changes is not short. but the five-year planning cycles that we have or the budgetary cycles make it seem as though we're not succeeding. so that's the first thing. the second point is metrics. we measure how we do but we don't measure how people on the ground are actually implementing things. i think it's really important. because this is not the one side fits all. but many people on the ground may feel that they're making progress and we don't necessarily capture that in our reporting back. and i think there are three things we need in the united states to really move forward. one is we certainly need additional capacity to help. the world is going to have more crises, they're not going to get fewer. we also need to be legitimate and that means listening to the people on the ground and their solutions so that when after, if there is a military action, that legitimacy is helped. and we have to be willing to burden share in the sense of letting others, both the private

sector, the humanitarian sector, as well as other intergovernmental organizations work with us. i think we've done that pretty well in many theaters but we have to do more. and those things make us successful. and i finally see a lot of them coming together. but patience not only is a virtue but it is something we often lack when we're trying to get things done. >> and i think, look, somebody somewhere concluded that post-conflict, post-crisis transitions are supposed to last two years. and i don't know who that person was. seriously. i was in rwanda where in '95 and '96, people were already saying, why can't everybody just reconcile and let's get on with it. it was kind of dramatic. but i think there are a couple of other things. development isn't something that doesn't happen unless we're there. people tend to seek solutions to the shortcomings in their lives regardless of whether we show up. and i think one of the changes

we've seen, i don't think we can get away with the ready-made one size fits all anymore. i find myself, there are very, very few circumstances, whether it's that you have a government that's putting political skin in the game and has a view and you might shape or influence it. you've got community leaders -- if you look at the changes in implementing agencies and local partners, there are a lot more local partners. and it's not just because they tend to have a better sense of what they need than someone from the outside, but because there's a demand there. so i think we're seeing a turning of the tide. i think where it looks very different is when you mention things like water. where i think that's the kind of development discussion, whether it's post-crisis or preventing the kind of crises we're going to see out of resource scarcity, where nobody's got a ready-made solution and it's going to take everybody to come together around the table.

we spent a lot of time thinking about the fact that yemen has an acute water shortage. that affects not only yemen but as you pointed out so clearly, that's going to affect us in the entire region. >> so let me just jump in there for a second. because, all right, you've made very good presentations for why local ownership and capacity creation on the ground is important in development. and, you know, i hear that enough to be willing to stipulate that it's true. but if we add on conflict, if we add on humanitarian crises, where you don't have the same sort of timelines available to you, i think one of the most wrenching moments i've had in my life as a reporter was to sit by -- in one of the tent cities inside a tent outside port-au-prince where everyone had fled auft the quake and they

were bit airport. and there's the airport, 15-foot-high cyclone fences topped with razor wire, and you're sitting in a scooby-doo bed sheet tent with someone, and they can sit in this public park and look across the road and see pallets piled high with water, with food, with pumps, with cans, with kitchen items. and they say, you know, we could just run across the road and tear that fence down and start giving this out. we've been waiting for days. we've been waiting for weeks to get out of this camp and we really want to. why? because i'm like an american flag to them. it's hard to explain that, oh, hey, i'm a journalist. i'm not supposed to have the answers. they would say, you tell me why we're not getting that stuff. and the answer -- the real answer is, i don't know. but a more thoughtful answer

probably wouldn't cut much ice. you don't have that same kind of timeline in conflict, and you don't have it in disaster. >> you also don't have -- in the case of haiti, for example, where you start with a country that didn't have great logistical operational capabilities built in on the ground to begin with. you have a crisis of that magnitude. and i think -- i totally understand the frustration with the delays. but it took some time to set up the operational system to actually deliver to that many people. now -- >> it won't surprise you to find out that answer didn't get me a lot of -- cut much ice in the tent. >> it doesn't but it gets to another point, which is -- one of the things i think we could do more of, and i think we underestimate, is how much people who are the direct targets or objects of some huge humanitarian crisis can themselves manage a relief operation. i remember i was a reporter

