards up as opposed to defining deviances down. we'll see whether or not they have domestic support for that if the president wins the election in november. on the climate front, again, my sense is that what's happened is that you've gotten a mixture of two different alternatives to the u.n. fccc process notwithstanding a very big pledge to come up with something that's a successor to kyoto. those on the one hand are many-lateral cooperation with does hold some prospect of moving together at the margins. and then the other is, as early disarticulating or fragmenting the problem into a number of different parts, and rather than

going with a full-fledge multilateral binding treaty, what you get are, you know, pledge and review situation, which countries come up to the multilateral table and say, well, this is what we're going do, and this is what we're going to do on technology, on mitigation, on adaptation, et cetera, on financing. and it's not a particularly aesthetically pleasing way of moving forward. it's uncertain whether or not it's going to be good enough. it places a huge degree of faith in technology on climate change, but it may be the best that can be done right now, particularly at a time when, you know, a little overstated but in bremmer's new book "we live in a g-0 world with no clear leader and no clear aspirant ready to step up to the plate." i think that may be the world that we live in. >> the final thought on -- >> well, i think the obvious point, which i guess underlies -- underlies the

question is, it's much harder to get global deals when people are thinking of the world as a zero-sum place than it is when there's economic expansion, there's energy behind trade, there's energy behind -- there's a sense of possibility, and this is just right now at least for some of the key -- whether it's some of the key trading nations or some of the key emitters, that has to be an important part of the deal. that's just not where they think the world is at. i agree with stewart that we're into a much more piecemeal kind of world in which we hope these things will be we hope additive. i think there's still a big debate about regional and bilateral trade agreements, whether they're actually adding to trade expansion or constraining it. but i think that's right. that's the world we're going to be in. and i think for civil society organizations that are active in this space or concerned about this, it's much more a serious

series of local battles and local campaigns than the big global compact that's going to produce the win. >> any -- >> just -- maybe i'm sensing the same thing in a different way, but when there are successes in the multilateral arena, the country's presidents take great credit, and when there are failures, they blame them for them. i think what we see here -- i mean my sense is it's not a failure of the forum or the structure. it's a failure of political will and political leadership and, you know, far lot of reasons. that doesn't make it any easier to surmount, but i think you're looking at where is the breakthrough going to come from, you know, if that leadership isn't there, you know, you won't see it, and no reconfiguration of the seats around the table is going to generate it. >> okay. we have time for one last question. way in the back there. i think there's somebody trying to -- >> thank you.

thank you, pape, and thank you to all of the panelists for leading an excellent discussion. i'm david wynder. i represent water aid here in the united states. and we've been involved in putting together a partnership called the summitation for water for all partnership which met in high-level meetings just last week in washington. in the partnership we've been together, multilateral, bilateral organizations, civil society organizations, national governments, to really think conservatively of how you can get more resources into the sector, but, also, how you can improve the use and management of those resources. it's only been going for three or four years. the united states government only joined at the last meeting, but we've been very encouraged by this example of how to bring together a multicultural

multistate partnership. i'd like the panelists to comment on this. do they think this is san example of a partnership that can be replicated among the sectors and what do they say as the value? thank you. >> so i was glad to be able to be at the ministerial meeting in washington that talked about that partnership, and we're trying to contribute to the gates foundation, especially on the sanitation side. i think what is intriguing about it -- i'm not sure i have the answer to your point about applicability to other sectors, but the thing about water and sanitation is they are absolutely local and family and -- excuse me -- and community relevant in just a very direct way in everybody's life every day. and at the same time at the other end they're about big

pipes and big systems and big investments, and i think part of the intriguing thing, and i suspect that's more and more going to be the case with the development process, is that you have to find ways of marrying those. you have to find -- it's not that we have any number of attempted solutions to big development problems that are about taking the big pipe model and saying we just take that right down to the village and then we're done, and as bob was saying, it doesn't work. so this seemed to me to be an example of at least in principle trying to think about incentives, behavior, priorities, families, how they -- what they need, how they get access, what the connections are to health and so on, and then try and build that up. and it might be that if that works and if the resources are sustained and the political energy around it that i saw around that table is sustained

