ministration staff to come and, again, after all those years had gone by 40 years, it was just absolutely wonderful to see people that you had worked with all those years ago, and i think there is that camaraderie if you worked very closely with an administration regardless of what position you held that you worked for a common -- i don't want to say a common cause but a common sense that you were in it together and you went through all of these crises or good times and bad times and have very fond memories particularly of the people that you worked with over the years. >> in looking at a white house, the organization has grown enormously that supports the president, but also the organization has gotten larger that supports a first lady, and both anita and susan served as

chief of staff for laura bush and for michelle obama and i wonder if you can tell us about the organization that a first lady needs and why she needs it and how you interact with the west wing because you both had titles not only of chief of staff to the first lady but assistant to the president, and so how did those titles work together? >> would you like me to start susan? >> sure. >> well, there's no doubt that just looking at the organization chart which i know you have over a number of years it's clearly grown. the east wing staff has clearly grown and i think that is a direct result of just how much more is expected of the role of the first lady and what she chooses to do with her platform, which is a privilege to represent the people of the united states both at home and around the world and there is this increased expectation and

also with it the pressure to do something with this opportunity. so the staff grows to support the initiatives, and the initiatives are selected by a first lady with this one fundamental in mind, how can the work that i do support the work of the administration and the work of the president? going to the point that they are not paid, and i agree with all of you, really shouldn't be because i think it removes their flexibility and their ability to pick and choose the causes they want to engage in and to really use their background and their experience and bring authenticity to their work, but it is reflective of what the overall goals are of the administration. first lady is not running a shadow government. you know she's there as -- as pat nixon said the hardest unpaid job in the world but it's an extraordinary opportunity and a privilege and a chief of staff then has to

assemble staff structure around that and get the support of the west wing to increase the staff in order to do this work which is in addition to the social office and the importance of the diplomatic role, it is really the policy work and we have to thank rosalynn carter for being the first first lady to establish the role of policy director or projects director in the office of the first lady. >> do you remember how laura bush came upon the initiative for afghan women? >> sure. you know, laura bush came into the white house in 2001, and she had already been a little bit typecast as the shy, retiring librarian, teacher and, you know, when she was asked famously who are you going to be barbara bush or hillary clinton,

and she said well i think i know laura bush pretty well and i think i'm going to be here. she was astute and confident in who she was, confident in their relationship as husband and wife and the partnership they had had through their life, in public life and private life, and they came into the white house and she was going to take her interests from texas to washington, which was establishing first and foremost the national book festival which is now continuing in it's 12th or 13th year, and, you know, they had had -- she had an interest in education. that was a major initiative of the administration, no child left behind. she was an advocate, and they had their first state dinner for mexico on september 8th in 2001 and then september 11th happened and that changed everything, and the pivot that not only our country had to make but, you know she had to make as well in

having this role and this platform and what would she do with it and how could she be part of this effort in the war on terror. and mrs. bush delivered a radio address in november of 2001 the first first lady to deliver a presidential radio address on the plight of afghan women as this had been exposed to the world, the brutal treatment of women, and that became a cause an important cause for her, and she recognized and i think martha you had heard this because you attended a lunch that mrs. bush hosted at the end of the administration, where you as historians got to ask her about her role and she said what it struck her after that radio address, she was in texas visiting her daughter at the university of texas in austin and in a department store, and women at the makeup counter came up to her and said thank you so much for speaking out about afghan women and she realized

that she had this enormous platform that was not only domestic but it was global, and from that point forward, you know, this really became -- and to this day is still deeply engaged in afghan women's issues, and we were able to fulfill an important desire she had which was to go to afghanistan, which we did within two months of the second term. >> susan can you tell us about let's move and the military family initiatives how they came about? >> sure. mrs. obama certainly knew that at least in theory, that being the first lady was this enormous opportunity for a platform, and when she got to the white house she was not sure exactly how that would play itself out in her case and, however, during

that first election campaign she spent a lot of time with military families and understood that these were extraordinarily resourceful people who would never ask for help but felt that the country could do a lot more for them and she felt that when she got to the white house, this is an area where she could make a difference and with respect to the let's move campaign, she started with the idea of a white house kitchen garden and she thought this would be great to have a conversation with the country about children and health and i think didn't appreciate at first how this would resonate that the country was ready to have this conversation, and at some point after a few months she said to her staff, i would like this to be a campaign. i want this to be something that, you know, this is going to be my -- something i'm going to be working on and no doubt this

is something that she will be involved in i'm sure for the rest of her life as will the issue of military families. so we worked for months and i was just thinking about your related question about the west wing. the first lady's chief of staff is her representative in the west wing, so one of the important roles is to coordinate things. so we knew for months that our -- we came up with the name, let's move and this campaign would start i think it was on february 9th which was supposed to be at a community center but, of course, there was one of those snowstorms so we had to move it into the state dining room. but things were well coordinated with the west wing until that morning somehow we realized that the president was going to stop by the press briefing room at the exact time where she was going to launch let's move from

the state dining room and that was one of those things that with all great efforts on everybody's part we somehow, you know, at the last minute realized it and we were able to say to the west wing i do not think that the president is going to want to step on the first lady's great initiative so me moved their time a little bit. >> like any husband and wife's schedule, never coordinated. >> in the case of both first ladies, they were very popular. they've been very popular and continue to be and whether it was through their campaigns their personalities or just the general way that people perceive them to be and they tend on a gallup poll to have much stronger support even than their husbands and that leads in an election campaign, in a re-election, for the first lady to then go out and campaign for

her husband and how did both first ladies feel about that the role of political support for their husbands? and from -- and you could compare it with before they came into office and then when they worked in the re-election campaign because before they came into office, obviously they did not have a lot of political experience going out and speaking on behalf of the president, but they certainly did by the re-election. >> well, i think in terms of the popularity question, you know every president -- every problem in the world comes to the desk of american president, and by virtue of that reality, not everybody is going to be happy, and so your popularity is going to take hits big hits, from time to time and the first lady doesn't have that pressure. she gets to pick and choose in the things she wants to work on. susan and i have had this

conversation. you know in the past. but in terms of the political involvement which is a slightly different question for a laura bush than it is for mrs. obama because laura bush did from the minute she got married or started dating george w. bush, which was a three-month engagement and then they were married, he was from a political family and involved in politics and as much as she pleaded not to ever have to give a public speech, she became quite good at it and over time and through the different campaigns, the campaign for governor the campaign -- his first campaign for congress and she famously -- he famously talks about how they're coming back from a speech and he asked her how was my speech, and she said well it was horrible and he proceeded to drive the car right through the garage. so not at all happy with that response, but she was an honest broker, and i think that's what's important. the political spouse really is the one person who can be most

honest with you and they do get deeply engaged and deeply involved. you know, it's important to see the success of their spouse in these campaigns and mrs. bush by 2004, she was a pivotal person in the campaign during a very difficult time. the country was at two wars. it was a very tough time but she got out there and i think to a great degree her speech at the new york convention in 2004 where she spoke to the human side of being president of the united states and watching the great struggle of the big, tough decisions, including sending people to war and how painful that is and none of this is taken lightly i think it was an important moment. >> susan? >> i think i would agree with anita that one of the things that the first lady can do that

no one else can do is humanize the president, and one of the things that mrs. obama has always felt is that she was happy to campaign, but had to do it in a voice that was natural to her and honest and that is she didn't want to campaign for, for example, for candidates who she didn't know at all because it didn't feel real to her, although on the other hand she wanted to be helpful, and even on for example, when the president was working on health care reform she gave i think it was three different speeches on the subject but wasn't in the kind of policy wonky sense. for example one of the speeches she gave and i see this as a campaign of a different sort, and that was about breast cancer survivors and how continuing care is important and how health care reform would help people get -- women get preventative care and continuing care, and

when it came to the actual re-election campaign, i think it was sort of a no-brainer because, again, her role, she's always felt was to support the administration in any way she could, and this is something that she felt strongly about, her husband's re-election, so she was out there and gave many many speeches and is actually really a natural. i think she's actually really-- really likes campaigning and really, really likes to get to go out and about away from washington and meet just sort of normal people on the campaign trail. >> now, one of the things that we've talked about doing was i asked you all to come up with a question for one of your fellow panelists, and i don't know what your questions are, and so -- or who you're going to ask them to but let's go to it and everybody can chime in also with answers. betty, would you like to start