once, and being in the refugee camps in eastern sudan where there were probably in excess of 300,000 or 400,000 refugees from ethiopia and eritrea and they sent in all the relief workers and set up clinics. and the refugees went on strike. and they said, we can run our own clinics. we have people who know how to do the basic tests. we have midwives. we don't need all of you to come in and do it. people were completely flabbergasted. you're supposed to be a dependent, passive, helpless individual, we're supposed to be here to help you. i think figuring out how we can rely more fully on people to organize themselves is one of the most important things i think of an effective humanitarian operation. i think there was some of that in haiti. i'll just tell you, from where i sat, there was no airport one day, then your guys went in and there was an airport the next morning. so, you know. >> but there is a factor that i

think we haven't mentioned yet, and that is, the discovery -- although it shouldn't be a discovery -- of the critical role that women in these communities play. and in haiti, where i spent a lot of my time, or even in colombia or in african communities, women organize these tent cities. women are the ones who found -- they didn't break down the fence but they were the ones who organized the food chains. and i know there are going to be panels later on in this program that focus on the importance of addressing women as entrepreneurs, women as development agents. we can't underestimate in many of these situations the critical role that they've played in ensuring, in the most horrific humanitarian crises, how they become the agents of moving things forward. the timelines are very short, but in fact, you see time and time again, whether it's for security or for development, that the women are out in the front. >> taking that point entirely, if i could add another thought of how you could prepare for

this, maybe two thoughts. one is to exercise, one is to practice this kind of thing. and i think we do this a lot in the military. but i think if we could do more exercising and practicing with our partners in advance of crisis, i think that would be helpful. and we have a number of small initiatives we're working in my particular command in this regard. i think exercise, practice, is one thing. the second thing, ray, is -- and it gets, again, to technology and how technology can help us. it's having a competent crisis center. one that at a.i.d., for example, that can manage this. and our technologies are so vastly better than they were even ten years ago. i don't think we've driven the technology into our crisis management centers. i know we haven't done that fully in the military. we're working hard on it. i'd say those two things, exercises and practice, crisis management centers, that really

take advantage of technology, are also ways we can do better to avoid putting you on the spot like that. >> i'm happy to be the american flag in those cases. nadwa, i'm sorry i cut you off. you were about to say? >> well, i was going to follow through what gayle said. with regard to development assistance. you know, i said this before, it's the most important thing in countries that have conflict is building a legitimate state. and when i say a legitimate state, it doesn't have to be a state immediately. legitimate state is a state seen by the people as at least a state that's wanting to address the problems and meet their needs. and so i think one important thing for development assistance and foreign assistance and foreign policy is that they have to be -- to go in line with each other. foreign policy should support

development assistance. and i'm going to bring a case as an exampthe case of yemen as an example. i think foreign policy, particularly counterterrorism efforts in yemen, have to some extent undermined development assistance. and so over ten years, the counterterrorism assistance to the former regime has helped strengthen the grip of saddat, who's a dictator, over power, over military, over resources, and only made him a stronger dictator. at the same time, usaid continue to do great work in terms of helping yemen improve health, education services, et cetera, et cetera. but no matter how much development work you do, if your government is helping a dictator, it's not going to

work. it's going to work probably in immediate term but in the long-term, it's not going to work. and so i think -- and i'm not judging intentions, of course. i'm sure their intentions are good. i think that lessons learned or the only lesson learned or the biggest lesson learned from this is that dictators are not good agents for change or development. dictators create problems, create worse. so working with them is not a good investment. >> some people wanted to applaud but they were looking around to see who was sitting nearby. that brings us to a terrific juncture. i think we have enough time to hear from everyone on this before we close the program. you know, there's a tremendous amount of value put on collaboration. and there's a tremendous amount of talk about finding partners,

body coming in from outside along with you and on the ground, because no one wants to do everything by themselves anymore, and that's great, that makes a lot of sense. but the reasons why people are doing these various things are often very different. and what they want out of the end is very different. some really are doing this to be able to give out bibles. so if they have to give out food first in order for you to be awake to read the bible, cool. we'll feed you first, then we'll give you the bible. some want to make sure that a place is not going to be a locus of instability and state failure, and otherwise, we're not really that worried about how people are getting by day to day. sure. would we rather have more people read than less? sure. would we rather have fewer people dying of thrust than more? sure. but beyond those very simple metrics, the only reason we're in there is so that the place doesn't become a source of potential problems and further problems down the road.