there might about great model. i hope it will be. >> yeah. just very briefly. it sounds a little bit reminiscent of secretary-general's affordable energy for all proposals, which, you know, i think that the u.n. has had a lot of high-level panels over the year, but at least that one is one which is the most recent, actually seemed to have significant private sector presence as well as nongovernmental presence as well as official presence. and i think what you're pointing to in this initiative, too, the water for all partnership, is that -- is that you have to include the variety of stakeholders and create -- because what's coming out of this, i would imagine, that's most important are the networks and the familiarity and the relationships. and to actually get business people understanding what the relevant policy decisions are and also what the local needs of the community are and then perhaps governments or intergovernmental organizations showing what some of the financing options are going to be that they could actually

participate in. i'm only speculating since i wasn't involved in it. but it does seem like the wave of the future that you would have, you know, a little bit more of a messy multilateralism might be the way to go here. >> one last thought for this community in relations to multilateral organization? what you want to leave them with? >> keep the faith and keep pushing. >> okay. suzanne? >> i would agree. i think you know, if you look at what -- you know, the role of civil society influencing these organizations, you know, there are many dimensions. but perhaps the most important really -- and i could say this having been on the inside of government and the outside, is the source of pressure, pressure to get people and government delegations to do and sometime what's they want to do and sometime what's they don't want to do. but if that pressure isn't there the potential for stasis and

frustration as we've talked about is virtually endless. i think it's badly needed. >> all right. >> just one thought that's -- over the past few years we've dealt with the turbulence not only of the global financial crisis but we've also had extreme volatility in various commodity prices, not the least of fuel, food security issues, et cetera. it would seem to me that one of the goals overriding objectives of development cooperation should be to help build the resilience of local communities to be able to handle these shocks, and there are undoubtedly many different ways of dealing with this. but i think this is important not only for the development community but also for the humanitarian community, which is also represented here. i just hosted a very interesting seminar at the council of foreign relations on the future of natural disaster assistance. and some of the scenarios pointed out with a combination of demographic growth,

urbanization, and particularly urbanization in low-lying coastal areas, and just -- everybody we were talking to were saying we're going to be so much more vulnerable, particularly in the developing world, but not only as we saw in fukushima two, these sort of catastrophic events that will require huge resilience on the part of local population. and just to use an example, bangladesh was thrown out as one that, you know, in the 1970s and early -- had such horrific problems and horrific loss of life in dealing with some of these regular cyclones and flooding that occurs but in the more recent years has developed its own indigenous capacity to be able to cope with some of these things. that's what we should be going forward with. trying to deal with shocks. >> okay. stewart? suzanne? geoff? and nemat had to leave us,

unfortunately, for a meeting. so please join me in thanking our wonderful panelists. the law authorizing transportation programs expires at the end of next month. the house and senate have passed different versions of legislation to extend funding for the nation's roads, bridges and mass transit programs. today members of the house and senate conference committee will meet in the hart senate office building of capitol hill to try to reach an agreement on the legislation. that will start in about 15 minutes from now. about 3:00 p.m. eastern and you'll be able to see it live here on c-span3. tomorrow morning on "washington journal," paul krugman. a new book. "end this depression now." we'll take phone calls on "washington journal" starting at 8:30 eastern starting tomorrow. saturdays this month, c-span radio is airing more of the nixon tapes from the collection of secretly recorded phone conversations from 1971 to 1973.

this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, hear conversations with deputy national security adviser alexander hague. >> nothing else of interest in the world. >> very significant. this "new york times" expose, the most highly classified documents of the war. >> oh, that. i see. i didn't read the story, but, you mean that was leaked out of the pentagon? >> sir, there was a whole stud they was done for mcnamara and they carried on after mcnamara left by clifford and the peaceniks over there. this is a devastating security breach. >> in washington, d.c., listen at 90.1 fm on xm channel 119 and at c-span radio dot org. u.s. border patrol chief michael fisher testified before a house homeland security subcommittee today saying better technology improved border

security and he answered questions about the al qaeda plot to bomb a u.s. airliner recently foiled by the cia. this is about ten minutes of that hearing. >> you know, and i also was taking some notes as were you talking then in looking at your new strategic plan here a bit, and as you mentioned, information, integration and rapid response and also about the amount of things ms. gam bler mentioned over $4 billion that the congress and american taxpayers invested in technology and these kind of things. you know, with all the technology we do need to utilize and obviously for all of our boarders, sometimes there's really no second for human intel. really. as i mentioned at the outset with this foiling of this bomb plot i'm certain much of that was human intel and the work of our intelligence community, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, et cetera.