us off? do you have a question for a fellow panelist about the role of a first lady? >> well, i think i'll direct my question to both the former chiefs of staff because there is such a great interest in first ladies today, and my question for them is what is the -- in terms of protecting their privacy and their lives, how do you draw the line in terms of releasing information or protecting the privacy of the first lady and the family? >> well, it's a great question and it is one of the things that every first family every first lady wrestles with. she's sort of the protector of the family sanctuary that surrounds the president and particularly when they live above the store and you try to have a private life in the public eye it is certainly not easy. but, you know, you also recognize that you're in a

public role and that people want to know about you. they want to know about your family life, and so striking the balance is difficult but important, and i think working with a great press secretary who can also be honest with the first lady and let her know when sometimes some things she may be reluctant to discuss, we need to put some nuggets out there and it becomes doubly difficult, i'm sure susan can speak to this when you have young children. >> i think that's the area that mrs. obama feels the most strongly about and has consulted former first ladies and i think mrs. clinton is a good example of someone who she felt was extremely effective at protecting chelsea clinton as best as she could and this wonderful young woman who grew up in the white house. so having small children in the white house, again, above the

store, above a museum above a place where there are reporters all the time so how do you handle it if the girls want to ride their bikes right in the south lawn which is in the rose garden which is where reporters find themselves and the president gives speeches. so we had to come up with all kinds of rules, one of which was that the children could not be photographed unless they're with one of their parents. and that was considered -- that was one of those compromises, and i think everyone has kept it for the most part. the fact that, you know, the girls are able to go to summer camp and go to school and have a more or less normal life is something that i think their friends, their friends' families are great about encouraging and supporting but i think these -- the tug of war with the press is something that is inevitable, and the obamas know that people

are genuinely interested and for the most part in a really nice caring way, and yet these girls have a right to their privacy. >> roland, do you have a question? >> my question is for anita. >> my question was for you. that's not fair. >> it's a real tough question. how do you feel about guest chefs in the white house? it's a fair question, isn't it? wait, wait, i'm not totally finished. do you agree to bring the certain guest chef to the white house, a, because the first lady tell you so or b, because you're also in agreement of having a guest chef in the kitchen? >> well i think there were several times over the bush years where they did bring in a guest chef to participate in some of the very big events on

the lawn the congressional barbecue, for example, i think they brought their favorite texas barbecue chef to work with the kitchen and to share that. i also remembered another time where they brought guest chefs in and this was after hurricane katrina and mrs. bush made about 20, 25 visits down to the gulf coast during the redevelopment of the gulf coast, and one of the visits, you know, several of the -- chef paul prudhomme and emeril lagasse were at one of the events we did in new orleans. she invited them to the white house. it was an important message to the public that the gulf coast was coming back and the restaurants were reopening, and so there was an important reason to showcase these american chefs

and particular reasons why they would come. so i think that, you know as long as the staff, the household staff and the kitchen staff is comfortable and sees it as an opportunity to share their experience with an outside chef, i think it could be fine and actually could be kind of fun to see it. >> susan do you have -- >> that's not the answer he wanted. >> i think the current white house chef and the pastry chef are fantastic chefs and the obamas very much appreciate what they do, but i think part of it is particularly with these state dinners is to showcase all aspects of american cooking, and in every situation where there have been guest chefs there's a collaboration because the white house chefs know things that there's no way a guest chef

knows about how things are done, and i think these collaborations showcase the best of american cuisine and a real collaboration between the guest chefs and the white house chefs. >> do you have a question? >> ma iy i add something to that? i need to. >> of course. >> that's all fine and good okay. that's all smooth and everything here. now, of course if you go ask christa, which is a wonderful chef, you're very right, she will go i agree with you and go with you, but deep down what does she really feel? that's another story and probably this is where i think you don't know what she feel because i tell you differently. i'm not talking just now but other chefs in the past, i take it as a slap on the face, as being the white house chef. now, i am the chef of the white house that does everything for

the family and the guests day in and day out, you agree? now the day where i can shine, i'm told that somebody else come in. now, it's like me asking to be the president for one day. why not? why not? why not? it's another job. >> that's great. >> now let's put it this way. i don't believe in that, and i never will because this is my job, and i would like to shine once in a while and this is my chance. because we know that the guest chef come only for one thing and one thing only. you know what. to promote their establishment or wherever they're a chef. that's the only reason they come. if you would tell those guys that they cannot publicize them being in the white house, how many do you think would show up?

i mean i needed to say that because this is my feeling. >> susan, do you have a question for someone? >> yes. i would like to ask anita what do you think is the most difficult aspect of the role of the first lady? >> i think it's a couple of things and i'll list them starting with this. i think one of the hardest thing is seeing the person you love most in the world criticized, and i think you have to be strong and you have to be confident in your relationship as a family and as husband and wife to know who your husband is, and he knows who you are. i think that's one of the toughest. i think also balancing the time, private time and public requirement can be difficult, and then i think by the time that it's over whether it's the end of four years or the end of

eight, that you've run out of time to do all the things that you wanted to do. so that would be my answer to that. >> gary? >> i have a question for you martha. >> oh good. >> in the transition project, what influence have you found that the transition in the first lady's activities has thishad in the transition process? >> well, i think the first lady is going to be responsible really for setting up the home the family that there is so much that goes on in setting up the west wing and is concerned with appointments, with policy that a president is not going to have time to be spending on how the home is going to be created, and so i think that a first lady at the beginning has a very

tough period of adjustment because it's a whole new environment for her, and she has to learn how to bring her family in, particularly with a young family like michelle obama had and so that is what they've got to focus on and i think before hand they can start thinking about their issues as both recent first ladies have done. they've thought about it beforehand, but the whole physical move is something that they are the ones that are going to have to handle because the president just simply isn't going to have the time. that maybe he's going to be involved in the oval office in the setting of the oval office. as george bush proudly talked about every item in the tour of the white house of why he chose particular things but it wasn't just him choosing. now do we have time for questions? >> do i get to ask mine? >> oh, i'm sorry anita.

>> that's okay. >> i'm sorry anita. >> because my question was for roland but now i have come up with a different question. of the five administrations that you worked for, five right? what was the one time where you felt you were able to shine your craft the most? one favorite. >> you know, it's quite difficult to go there because at the beginning when i came to the white house i was like everybody else learning to swim, if you will, in the white house. learning to go. and when -- after working with mrs. reagan and i really could see what she wanted, she wanted superior dessert. she did not want -- she said this is a private home. this is our home and we're going to showcase the best we

can do. and what better place to showcase the best? we wanted the best furniture the best wallpaper, the best carpet. we want everything the best, really. it's the people's home. so i did understood that and this is why i embarked into making those spectacular desserts all the time. now, the funniest thing is after the reagan departed the house it continued on, and every administration after that gave me particularly carte blanche to do what i did because they knew somehow i will produce a dessert they're going to be proud of and also at the time we were already doing some diplomacy with the dessert by introducing dessert with a design that reflected the inviting head of states. and that's why they let me do

all the way to -- there were some changes in the food. if you remember the food way back every cooks would serve on big platter like the dessert, but then that went away. that went to the more restaurant service. but the dessert was never touched. during the clinton that changed, but mrs. clinton never asked me to change my dessert to plate a thing. so there is a reason to that. she must have liked it otherwise she would have said no more of that. so, yes, i mean, that's what i would assume, and i'm very proud of that because i think that my 26 years in the white house have really influenced the dessert made in the white house. they were made -- they were one of a kind and they remain so until my last day. i remember many times we -- we

also created many desserts for the first family that touched them directly. i remember when george w. came to the white house. the first governors dinner we were going to have, i said i really need to have something texan. i want all the governor to know who our president is he's a texan. so i came up with this design called tumbleweed. if you have been in texas you have seen those things. that's what the dessert was, tumbleweed. mrs. bush did not care for it. but president bush loved it. >> of course. >> and i remember we were discussing this thing and mrs. bush said, oh, go ahead with it he loves it so go ahead. so just to say, a little thing like this makes the family very proud. >> i had one thing about roland at the white house.