yet here you are, a religious group over here, a secular group over there, a governmental group over here, an international nbo over there, all doing the things you're doing for slightly different reasons, perhaps sharing many goals. but you have to create rough and ready partnerships right there in the heat of battle. is it as easy as i am told that it is -- i can't believe it, but i'm told that it's actually pretty easy -- are there times where suddenly the tensions between those different agendas become quite apparent and you have to constantly renegotiate the terms of the arrangement and the terps of the relationship? gayle? >> i feel like i should have an answer that says it's really impossible, this is a complex mess. but i actually -- i don't think it is. impossible, it's actually a complex mess. i don't think it is. i think there's three

ingredients that have made it less complicated than it might appear on the first. one that's been mentioned is transparencies, if these activities aren't transparent and i think it's quite extraordinary, facts in both the relief and development spheres have gained increasing currency. he made a reference to 90% of internal tensions or conflicts. it's not the driving force as it once was. i think the third thing, and this is really insurance, is the demand from the bottom. now that can be uneven, because

you can have constituents who are on one side or the other. it's been my experience that there's a demand for accountability that's growing, made easier by twilter and everybody else. made easier by the fact that there are a lot more people involved in development than used to be that push up against this. i think the place that i have seen a lot of incredible transformation in this is in global health, where you've got motivations that are multiple. they are motivations that people need to have secure health systems so you can manage biofaith facilities. there are single disease, they're this and that, this and that, if it's transparency, data and demand that have transformed that field in such a way that

you've got extraordinarily constellations of actors all working together. is it that neat and tied up in a ball? i don't think so. but it's less complicated than your question suggests it might be. >> i guess i've been in around and this operation for 35 years and it is much better than it was and i think you need only to pick one example, the par in vietnam and look at the battles between aid and the military and the embassy, it was extremely conflictual. whereas today when i look at the cooperation between secretary panetta and secretary gates working together.

i think there's a disstings it why it's better is technology helps us, because that gives us the transparency that gale was talking about. it i lows us to -- in haiti for example, one of my favorite pictures, is rodshaw, hillary clinton, and ken keane who is the three-star general who was the military guys supporting that and sean penn. but working together, that was real and on the ground and it happened relatively quickly despite the frustrations and the failures and the missteps. i'm with gail, it's way from perfect, but it's also way better than it was. >> and i also think that the world hasn't stood still over these years, that many countries

that are not the major players are contributing to peacekeep g peacekeeping, they're sending their troops in so there's a multicultural -- language of development that these countries are bringing, we all get security, we know that you have to have that to be able to move forward. but they're bringing the language of health, access to health, access to education, access to legitimate decision making bodies are extremely important. i remember about 20 years ago, aid did a study and they couldn't figure out why internal dispute resolution got a high grade as opposed to -- the

ability to resolve someone's conflict and walk away without shooting one another. was the biggest gift one could give for a community. this is what we have learned and we have applied. we have learned a lot, we have lots to go. so listening to the demand side is equally important. >> when i was at the central hospital in port-au-prince, teams were arriving in this wild and very encouraging ad hoc way, jeeps would roll up and nurses and doctors would pour out, trucks would roll up with equipment put on private lanes in florida and so on. and there were traffic cops, basically, doctors who sent people where they were needed for two of the most heroic nights that i have ever seen in my life. but even the traffic cops didn't quite know what to do when a

huge church of scientology team arrived and he said, well, what do you guys do and there were a large number of people on the grounds who were traumatized by the violence and here are all these people that don't believe in psychiatry, they quickly put their heads together and the te team got to go out and do massages. there was this sort of feeling, look, some hands showed un, some people showed up, let's put them to work. i naught, all right, good for you. so there were scientology members giving massages and not giving out psychotropic drugs. is there something that remains unsaid that somebody was dieing