same applies for border security any many, many ways and seems to me a good way to get that kind of intelligence and is utilized, certainly you mentioned it in the strategic plan here, when you talk about increasing community engagement, and these kinds of things, with all the various stakeholders at all of our boarders as well, and we've often said they're really a force walt plier and you can get more input a from the neighborhoods and sharing that information with you, whether at the sunk border, northern border, coastal borders or what have you. one thing about the street, the street talks. the street talks, and your officers are trained to understand and start to develop a threat assessment based and some of that intel, an also, i'm not sure if you have that in here, but i was recently -- of course, i'm from the detroit sector and was recently over on

the other, on the canadian side of the bluewater bridge looking what our canadian counterparts were doing and had one of your officers with me. what did they have there more than anything? dogs. the dogs were sniffing. with all this technology, the dogs were sniffing everything that went through, whether it's people or drugs, and their ability for apprehensions was not something high-tech and so particularly when you have all of these military dock dogs no have the ability to sniff ieds and everything else and we talked how that can be a layer of your strategic approach to border security, but i mention that, because when we talk about defense in-depth, really looking at ports of entry, making utilization of interior checkpoints, i know along the northern border and the southern as well. a big part of what you were doing, going into bus terminals, talking to folks, at transportation hubs, et set

virginia. sometime as random approach you start picking up intel that is incredibly important. i guess i would first ask, are you still doing that? i'm not sure if you still continue to do that, and what is your thought about utilizing the community engagement, et cetera, for intelligence gathering which i think is certainly as critical a component as uavs or anything else? >> well to your first point, we are still doing checkpoints, although we're moving away from the term "defense in dep-deptin" because defense in dep-depth in previous strategy really imply add first and fundamental imperative to range the niale. in that context, it made certain, tactical or permanent, so we will continue and we've asked field chiefs to take a look at. just because it's nots necessarily written in those few pages of the strategy. remember, the strategy is a broad framework how we want the

organization to start thinking. there are going to be things even since 2004 we will continue to do and if it makes sense to continue on that path forward, we will do that. i think some of our terminology and what we're trying to accomplish is also going to change. with respect to the community engagement it's going to be critical for our leaders to sundays the change from community relations towards community engagement. as you so artfully articulated, we have 21 shoushgs 370 border pa control agents and 21,370 intelligence collectors and we've got to train the border patrol agents to recognize every individual that they encount sir is a potential source of information. when you say information also it's because we also deponent want to discount open source information. people that live in the border communities, quite frankly, have a lot of information that unless we ask them aren't going to be able to share that with us. that was some of the lessons learned in 2006 and in 2007 that the department of defense in shifting their thinking in terms

of their strategy and how they were doing to actually confront, you know, the threats that they were seeing overseas. it's the same broad approach that we're taking in recognizing that we have to make sure, just don't ask somebody, hey, give us a call if you see something suspicious. actually take the time to explain to them in their particular area what is a suspicious and why it's important that they respond and to the extent they're able to do provide that level of information for us. kind of a strategic shift in terms of what our expect aces are for the communities in which we serve. >> i appreciate you saying that, because, again, i think just an example, in the northern sector, and i think this was a pilot program. i'm not sure if you have plans to replicate it along a northern tier or southern tier as well as the operational integration center. in michigan where you've literally have all of the various stakeholders and you mentioned the d.o.d. but it wasn't -- really the 9/11 commission recommend thags i always talk about, one of the most important ones, we need to go from the need to know to the

need to share. the need to share information amongst the various agencies or all of the stakeholders and in the case of the oic where you have cbp, nbp and the coast guard, the royal mountain, we have the state police, the counties, as i say, all the marine patrols, et cetera. the local cities and village police departments and first responders, all of this information being analyzed by state-of-the-art data. using the computers, really, to analyze the human intel that can assess the threat and then have a product that can be given to the men and women out on the front lines, whether that's the northern tier, southern tier or what you have. that's something the department needs to think about replicating. it's had great success in that particular area. and i know my time is running over here but i do have just a -- what is really knew in this strategic plan? i'm looking at it. everything in here, i agree with everything's that's here, there wasn't really something that