he had one problem with the first ladies and they had one problem with him. he would never do the same dessert twice. >> yeah. >> they were always different. >> yes. i wanted to keep them really interested. >> yes. >> i didn't want to say, oh we have this old cake again. no, i didn't -- we didn't repeat. we did not. you know the desserts were not me. that was the entire shop. a head of states would be coming, we would throw idea out there and i would beg my staff to throw any ideas into the basket and we'll say the best one will float and that's what we're going to do, and somewhere i tell you what, some the architecture was quite bold, quite bold, and i know mrs. reagan even sometimes she said roland, you can't serve that. you're going to fall on the ladies' lapse. i said, madam, it will not. i remember when they doing this

giant pear, and she was having lunch and a little table beside her i was on my knee explaining the desert. when i say to her it will not fall, she grabbed that pear and start changeshaking it, and she said, okay that's a go you win. >> on that note, let's go to some questions. >> hi, my name is lata lent from the mum education program at george washington university as well. my question is -- or comment is during my lifetime it's possible that there will be a first gentleman, and i'm wondering what your thoughts would be in terms of the influence of the first ladies on how that role would be. >> well i'll just say one thing, we came close. we came very close in 2008 right? and i think the white house is a very resilient -- although that

would have been different because it would have been a former president as the new first spouse, so it would have been very different situation but, in fact with it being potentially a man, we're getting closer to that, and it's going to happen. but i think the white house is a very resilient placeír it's a very flexible place. it will adapt to all kinds of changes just as the residence staff adapts to a new family. i think that's the remarkable thing about the white house. >> i had a very brief conversation with dennis thatcher when mrs. thatcher came to the white house because she was in speaking with the president, and he was wandering around the state floor literally wandering, and i engaged him and told him some of the history of the white house and made very sure that he saw the area that the british burnt the white house because we left that exposed.

but he was very engaging, and i asked him what his role was, and he said my role is whatever she wants me to do. >> that's good. that's a good man. i think it's a serious question though because i think there are ways in which maybe it will have to change, and i think one of the issues is about working outside the home. i think chancellor merkel's husband i think is a chemistry professor. i think there are ways in which there are men who probably don't want to play the traditional first lady role, and so i think anita is right that the white house is resilient but i think there probably will be a lot of questions probably asked and a lot of rethinking when that happens. >> great. >> hi i'm heather wolf and my question is for anita mcbride.

president bush's library is going to be opening soon at southern methodist university, and i just wanted to know how mrs. bush's legacy is being preserved with her influence and image in the library? >> you know, it's a great question, and thank you for asking. the library is opening on april 25th of this year. mrs. bush has been chair of the architecture committee and chair of the landscape design committee and chair of the interpretative planning committee, so she has a great deal of influence on what the building will look like. this will be their life's work for the rest of their lives through the bush presidential institute which is part of the museum and library, and, you know, we did a lot of looking at other libraries and where a first lady's role is sort of relegated to a little tiny little area of the library, and that won't be the case this time. it will be all of her work and her work with the president will

be integrated throughout from the moment you step in to the moment you walk out of the library, and i think we're really -- she's very proud of that, he's very proud of that fact because they've looked at it as a partnership throughout their public life. thank you for asking. >> well, i would like to thank our panelists. i think you can see from our discussion the wonderful support system that first ladies and presidents have that make their lives in the white house so much easier, whether it's the residence staff or whether it is the political staff who come with them. they've all formed a wonderful support structure. thank you very much. >> thank you martha. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, martha, and everyone for an enlightening

session. and thank you to all of you for coming and making this a special occasion here at our new national center for white house history. on your way out, as i said, there will be a bag that you don't want to forget, and as you were already shown the most recent edition of white house history and this i think you will find particularly interesting, is on white house fashion. so it was timely dealing with first ladies. and then in cooperation with c-span and the association a special edition for first ladies original series of our first ladies book was produced, and that is also in the bag out here. so you're welcome on the way out to stop, pay a visit to the shop at president's park to your right as you leave the foyer, and you're also welcome to take a tour of the c-span bus and see all the wonderful high techie

things inside that bus and learn about first ladies. so thank you again for making our inaugural session of this 35-part series very special. thank you. [ applause ]

were you a fan of c-span's first ladies series? first ladies is now a book published by public affairs, looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. based on original interviews with more than 50 pre-eminent historians and by fers, learn details of all 45 first ladies who made these women who thrp, their lives, ambitions, and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. the book "first ladies" provides lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at great personal cost while supporting their families and famous husbands and even changed history. c-span's "first ladies" is an

illuminating entertaining and inspiring read is available as a hard cover or ebook through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. and some live programs coming up today on c-span3. join us at 4:00 eastern time for a hearing on whistle-blowers who have uncovered problems with the veterans affairs department. lawmakers will hear from employees who claim to have suffered retribution for reporting problems within the agency. again, you can watch that live 4:00 eastern time right here on c-span3. taking a look at congress this week. both the house and senate are back for work. the house gaveling in at 2:00 eastern time for a number of bills including one dealing with annual privacy notices from banks and other financial institutions. any requested votes will be held at 6:30 eastern and later this week we expect work on the tax code and irs oversight.

the senate is considering a judicial nomination, alfred bennett, up to be a u.s. district court judge for texas. senators will vote to confirm at 5:30 eastern time. you can watch the house live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. another republican is set to join the race for the white house in 2016. florida senator marco rubio expected to announce his candidacy later today in miami. we'll have live coverage starting at 5:30 eastern on our companion network c-span. and further into the week we'll be live tomorrow with a hearing on immigration issues. the head of the immigration and customs enforcement agency will testify before the house judiciary committee. you can watch that starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow here on c-span3. and also tomorrow senate foreign relations committee chair bob corker would like congress to review any iranian nuclear deal. he's introduced a bill that would make that a reality and working on that with his fellow committee members tomorrow at 2:15 eastern time. you can watch that live right here on c-span3.

tonight on "the communicators," spectrum policy director for alliant science and technology carl nebia on the importance of spectrum for the government and the public. >> the last two administrations have both written presidential memorandum on spectrum. when i first started in spectrum management back in 1979 i came out of the marine corps after being an artillery officer, i didn't know anything about spectrum. most people that i met and even those i often times worked with didn't understand much about spectrum but nowadays everybody realizes the part of our daily lives, our devices completely rely on our ability to communicate and often do our jobs or stay in touch with our family. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. next a look at preventing genocide and other global issues with the head of the state department's civilian security

democracy, and human rights division. prior to her position at the state department sarah sewall worked on capitol hill. she was also with the clinton administration and served as director for human rights policy at harvard. this is about an hour. good evening. my name is jared genser and i'm a human rights lawyer here in washington and i'm very pleased to welcome under secretary of state sara sewall to the council on foreign relations. in presidential study directive

ten issued by president obama in august of 2011, he said, quote, preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national interest and is a core moral responsibility of the united states. coming from this study, some three years ago, the president established the atrocity prevention board whose whole of government approach facilitated by the national security adviser and including high-level representatives from a range of agencies aims to strengthen the capacity of the u.s. government to prevent and respond to mass atrocities. in addition to representing the state department on the apb, under secretary sewall has overseen efforts within the state department to realign and coordinate its effort on atrocity prevention and response. tonight we will speak with her about the administration's work in this are a and the apb, successes and challenges. here is how we'll proceed. undersecretary sewall will make some opening remarks for about 15 minutes, i will engage her in

conversation for 15 minutes and we'll leave time for questions and end promptly at 7:00 p.m. i will only note that she has had a distinguished career in government and academia. you can see her detailed resume on the program tonight and with no further ado undersecretary sewall. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you jared. it's wonderful to be here this evening, and thank you all for joining us. i'm really always happy to talk about atrocity prevention. i know that's sort of a strange thing to say, but for those who are in the community and who have spent much of their lives working to prevent and respond to mass atrocities we all know the bond that we share, and it's really a delight to be with so many of you here tonight to include senior fellow from the council, paul stairs, who is known to many of you as a

guiding force in the prevention arena to include atrocity prevention. but before i get started, i have to explain why really, truly why i'm here with you tonight. there was an event that reminded me how important it was to speak publicly about the work we do in government to prevent atrocities, and it was not president obama and it was not secretary kerry. it was alex true back. on jeopardy america's brightest trivia questions were working their way through the category bad words. when they reached the $1000 question the most difficult in the category, he provided this question. in 2012 the state department put out an apb, a new prevention