to say when someone else was talking? >> yes. >> okay. >> at the risk of being sentimental, i was at the meeting on friday with the president of liberia, and i think for all of the cases where we look at these complex environments and humanitarian crises and say it's impossible, the president commented about the progress we have made, as painful and ugly -- ten years is a long time and a lot of blood was spilled and a lot of political and other capital expended. but i think what keeps all of us going is those successes. and so i would just hope to leave us with that thought. it takes patience, it takes time, it takes political leadership. but what we have been able to see in our lifetimes is that it's entirely doable. >> and hope. >> and love.

coming up on c sparngs commerce secretary john bryson discussing the goal of -- amendments to the foreign intelligence surveillance act. and later the annual commission's annual oversight hearing on the justice department. >> pulitzer prize winning author david maraniss traveled all around to -- book tv will give you a preview with exclusive

pictures and video, including our trip to kenya with the author. and later at 7:30 that night, your phone calls, e-mails and tweets for david maranis. >> on monday the commerce department said secretary bryson suffered a seizure in connection with two traffic accidents in los angeles. he has not been formally charged. last week bryson said that the u.s. should act now. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. work to the 12th annual capital hill ocean week. it's wonderful to see many

familiar faces. it's equally wonderful to see in unfamiliar faces, as capitol hill ocean week as grown over the years, i would like to thank those of you who are joining us for the first time. to kick off the month, president barack obama officially declareded june as national oceans month the other day. and as he seems to do, year in and year out, he once again foreshadowed a lot of the things that we will be discussing over the next few days. in his proclamation and i quote, celebrate our heritage as a sea faring nation. from our earliest origins to today, whether we look at our culture, our identity, our economy, our heritage, our

demographics, our national identity and our daily lives are shaped by the ocean, we are in sum, one nation shaped by the sea. and we posed the question, how will we define the future of america's relationship with our ocean? we will explore this relationship and answer this question over the next three days here in this building and the fourth day friday at the capitol visitor center. starting with john bryson and closing with your leadership round table on thursday. national sanctuary foundation is proud to host capitol hill oceans week. chow is one of the ways we do it. one of the individuals who does it better than anybody else is mr. fred keilly. mr. keily is one of the newest

trustees of the foundation, but he's a long-time champion of the ocean, he hails from california where he currently serves as treasurer for the county of santa cruz. he pioneered the marine life management act which the associated press at the time called the most significant advancement in ocean policy in 50 years. additionally, mr. keilly offered two of the largest part and environmental bonds in our nation's history totaling $4.7 billion. even from his perch in california, mr. keilly commands a national -- santa cruz hosts election series in honor of fred keilly. an honor like that is usually awarded posthumously. but mr. keilly is right here in the front row. the speakers will include the

former secretary of the interior, bruce babbitt, and the current administrator of noaa, and it's my great honor to introduce the honorable fred keilly. >> good morning, few very much for all of you being here today, mr. secretary, thank you, sir, for literally gracing us with your presence. it's my honor to introduce to you the 37th commerce secretary of the united states. john bryson has a very, very interesting background that goes both wide and deep. after he graduated from hail law school, he was one of the folks who put together the national resources defense council and took a deep, abiding and

lifelong interest in the preservation and enhancement of our national resources throughout the country. he also in california was the chair of the state water resources control board. that's worthying about for a second. california as mark twain once said, whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over. so when you're the chair of the state water resources control board, and you understand that the water's in the north, the act chur is in the middle, and the people are in the south, there's plenty to fight over. the idea is can you see if you can keep that fighting to a minimum and actually make progrids on the issue of wine in california. john did that, john of course went on to become president and ceo of edison international. one of the world's largest and in my view most progressive energy companies.

john is a talented, intelligent, thoughtful secretary of commerce. he is the person who the president has entrusted with the rather sizable mission for this administration to be able to 24/7, create jobs, throughout the it is my pleasure to introduce the honorable john bryson. fred knocked me out with that. that is very generous, i thank you very much. fred and i, when