grabbed me as being really knew. is there anything really knew in here you would highlight as a marquise component of this new plan? >> one example, that is actually i'll give you two quick examples. one is the change detection capability. >> the what? >> change detection capability. and the other one talks about optimizing capability. we weren't able to do that eight years ago, because, one we didn't have a level of resources, and, two, we didn't have the technology that allowed us to look into areas like the northern border or some of the very remote areas along the southern border, because we weren't able to get into those locations road systems did not exist. the terrain did not lend itself for patrols in that area and with the uas systems that cbp has had over the last few years, it gives us the ability now to use things like synthetic aperture radar, fly soirts along the border, confirm or deny changes in the threat environment or entries which

over the course of, say, for instance, two or three week wes hadn't seen anything nap allows us to use technology to be able to understand where those threats are going to be evolving, and so those phrases, although they're somewhat new, that take as whole new means when you look at the implementation of what it means along our borders. >> do either of the two witnesses have comments in regards to that? what is really knnew in this strategic plan or do you have something else that caught your eye? >> i think from our perspective, some of the same elements are in the 2012 strategy as were in the 2004 strategy. i think there's a different level of emphasis on some of the capabilities and a different way of thinking through how those might be implemented going forward. so i think it's a difference in emphasis to some extent. >> doctor? >> and i would agree that there's a clear evolution when you look at the prevent to deterrence as described in the

1990s through the 2004 plan. there's sort of a clear trend of the border patrol describing having adequate resources now put in place at the bored and thinking more strategically about how to employ them and use them flexibly. for more information on members of the homeland security committee and other congressmen, c-span's congressional directly has a complete guide to the 112th congress. inside you'll find each member of the house and senate including contact information, district maps and committee assignments. also there's information on cabinet member, supreme court justices and the nation's governors, and can you pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/shop. this is c-span3, with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week, and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites.

and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. this afternoon from the senate public works committee hearing room on capitol hill. members of the house and senate will be meeting here in just a couple of moments to discuss legislation on the nation's highways and mass transit projects. the law authorizing transportation programs comes to an end at the end of next month. the house and senate passed different versions of legislation to extend funding for service transportation projects. the members of the house senate conference committee will try to iron out some differences between those two bills. so once again that will get under way in just a couple of minutes here on c-span3. we'll have live coverage of that. while we wait for the committee to start work, a conversation with a capitol reporter about the transportation bill. 50 lawmakers meet today in their first official conference meeting to resolve differences on a surface transportation

bill, nath's hurts-the-what -- nathan hertz, what about this? >> streamlining the approval of the controversial keystone excel oil pipelines from canada to texas. s that was a provision the house republicans insisted they wanted to be part of the conference committee and the democrat, that's a non-starter for them. that's really the big issue that people are watching, but there's a number of other issues, too. there's truck safety. the democrats are looking for a provision that would require cargo truck drivers to install black box-type and house republicans are wary of that. there's also the matter of how to pay for the bill. right now there is a list of offsets that senate finance chairman max baucus has identified.

a number of republicans -- how to pay for it. a big issue in the conference as well. >> back to the pipeline. what is the obama administration view on the pipeline? >> they've said on the outset when they pass to go to conference with the senate, that they had no interest in signing this, and that they actually issued a veto warning on the house's measure. so that makes things quite complicated as far as trying to get a keystone deal brokered on the they'll would be acceptable for the white house. the issue last week was the pipeline developer transcanada said it was going to go ahead and reapply for the same permit that had been denied earlier by the obama administration. now, of course, president obama told the company they were more than welcome to reapply if they wanted. that may give them a little leverage since they're playing by the president's rules.

>> what about the structural differences between the house bill and the senate bill? the different lengths, different dollar figures? >> well, first, you have to keep in mind that the senate would be only, was the only two chambers that actually passed this bill. a two-year $109 million measure. it keeps funding levels for roads, for state projects and about the same where they are now. the house tried to push a five-year $260 billion bill, the length of which was certainly preferred by states and municipalities that actually do road building. they like the longer bill, but the gop and the house was never able to muster up enough votes to pass it. they won't be able to take that vote into the conference, but a number of high-ranking members, like john mica, who chairs the house infrastructure committee, going back to hr-7, that they weren't able to pass, and look for kind of a goal post