board for these terrible crimes. what is an assault? incorrect, trebek replied. no one else even ventured a guess. to make matters worse it was not entirely accurate. the clue was not even correct. the atrocity prevention board was not wlaunchlaunched by the state department. it was launched by president obama and the security council. i have tried to reach out to mr. trebek to clear up this confusion. i have even tweeted at him with no luck. here i am at the epicenter of ir trivia knowledge to explain the administration's commitment to elevate within u.s. foreign policy efforts to prevent the mass killings of civilians. as jared said, 3 1/2 years ago the president identified the prevention of mass atrocities as a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the united states, and he committed this

country to becoming a global leader in preventing large-scale violence against civilians worldwide. he made it clear that the u.s. cannot and should not intervene militarily every time there is an injustice or an imminent atrocity threat. instead, he called for the u.s. government to use its full arsenal of tools, including diplomatic, political, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement capabilities to prevent these crimes before they evolve into large-scale civilian atrocities. and the u.s. government is working now to put these goals into practice. as one element of this approach the president established an atrocities prevention board commonly referred to inside the government as the apb, and it brings together senior officials from across government to focus and coordinate their respective efforts. this interagency group seeks to identify atrocity risks in their early stages and develop coordinated whole of government

responses to prevent or mitigate them. and each month as part of an early warning exercise the intelligence community helps the apb identify countries experiencing or at greatest risk of atrocities. the board then has an opportunity to consider which cases need additional policy focus and usually the board bears down on one or two at risk countries in particular. and, of course, the apb process feeds into a larger interagency process of decision making. the apb's work is meant to complement and enhance not supplant ongoing regional work done every day at the state department and throughout our government. so in practice this means that the apb is not spending the bulk of its time where threats to civilians such as assad's brutalities against the syrian people are already well recognized and addressed in ongoing regional policy discussions. most of the apb's effort is devoted to potential or ongoing

violence that might escape focused attention in existing policy fora. so i apologize for the mind-numbing bureaucratic speak but as anyone who works in government knows, the key to getting things done a effecting change is to be a bureaucratic catalyst and the apb is a tool to help empower prevention catalysts. it speeds up the cogs of our government's bureaucracy by bringing attention to cases earlier in the buildup to violence and in turn giving the u.s. government or other international partners additional reaction time to plan and implement appropriate de-escalation interventions and when threats emerge the apb assists by helping marshal person yell technical expertise, and resources. in the intervening three years the u.s. government has achieved significant progress in bringing

atrocities prevention into the mainstream of our foreign policy process. the government's new coordination efforts elevate the profile of the issue within the interagency and within the state department where i live.live. for example, we then established an anti-atrocities coordination group, which serves as a kitchen cabinet in elevating and addressing atrocity risks internally. regional and functional bureaus collaborate in assessing at-risk cases in the weeks leading up to the agencies. and the prevention perspective is well integrated into our policy work from central africa to iraq to nigeria. it's also becoming better integrated into our embassy level work. front line officers are often the first to sense and report on emerging atrocity risks. chief submission can request the apb conduct risk analysis of their host countries or have

planners to mitigate the risk. since becoming under secretary for civilian security i've worked to strengthen the state department's internal government to prevent atrocities. for example, pursuant to the strategic road map, the bureau of conflict and stabilization operations dedicated expertise in assuming a formal analysis planning and coordinating role in support of apb priorities within state. and as the new hub for state planning and implementation of our atrocities prevention work, this bureau works with usid to work with the drivers of conflict in targets countries at risk for atrocities and produces risk assessments. the new analytic framework, this is something that has been developed in coordination with the uasid, allows them to work

with the bureaus to develop evidence-based, civilian focused intervention options including diplomatic, program maticmatic and economic efforts. they're also developing best practices that are informing more targeted effective government responses. the u.s. government has also refined and expanded its tools to prevent atrocities. so in addition to the traditional level of influence, such as diplomacy and economic assistance, we now can impose targeted sajs snctions, such as visa restrictions against perpetrators of human rights violations in specific cases. we have the first ever national intelligence estimate on global atrocities risk. for our military, which i know a little ability and a presidential proclamation which gives us the ability to watch human rights abusers.

state department and aid are working to empower the front line officers through a series of internal training programs to identify and respond to atrocity threats. american diplomats are monitoring media and dialogue for dangerous speech. we've launched initiatives to amplify the non-violent leaders to counter the extremist narratives. we can better engage community voices mothers, respected elders, to encourage them to promote messages of peace in their communities. this is important in the lead up to the events that are prone to fueling outbreaks of violence such as elections. nigeria is a great example of that. let me provide specific examples to illustrate how the u.s. government is more prepared to identify and respond to risks of extreme violence. taking you back in time over a year and a half ago, when the

department's atrocity watchers grew concerned about escalating tensions. it initiated the apb process and state and aid put together a team from the agencies to conduct a thorough analysis of potential risks for violence. this led to a diplomatic engagement and strategy that was operationalized by the agency. the apb process galhad over $7 million to deal with the risks identified in the assessment, and included the deployment of a prevention adviser to support the embassy and the lead up to the 2015 national elections, which was, as i mentioned earlier, and often is, potential trigger for violence and mass atrocities. the adviser enhanced the u.s. government's monitoring of early warning signals of violence to complement the execution of

de-escalation programs targeted against messengers of violence. they were able to engage local leaders, from political party groups to religious leaders to facilitate dialogues between regional and national elites and community steak holders in their local efforts. let me offer a different example of the apb's impact. here with the example of the central african. the board experts worked hand in hand with regional bureaus as senior leaders from across government identified key interventions, including from dod aid and state. we had up to $100 million in assistance. we were funding everything from peace and reconciliation programs to the purchase of vehicles for peace keepers to critical life saving humanitarian assistance.

now, we support u.n. forces with their planning and coordination. when the islamic state of iraq of the levant drove many minorities from their homes last year, the apb cat liezhelped give a quick response. it ensures local information collected by the embassy and the state departments office of religious freedom was able to inform the u.s. strikes against isil that degraded isil and gave local kurdish military forces enough momentum to break the siege and free those on the mountain. though i shared with you my confident assessment of the progress we've made and some examples thereof, and i think it's fair to say that the u.s. government's initial atrocities prevention efforts registered many important achievements clearly, challenges remain.

chief among these are resource constraints. while the apb coordination process doesn't require funding effective prevention tools do. they depend on resources. particularly sources of funding that can be accessed quickly and deployed quickly. in a constrained budget environment, we often see prevention needs that we aren't able to meet. in addition to building our own capacity, we're seeking to encourage and collaborate with partners. recently led a group of officials to meet with u.n. officials who oversee atrocity prevention in new york. they are in new york, where they work to oversee atrocity prevention. our dialogue is one that i hope we'll be institutionalizing in the years ahead. we're integrating mass atrocities prevention into bilateral and multilateral diplomatic discussion, such as the u.s. eu civilian, security

and development dialogue. in closing, it's no small feat to change the way any government does its business. institutional change is a difficult and slow process. yet, we have begun to make enduring progress integrating an atrocities prevention lens into the government's policymaking. we're working to strengthen agency capabilities and institutionalize those capabilityies within agencies, as well as to strengthen the apb itself. some observers expressed dissatisfaction with the obama administration's commitment to prevent mass atrocities across the globe. i can understand their perspective. the apb has not halted violence worldwide. in its three years of existence it has not protected every civilian from government's insurgents and terrorists. yet, as imperfect as the efforts are, they represent undeniable progress, both in symbolism and concrete results. as we approach the apb's three year anniversary, we're certainly closer to realizing

the president's intent that the u.s. government embraces the mission of preventing mass atrocity atrocities. it's my hope that three years from now, the united states will have made the decision making tools, resources and actions even more effective and preventing mass violence against civilians. president obama took a bold step in 2012 by elevating concern about mass atrocities as a foreign policy priority. atrocity prevention, he said, is not just a matter of values but also an issue of national security. the president acknowledged that it can be tempting to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to man's endless capacity for cruelty. he also reminded us that holocaust survivors chose never to give up. nor can the united states of america. thank you. [ applause ] >> well thank you for those

very useful and illuminating initial remarks. i want to talk to you for a few minutes to get behind some of what you're talking about. one of the biggest challenges i think in the atrocity prevention is measuring your success. if you succeed nothing happens. in other words, you've prevented a mass atrocity situation. obviously, there are other examples where you're on the verge of a mass atrocity situation, that it's clear to see where you have an impact. how does the apb, or how do you at the state department, look at measuring success in your work on anion ongoing basis? >> i think it's fair to say that we are, at this point in our efforts, focusing more on outputs than outcomes. in part because they are easier to measure. we can see where we have moved a policy process or garnered resources, or had an impact on statistics in a particular way. but it's harder to measure

success because, as you said the success is the non-barking dog. so that will always be i think, an enormous challenge. i think when we hear from ambassadors that we equipped them with tools to make a difference in their country, that serves as a pretty good proxy for now. like wise, there have been governments that -- and particularly in post-election, when there is a transition of power -- the following government will express its great thanks for the work that the united states more broadly has done to help ensure a safe and peaceful transition and election. so those are some of the ways that we currently satisfy ourselves with. i'm sure that, again in three years time, we can move to a better metric. >> how do you strike a balance between having the u.s. be visibly viewed as intervening to prevent atrocities, versus the desire for actors to engage with

the government in discussing these things? you eluded to concerns for society. one is, i think that the apb itself has been very much like the iceberg given that the briefings are classified. but the apb itself has not been very visible publicly, nor has its work. how do you see striking the balance over time with the american public being able to understand what any administration, this or future administrations are doing to advance atrocity prevention and get the american public behind the work as well? >> well i think part of the reason i'm here tonight is because i'm very committed to doing as much as i can, to speak about both the progress and the challenges that we face as a nation and, indeed, as a global community. and addressing atrocity crimes. i think that this is one of those rare issues where i don't

sense a partisan divide at all. i think all americans from every walk of life every side of the aisle, are very proud of america's tradition in promoting and protecting human rights. generally, certainly in the abstract abstract, feel we should do more. so i think that there is a great need to communicate more fully about the president's directive and about the ways in which we are seeking to ensure that the -- a bureaucracy cannot deaden itself to the human costs overseas. but i think that, in part because as i just confessed to, some of this is real bureaucratic speak that probably is not necessarily con understandable by many americans. i would like to think that process and bureaucracy didn't matter, but i can fully confess

after a year back in government it does. so that's not a very easily translatable piece of the story. it's an important part of the story. then you also have the difficulty of having a process to care about a problem before it's an actual problem. that is a perennial challenge on the prevention work as many people in this room appreciate. everyone agrees in principle that prevention is much more economic and desirable and far better than the alternative, but it's difficult to galvanize attention and resources for that work. i think the more we can talk about the challenges and the possibilities that exist to make a difference, the better it is. of course, trying to do that in a way that's both concrete but not in any way tied up in government deliberations. i think it has been perceived as a challenge, and i'm doing my level best to square the circle.

>> at the outset before you arrived in government, the apb had been consulting with civil society more intimately. i'd be interested to know your thoughts, your view looking back at it over the last three years, only one of which you've obviously been back in government, as to what the vision is for the apb and how it might engage further with the congress or civil society as it undertakes its work. acknowledging that certain things it does are never going to be public or capable of being public. maybe in a lot of cases it will be passively receiving information. i mean but do you see further channels for civil society and the congress to be engaging with the apb in. >> i can't speak to the early years because i wasn't in government, but the year aifi've been at the state department i've had a number of meetings with the apb to talk about the atrocity work we're doing in the state and more broadly in the u.s. government. i have had an opportunity to

speak at a variety of gathering of civil society groups. i'm committed to reaching out to partners in the united nations to partners in bilateral addy log -- dialogues and other multi-lateral. i can't speak to what the nsc role in that is, but i can say that i see it as a wonderful opportunity, both to learn from people who are truly expert. many people have spent their careers in this field and many have particular areas of expertise and regions of the world that are extremely useful for the u.s. government to learn from. but i also think more broadly that we have to rely on civil society argueorganizations to both keep us honest in our efforts to make progress and to spur us on where we fall short. i look very much forward to continuing that dialogue. >> you were talking about partners in the u.n.

they also have limited resources when it comes to the offices of the special adviser to prevent -- genocide prevention and the special adviser on the responsibility to protech. the u.s. has been more outspoken in creating a framework for these issues as opposed to our usual partners international, shall we say. i'm wondering in your perspective in engaging with diplomats around the world from various governments, how they've taken to the atrocity prevention approach of the united states and whether any of this might rub off to some extent on other partners and enable more kis mat systematic approaches to be taken in other governments. >> we frame it as atrocities prevention, and we have a bureaucratic response that seeks to address what we see as the challenges within our government, of addressing these issues. other countries approach the question differently. they may define it differently. for example, the uk is very comfortable talking about

stabilization work. we have a stabilization leaders forum, in which we exchange views with a number of like-minded countries that includes the atrocity prevention conversation but also is broader. i think different governments define both the issue and the challenge, as well as the response differently. another example of that is an interesting innovation within the u.n. system. the rights up front initiative, and the way it is seeking to also also be more adept at identifying challenges early and galvanizing elements of the system to respond. often behind the scenes and diplomatically. there's a variety of responses out there. we're not the only ones engaged in this. again, i think there's a lot of comeplementary ways in how states act and expanding and regularizing the conversation which we've begun to do. it's an exciting development. >> how do you see or how does

the administration see its role in atrocity prevention relative to other partners around the world? because the united states has an outsized global footprint and capacity. it doesn't change the moral responsibility and legal responsibility, the genocide convention or geneva convention or otherwise. i'm curious how the u.s. looks to calibrate its responses on the examples you gave, like the central africa republic, and how much it expects from partners for them to put in, and to what extent decisions are being made in relation to other partners potentially working with the united states on these issues, so we don't go it alone. >> it's a good question. you know i'm thinking about some of the recent experiences we've had in coordinating veese inginge inging vis-a-vas vis-a-vis nigeria. there's similarity everywhere, but important distinctions. so the potential for partners to

play different roles is going to vary so much by the case. sometimes, you need someone who is -- who has ties with people that you fear will be the perpetrators. sometimes what you want are deep historical linkages and ongoing relationships with communities who could be victimized. it depends on history. it depends on geography. it depends on a lot of things as to who can be helpful in what ways in the atrocity prevention work. it's very much a pickup game, which means it's creative but a little chaotic, in terms of trying to think about all the different avenues you can use to seek to affect the situation in a way that is in advancing the prevention agenda. >> let me ask one last question before we open it to the audience. i'm curious what you see as the biggest challenge in the next year for the administration on

atrocity prevention. you've been around for a year. you've gotten, i'm sure, knee deep in all of this stuff. see how the inner agency process played out and how you're working to facilitate this process at the state department. what are your thoughts as to the biggest challenge at the three-year mark with going from where we are today to where you would like to see it as one of the participants in this process? >> i think on the prevention side, i think resources really are a challenge. when i think about the way we're organized as a government which is, if we have a crisis, we can request supplemental funding and see the need for it. we need to move swiftly and there is urgency, politically and bureaucratically. such a different scenario than on the prevention side. we don't have dedicated funding for prevention efforts. so the -- as difficult as the charting out what the right path is you have then a whole second

level of hurdle, in terms of is there money available? what authorities can be used? who has something out? what can be reprogrammed? if you were designing a process to facilitate prevention efforts, the way we currently do the budgeting is not what you would design. so i think both the existence of dedicating funding for atrocity prevention, as well as the flexibility and access to the funding is a huge challenge. i think, you know, stepping back thinking about mass atrocities as a global challenge, clearly, the biggest failing we as a global community have is our inability to respond effectively. that is a function of a great variety of factors, to include the costs of responding. so i think, you know on an absolute level that's the central challenge. on the prevention side, in terms of the progress of where i think the apb has been able to move

and what its promise suggests i think there is a more modest ask, one that can be in the constrained budget funds. >> an idea for the congress perhaps. let's open it up for questions. just for everyone to recall, please wait for a microphone before you ask the question. please stand and state your name and affiliation, and keep your questions and comments concise so we can get as many people in the audience to be able to speak. professor? >> thank you. ray tanter the iran policy committee and university of michigan. i'm interested in whether when you were at harvard at kennedy school did you draw upon your work as dasd on peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance and

help to set something up at harvard? then set up the same kind of -- or reinforce the structure at the department of state? because it seems to me -- it's unclear to me, when i was on staff, president reagan talked about mass atrocity but didn't call it that. i'm not sure what he called it. regards to madelyn, emma and sophie. no? >> i've accused my children of many things but i have not put them in the same category as the question suggests. let me ponder on that for a moment. we all build on our own experience. so there's no question that having served in the department of defense, in a period of

enormous humanitarian challenge and a number of experiments in humanitarian response, clearly, that had a huge impact the work i did after i left government in working at the car center for human rights. and in working on the mass atrocity response project. i think our experience always informs us. i think there are many people in government today who have both been in the trenches of trying to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, or who studied those efforts, who are a big part of the reason why president obama's commitment is beginning to become real. when i think about the world that i would like my children to grow up in it is one in which the specific comments that president obama articulated, in

terms of mass atrocities being not just a moral preventing them not being a moral responsibility but a national security concern i would -- my hope is that the u.s. government and the administrations to come, regardless of their political tenor, will accept that as a given and move forward in continuing to institutionalize our responses. and are i think -- i mean part of the reason why i think it's so meaningful that the apb process and the way we are trying to institutionalize atrocity prevention at state focuses on prevention is because i don't think there is any debate or dissension about the value of doing that. where you can use diplomatic tools. you can use smaller amounts of resources. where you can make a significant difference. i think where we tend to see the

divide occur, in terms of where the government is appropriately responding to mass atrocities worldwide, it's in the crisis stage. post prevention. so i really believe that there is a deep road on the prevention side, when it comes to atrocity prevention, regardless of what you call it as you were referring to in the time which you served. >> i'm from the center of analysis. i'm inters eested in the dod side of things. i know you interact a lot with them. for them the engagements is a big part of how they hopefully help with the mission. what do you see in terms of what we're getting right and what we're getting -- maybe what we can improve on with respect to

the engagements in this vein? >> good question. i used to work a lot with the military. it's fair to say i worked more with them at harvard than i do now, which says a lot. but one of the -- i think that while there is mass atrocity response doctrine, my impression is that there is a ways to go in terms of it being intern liezalized in the department of defense. i think there's been more progress on the more narrow almost tactical angle of protection of civilians, when we think about our training of foreign peace keepers, which occurs largely through contracts at the state department. i think there is much more that dod could do veesis-a-vis on

atrocity prevention. i think one of the interesting things is in watching the el evolution of peacekeeping is it's serving so many different functions now. u.n. peacekeeping may be an opposite framework in which to engage, rather than necessarily having to do it on a bilateral basis, because these tend to be the forces that deploy frequently in a wide variety of circumstances. they're now engaged in counter-terrorism, protection of civilians and mass atrocity. that may be the most fruitful way for the dod folks to think about expanding their role. i do think they have their own learning to do. one of the dangers of importing doctrine is that it means the machinery hasn't done through its own process of intellectually absorbing the concepts and owning the standard operating procedures. i think there's more work in

that regard to be done as well but i haven't -- as i said, haven't been working closely with the military for some time. >> stevie hamilton with the department of state. you mention obviously elections are a key to sort of this aspect. with nigeria, i know it's not over, but can you tell us maybe some of the early lessons learned and how this may lead toward a future template? >> i think it would be really dangerous to talk about the nigerian elections right now because, historically, the violence in nigerian elections occurs more in the days following the results than it does during the elections themselves. because, as you know, we're waiting for the results, i would prefer not to talk about that particular case. but what i can say is that i think there's been an enormous amount of learning, certainly within the u.s. government. i think probably also with the many foreign partners and

multilateral pat nerrtners about different kinds of interventions that make a difference in preventing violence around elections. one of the things that president obama has been doing with some regularity is taking messages that are then distributed broadly through. you talk about bringing it down to the personal level. here, we have not just the abstract sense that the international community is watching or the united states cares, but the president is talking to the people. in the case of nigeria, the secretary of state speaking with the candidates for the need of non-violence. there are a host offish ishsues related to the mobilization of youth youthlings, which is a discouraging but tangible issue we can focus on in preelection prevention efforts. elevating the voices of those who speak for peace within the communities. again, something that was done in the case of nigeria.

there are a host of things. again, one of the things that i came in to the j. under secretary was the tasking from the secretary to focus and steer the efforts of the different bureaus within it. make them complementary. one of the key ways its changes in atrocity prevention is through the role of conflict and stabilization office. they're working on capturing precisely those kinds of lessons around different interventions, sort of, baskets. one being election violence. so we have more of -- so the learning is not in people's heads, which is what i'm struck by when i ask around at state and policy debates. what do we know? well joe or seeusi knows. we're trying to institutionalize that.

cso is playing a leading role in that respect. i think on election violence we have a large repository of knowledge. that's why it can be frustrating when we're scraping to find the resources to implement what we believe can make a difference. >> thanks very much for this speech. i think it's a huge and important step in the public diplomacy on this issue and i appreciate the initiative that you've taken on that. what do you think are the two or three steps that have -- that could be taken but have not yet been taken by -- whether by the government, the administration, congress, civil society, to ensure the continuity of the aims we've made from its origin in the obama administration to the next, whatever it might be. >> that's a great question. i would like to think that we are doing it. i think that the key is to make sure that each agency that has a

role to play in atrocity prevention is internally embedding that process into the agency. that's going to be different for each agency. already, the intelligence community has come -- it's night and day. now, there is a unit within the different pieces of the intelligence community almost every which way that owns responsibility for this issue of atrocity prevention and early warning. they put together tailored products and have a recognized role in the inner agency process. that's not transformative of the response but for the intelligence community that is a very different reality than existed five years ago. similarly, within state, i think that as we have tried to formalize the ways in which very talented individuals have worked within a system to work on atrocity prevention. now what we're trying to do is take that energy, kataken by the

president's initiative, and formalize it. we have the group that can bring the different pieces of the state department for a regular process. that means each of the bureaus that those representatives come from now is partly pregnant with responsibility for atrocity prevention. it's not someone else's problem. or not just the apb's problem. i think in the responsibility and ownership, you don't need an atrocity prevention board in a perfect world. but we are transitioning toward perfect. we're not there yet. the interim step is to broaden the community of people who feel responsible for this work. i think we talked about challenges vis-a-vis funding and galvanizing people to act early.

i think in terms of ensuring that there is embedded within the system a reflex a muscle memory of a problem to which a response and a solution is -- or which the response and solution is required, i think that is beginning to happen. i'm hopeful that in the next two years, that will have become engrained in a hopefully unmovable way. >> i'll ask a follow up. one of the questions people observing this area are asking is when the president will be issuing the executive order that makes permanent the status of the apb. that's been -- a lot of people have been anticipating that. do you have any sense of the timing you can share? >> no because that's an nsc decision. when the president is ready, he'll say that. in the meantime, we're doing the work, so stay tuned.

>> thanks so much. kate phillips ross with the international rescue committee. when we talk about violence and akros ty atrocity atrocities, we think about elections or these mass episodes that break out among populations. my question pertains to the slower burn problems. things that don't surround elections and maybe over the course of years don't look that different. if you look over time, get much worse and structural violence among familiar groups and populations. one example that comes to mind is a situation in western burma. wanted to see where is the place for that? we talked about the syria epic the whole government is on it things, and monitoring for what's to come. what of the things that slowly change and have the potential to get worse over time, or slow burns, and put people in a position where they're exposed to great violence. in this case maybe leaving the country because of the discrimination and being trafficked, et cetera. this has been a big hole in government policy for a while. wanted to see where the apb

stands on that. >> so the -- i'll go in the abstract on this rather than getting specific to this case. then i'll come back to the case. so typically, the way both the intelligence community but also the policy shops within different pieces of the government to include cso, look at issues is they are looking both at slow burn and looking at precipitating events. often, or i should -- sometimes, it is the combination of the two that can create the most dire circumstances. and so there is no preclusion of a slow burn situation. i mean many people characterize different situations as a slow burn, but it was recognized as an atrocity case. one that deserved attention.

i think in the case of burma the apb is very well aware of the issue. has been monitoring that. i think it's also well aware that burma has elections coming up later this year. so the issue, i think, that we will be looking at is how those do or do not intersect. there are different forms in which elections can trigger violence. whether talking about burma or nigeria, the underlying conflicts that have the potential to spark very enormously throughout both countries. elections are often a precipitating factor. so i think the answer to your question simply put is that there is no distinction made but that the prioritization process tends to put the inner agency focus on precipitating events that we have reason to believe will spark underlying

potential atrocities. >> tom miller. i'm president of a non-profit international executive service corps and a former diplomat. i appreciated your opening marks. if i asked you to use two additional words and integrate them into your opening remarks, i'd appreciate how you'd respond. one is genocide. the second is syria. >> so genocide is one form of mass atrocity. so the way the atrocity prevention board works is that genocide is actually perceived as too restrictive a case. but it's very much on the minds and is sometimes at issue in the context of the analysis that we do. syria fits the category of issues with which the policy

process is already seized. that's different from saying, has solved. the apb's role is not to duplicate processes that already exist. particularly within the state department, it is very regionally focused in its policy apparatus and in the way it makes decisions. so the -- where there are large, recognized challenges, there is a process in which the inner agency is discussing that. so syria is very much in that category where the apb has come into play. it's where we believe there is not sufficient attention being paid to particular instances or angles of mass atrocity issues. the example of protection is one, in iraq. the apb's focus is in areas

where the policy process is not covering. that relates to the difference between a primarily preventive agenda and a response agenda. >> thank you very much for coming here today and talking about this. i commend you for the work you've done, particularly on mount sinjar. i'm concerned with mexico. there are 250,000 displaced people, mostly displayed by gangs and violence and drugs drug dealers. 22,000 disappearances. this is our neighbor to the south. obviously, the u.s. has a lot of investment interests, also joint citizenship issues. migration issues. i don't think we've been paying enough attention to what's going on in mexico. similarly with some of the other countries in latin america, the number of children who showed up at the border and the reasons

that were precipitating the violence that caused the children to flee. and the terrible reaction by the american public, for the most part in the newspapers that said, send them back, throw them out, if they were gangsters themselves or criminals, when they were victims. i wondered if that's on your agenda. >> well the violent -- there's a lot of competition for attention in the world of atrocities. the character and scale and pace of systematic and purposeful attacks against civilians has some -- every continent has issues that are deserving. i come back to the answer that i gave before about the difference between slow burn and precipitating event and the way in which we seek to look across the globe at the issues that are in need of prevention.

and those that we are able to envision -- i hesitate to say the word narrow but there's a difference between fixing a country and intervening to prevent mass atrocities. it's almost the proximate cause time frame issue that i think comes into play. i think it's apposite. if we were to ask the apb to solve every problem related to violence and civilians, it wouldn't be able to focus, so we do focus. so that's not to say that mexico -- issues wax and wane, they come and go in their acuity and in the way we focus on them. i think those will always be in flux. part of the reason why we sought to si temystematize the process is there is the limited ability to look at issues and we want to priority the cases as best we

can. >> my question is a direct follow on that. >> sorry. >> jeff smith, center for public integrity. there are a large-scale and small-scale atrocities. a lot of the questions you're getting from the audience are what are the criteria that you use to decide? is there a numerical criteria? what constitutes an atrocity of sufficient skill and scope to demand your attention? how do you set that, where the bar is? i understand also -- i presume you're going to say that the bar is somewhat influx, depending on other events going on in the world. i'm wondering if your work is guided by an overall consensus about what constitutes an atrocity, a mass atrocity.

if you could be more specific, it would be helpful. >> i can be more specific about the terms, but not about the application of them, to be fair. because there is a time frame issue, and there is -- and there are judgments that analysts make about whether or not things are a problem. typically, when we are talking about mass atros tiscities, it's violence directed against civilians that is somewhere in the range of above 500 people over a sustained period of time. that's a very low bar, frankly, globally. so there's a lot that is captured by that. it's not dispositive for that reason precisely. so, again, the fact that you have a slow burn situation that has a number of deaths that is lower than that threshold over a long period of time doesn't preclude you from being very concerned about what could ignite something far bigger

because of a precipitating event. whether it's a coup or a war next door, or a famine whatever it is. that's the answer, but it's not dispositive in terms of what we focus on. >> hi, sarah. lewis, former department of defense. want to ask about your broader sense of responsibilities. some of the atrocity prevention is like the cop trying to get there as something is happening, or in the slow burn mode. on the bigger level of what are the things that you, the strategies that you think about in terms of creating context in which there is respect for human rights, or addy mockdi democracy, or pluralism. are foundations doing enough to

invest in those kinds of things? i've heard recently some self-criticism about not doing enough to invest, for example say, in moderates, in countries or in supporting democracy building projects. have you tried to engage that sector -- not just the ngos -- but the foundations in supporting that work? can you address those topics? thanks. >> i'm so glad you asked. i'll try to answer the first piece, which is when i look across the jay under secretary yat, we have the law enforcement, as well as the population migration and refugees office i mean really span the spectrum. to me, they're all a piece. to me one of the biggest and most profound differences that i think the state department can make is in bringing together the harder security pieces with the

softer security pieces, and blending them in areas that need attention. so that we are focusing on for example, building up a legal regime that protects human rights, while we're training police to do is same. while we're ensuring there is a justice system that can reach verdicts and make people feel as if there is justice that will come at the end of the day, while we're working to make sure refugees are accepted in an area. in other words, the integration of the tools that we use, so there is a more comprehensive approach to what governance means, that's where the money has been made. it's part of the reason why -- and i look to nancy in the audience -- it is their life blood. state can't do it all alone. we have certain pieces the ct piece and the reform piece that complement things that aid does.

what does it mean to create an environment where rights are respected and atrocities prevented? it relates to a broader sense of interventions that i think we at state can do more to foster both intrastate and par ner shiptnership with aid. i was in the horn of africa -- this relates to the second answer. i was just in the horn of africa looking at how we might re re-envision our interventions there from a preventing violent extremism angle. for me, it's all connected. preventing terrorism and atrocities building respect for rule of law protecting human rights, it's all integrated. yet, our bureaucracy by definition has expertise that comes in the form of silos that have separate funding streams and committees that authorize them and provide them. you can't get away from the how when you think about the what we should be doing by way of

effective foreign policy. so for me within state, integration is something i'm looking for. greater consolidation of effort with aid and post and regional bureaus. in terms of foundations, we've recently -- the white house had a summit on countering violent extremism last month. secretary kerry hosted a day at the state department that was unique. first of all, it was one of the first, if not the first, major event, some 65 countries and u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon. it also included civil society and the private sector. so the conversation was very different as a result. the real focus on this summit was the prevention of violent extremism, rather than the

military intelligence reaction. the reality is if you look at all of our investments and, in many ways, successes in addressing terrorist networks, they have continued to spread. part of the challenge for the international community in the years ahead is to get ahead of the curve and think preventively. thinking at the outer edge of the epicenters of terrorist activity, and doing more to create resilient communities and good governance that together reinforce the ability of young people of any target of extremist ideology to resist it and to resist the likelihood those communities will align themselves tactically withter torre ak -- terror actors. violence on extremism, one of the take aways is this set of interventions that are very community focused locally

driven, very -- they're fundamentally about people and their relationships to their future and their governments, really requires all hands on deck. to include foundations. to include the private sector. i think we have now -- the president laid out a challenge through -- in september the u.n. general committee, we'll get the actors and ask them to create inroads and work on agreed objectives until september. we are working now to try and find foundation and private sector support partners in the work. because so many of the countries that have stepped forward and said, i want to host a regional summit but don't know how to bring civil society in or can't afford this or that they want partnerships from all manner of non-governmental actors. i think the beauty of the

prevention as it pertains to violent extremism, is it's relatively -- it's mappable in a way that is, i think conducive to partnerships. i think when we're talking about mass atrocities so often we are -- it's harder to find the right partners with whom to say have a foundation, work with in the early stages of an election. there's absolutely no reason why we can't evolve to do that. what i have not heard is foundations seeing that as their role. i think they see themselves as more likely to fund advocacy groups and direct service than they do to solve the more political, for lack of a better word, kinds of initiatives that are really necessary to prevent the violence we then look at and try to repair with civil society organizations. so in all of these prevention cases, there is the potential

for a concern about being politicized. to deter people from doing the very things that they do demand need to be done. yet, it's very clear to me whether you're talking about countering violent extremism or preelection violence, that those kinds of locally based solutions, many of the same tools sort of apply. there are local organizations that can do that work if they are properly supported. that's a very long winded way of saying there is a role. i do think that we tend to -- because it doesn't seem to be sort of a pure humanitarian kind of engagement -- i think sometimes there is a shyness about other actors engaging. from my vantage point it's precisely where it's most needed. anything you can do to encourage interest in that regard would be greatly appreciated. >> i'm afraid that'll be the last question for this evening. secretary sewall thank you so much for joining us here tonight. it was a really exceptional

discussion. i know i've learned a lot. i'm sure everyone else did as well. [ applause ] live programs coming up here today on c-span3. join us for a hearing on whistle blowers, who uncovered problems with the veterans affairs department. lawmakers will hear from employ employees who claim to have suffered retribution for reporting problems within the agency. again, watch that live 4:00 eastern time right here on c-span3. another republican is set to join the race for the white house in 2016.

florida senator marco rubio expected to announce his candidacy later in miami. we'll have live coverage starting at 5:45 eastern on c-span. looking further into the week, we'll be live tomorrow with a hearing on immigration issues, with the head of immigration and customs enforcement, testifying before the house judiciary committee. watch that starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span3. also bob corker would like congress to review iranian nuclear deal. he's introduced a bill that would make it a reality. working on it with his fellow committee members tomorrow at 2:15 p.m. eastern. you can watch it live on c-span3. >> tonight on the communicators spectrum policy director for alliance, science and technology, karl nebbia, on the important of spectrum for the government and public. >> last two administrations

wrote memorandum on spectrum. when i first started back in 1979, i came out of the marine core after being an artillery officer. i didn't know anything about spectrum. most people i met, and even those i worked with didn't understand much about spectrum. nowadays, everybody realizes the part of our daily lives. our devices completely rely on it. our ability to communicate and often do our jobs or stay in touch with our family. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> former maryland democratic governor spoke in new hampshire last month. co-hosted by the new england council and the new hampshire institute of polpolitics. there was a meet and greet with guests before speaking with reporters. this is about 1 hour and 10 minutes.

>> one more and then you can sit down. you can have them sit down if you want. >> thank you. >> i went to the university of maryland for law school. >> to liz. >> l-i-z, liz in.

>> l-i-z. nice to have you here. >> thanks. it's good to be with you all. >> congressman, how are you? >> that's right. he's a giant. sit. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thanks a lot. jim, thank you thank you very, very much and president desilva, thank you for having me. it's wonderful to be with you all here. are y'all a little tired of the snow by now? well, soon, i know. that in that right of spring that so many of you will be flocking to trains and to airports, to flood camden yards

with red sox fans and so spring is upon us. spring is upon us. and it's wonderful to be here with all of you. thank you so much for the, for the privilege to join you this morning and to talk with you and search with you for the next chapter of this great story that we have the ability to write together as americans. and it is the story of us. it's the story of you and me. it's the story of new hampshire and maryland and all of us as we look for a better way to move forward out of these rather polarized and divided times. i see some old friends here but i also see a whole lot of people i've never met before. so indulge me for a second. i'd like to share with you a little bit about myself and the family in which i was born and raised. my parents tom and barbara

o'malley were, were two great americans of that generation that tom brokaw's called the greatest generation. they, of course, would not take that title on themselves. but they were wonderful, great and loving people. my mom's people, although she had a strain that went all the way back to the american revolution, most of her people were immigrant people, they were germans who fled germany and came here to the land of opportunity. that land of opportunity that was known all around the world even then is that place where if you worked hard, you could get ahead, you could give your children a better future. my dad's people god bless his soul were sadly all irish. i'm a bit of a mix. but dad's people, god bless them, they were all irish. and they came here from golway

and often greeted with signs in shops and windows that read no irish need apply. he never forgot that and neither would i. my dad was able to go to college but only after flying 33 missions. he went to college because of a generous, a compassionate and a farsighted nation that understood the more its people learned, the more its people will earn, and the better they will do at giving their children a future that's better. i was raised one of six kids. tom and barbara o'malley had six kids. deb was a solo practitioner. and they had six kids. at the time i was born in 1963 so some of you might relate. at the time six children and an irish catholic family was considered merely a mid-sized irish catholic family. some of our fellow parishioners at our lady of lords thought we

might be lutheran spies. only -- [ laughter ] only six children. but we were raised in a household, and i say this directly to the young people who are here. the students. who i had the chance to meet. i was lucky. i was raised in a household where my parents taught all of us that public service was a noble service. and that voting is a sacred duty. and that we have the ability together to make our own future as a nation and that the only thing wrong with politics is not enough good people bother to try or bother to get involved. we were also taught a few other things. we were taught to love mercy to do justice and walk humbly with our god. realizing that in our nation, where our diversity is our greatest strength that there are certain core beliefs that unite

all of us. a belief in the dignity of every individual, a belief in our own responsibility to advance the common good, and an understanding that we're all in this together and that really we need each other if we're going to succeed. these were the people that i came from. and they are the people who made me. you know, after college, i went to baltimore land of the free home of the brave went there for law school. and all of us, all of us have a connection to baltimore, right? every time we go to a baseball game or any other function we sing the star-spangled banner. we celebrated our 200th anniversary just last year. terrific celebration. and that star-spangled banner was actually inspiring story. many of us don't know the story as well as we know the song. but the american dream in 1814

was actually hanging by a thread. washington had been burned to the ground. we could see the glow of the fires of washington. from baltimore. and the british general at the time. while standing in the midst of the ashes of washington where they burned our public buildings. the british general said i'm going to march on baltimore, i'm going to dine there because even then, we had great restaurants in baltimore. and then i am going to burn baltimore to the ground. we knew they were coming now for us. and imagine the sort of feelings that swept through our town then. anger, fear disbelief confidence totally shattered. trust gone.

and yet at these defining moments in our history when it seems that our future and the future of the american dream is hanging by a thread, that final thread that holds us just could be the strongest. 50% of us were immigrants, 1 out of 5 of us were black citizens still as yet very imperfect country. and yet we manage to transform our grief and our loss and our fear. instead of digging graves we dug trenches and built ramparts by the sea. and we faced down the most powerful shock and awe force on the planet in its day. as you sing that song today, remember this that the threads that sewed those stars and stripes together then were actually sewn together by black and white hands. men's and women's hands, hands of freedom hands of bondage and the thread that held them together then is the same thread

that holds us together now. and it is the thread of human dignity. dignity of neighbor helping neighbor. the dignity of home, of place, the dignity of work. fast forward in 1999, after i had served two terms on the baltimore city council, there was a different sort of battle taking place on the streets of baltimore. and this time, we were losing. we had allowed our city to become the most violent, the most addicted and the most abandoned city in america. and against that backdrop i decided to try. i ran for mayor we proclaimed from a -- from a notorious drug corner that there is more that unites us than divides us, and that the forces of hope and despair can no longer co-exist on the corners of our street. and so, we ran a campaign about

justice and a campaign about injustice and a campaign that proclaimed most importantly that in our city, there is no such thing as a spare american. that we're all in this together. we saw trash in our streets and we cleaned it up. we saw open air drug markets and we began to relentlessly close them down, doing the things that work, bringing forward a new way of governing with openness transparency and performance management that was able to make our government work again. and guess what, when the people of baltimore saw that the government was working, they rallied, too. and baltimore went on to achieve the biggest reduction in part one crime of any major city in america over the next ten years. with the american dream hanging by a thread we push back, and that dream lives in baltimore once again. we sometimes have short memories as americans. don't we?

but none of us will soon forget what we have gone through over these last seven years in this recession. huh? it seemed like our entire economy was hanging by a thread. and yet, instead of giving up, we push back we came together, we elected a new president to make tough choices and not a single one of them was popular. but they were necessary for our common good for our national interests. and we have battled back. and as we've battled back, every state had a decision to make. in our state we cast aside the failed, worn out trickled down, exclusive economic policies of our past that drove us in to that recession. and instead we embrace the economics and the politics of inclusion. instead of doing less, we did more to educate our children at higher and better