live house coverage here on c- span. the senate, you can see on c- span2. this week on "the communicators ," on mine safety and the cable industry in europe. with the maryland attorney general and cable europe president. that is tonight on c-span2. last year, president obama created a commission providing policy advice on by zero ethical issues. .

>> i would like to introduce diane as our designated federal officer. that makes this meeting legal. good morning. i am amy gutmann, chair of the presidenal commission on the study of bioethical issues. our co-chaired jim wagner will introduce the first session. we are now starting the second day of our meeting on synthetic biology. yesterday, we heard from some of the leading experts in synthetic biology. we received a very clear overview of the science. we learned about the likely future applications and benefits. we heard about some of the potential risks and other ethical concerns.

let me fantasize that this is the first of three meetings on this topic. rome -- let me emphasize that this is the first three meetings on this topic. we a planned this one to be an overview. we will take a deeper dive in september at our next meeting. it is also open to the public, september 13 and 14. the november meeting will be at emory university in atlanta. today we will continue to look at the ethical implications of this technology as well as the issues related to federal oversight and regulation. the president of emory university and vice chair of the commission will introduce the first panel. >> good morning to everyone. thank you all for being here.

i am excited to get the second to go in and hope it will be marked -- going and hope it will be marked with the same level of discussion we enjoyed yesterday. this morning, the first session is on ethics. we ended with the session on ethics and yesterday. we will start today's panel hearing from david who directs the woodrow wilson center for science and technology innovation, the innovation program as well as the synthetic biology project. before he joined the wilson center, he worked for the white house office of science and technology on a variety of technology related issues. welcome this morning. we look forward to your comments. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i would like to think the commission and staff. they have done a great job of supporting everyone involved.

i have some slides i will go through. let me start by saying that we have devoted about six years of our time on my project trying to bring the voice of the public into the conversation about science policy on emerging technologies. we started with nanotechnology. we have continued with that. we have now added synthetic biology. in terms of how we do it, it is easy. we go out and talk to them. we have intensive and structured discussions around the country. we have them focus groups in spokane, washington, dallas, texas, cleveland, baltimore. every year, we do an annual survey. we will be doing a new one in august on synthetic biology. we will be asking questions about what happens if we produce the influenza vaccine next year with synthetic biology. it might be interesting to be

public input on that question. we also partner with other groups doing similar research. we also do some work and media. let me give you a sense of what we found out. the big question is, what is this? we have been grappling with this for two days. these are the figures from 2008 and 2009. they have increased somewhat. at this point time, 80% of the american public has heard little or nothing about synthetic biology. who they hear it from, what the message is, and how they hear it could have a huge impact on the future to directories of the technology and our ability to use it. we're in this interesting space right now where people do not know much. this is a complex word. it tends to elicit a lot of concerns as soon as people. . it is very different from nanotechnology.

-- it tends to elicit a lot of concern is in as people hear about it. it is very different from nanotechnology. people ask of synthetic biology is like artificial life cannot stem cells, gm oo's. within a few seconds, you have practically every third real you might hit. cloning is the image that i think. i think about molecular compounds and playing god. this is the public speaking. this is how you are starting off. to get around this, we have tried to focus people on applications. we go right to the applications. last year, we did a lot of work on biofuels. that seems to be coming down the track quickly. the reactions to biofuels and

the use of synthetic organism in the engineering of medical pathways is one of conditional optimism. they think is good but -- it is the buts the interesting. people say it sounds interesting, but they are concerned about creating something we cannot control. here is another one. once you start doing this, you open a pandora's box and they start doing things i do not approve of. where are the boundaries? you find about a 30/30 split. people have concerns about the leakage into by a weapons -- bio-weapons, concerns about artificial life. this could move into horizontal gene transfer. last year, it seemed almost inevitable that someone would create some form of synthetic life. we were not sure who would do it

or when it would happen. we played with that question. almost 100% of the people said the work should be done to inform the public about the research. you have a fairly strong mandate. the federal government should regulate this research, people said that. i am worried about this, that was from over half. i am excited about it, less than half. this tracks what is going on in europe. this is a recent statement from "nature" magazine. without public support in europe, there will be no artificial life. it needs regulation. i think there is a large convert to public dialogue -- there is a huge hunger for this in public dialogue. people have to trust people doing the technology.

for the past three years, we attract trust in agencies to see where the government agencies are oscillating in the 50% to 60% range. it is a broad question about whether they trust the agencies to maximize benefits and minimize risks. that is what the commission is about. we added the doe last year because of biofuels. the issue of who wins in the global race with synthetic biology will have a lot to do with how much social capital you have on your side. there are huge variations. there is much more trust in government and corporations in china than in the u.s. right now. the trust issue is lurking in the background. is something we will look at it again this year. -- it is something we will look at again this year. we will be doing this in august with synthetic biology. we found no public support for a moratorium on research.

the question always comes up about shutting the system down. we did find public support for self-regulation by industry. the idea that the industry will look after itself and everything will be fine, there's not much public belief that will happen. when we asked people specifically about building confidence, 80% of the responses converge around three answers. they want greater transparency and disclosure about the science. they want free market testing. there is a fear that we're taking technologies and pushing them into the market without doing diligence. the government is not doing it. the corporations are not doing it. they also like the idea of third-party testing. they bring up examples like consumers union corporation underwriters lab, people above the fray like the national academy of sciences. having industry do the testing will probably not work here.

we asked where people were getting these ideas. they are not reading. -reviewed literature -- they are not reading. -- they are not reading peer- review literature for the most part. this is science on the top and media on the bottom. if you think this is an exaggeration, this is what came out a few weeks ago. this is from the veterinary institute of research. this is an analysis on headlines in major press outlets in the u.s. the size of the words represent the frequency of use. a lot of people just skim headlines anyway. this is what they got out of that. "craig creates synthetic life." [laughter] if you think this is an american

phenomenon, we looked at the u.s., the u.k., and germany. that was the u.s. it is about synthetic light. this is the u.k. it is about synthetic life. this is germany for artificial life and craig bentner. this is working constantly. i will come back to this later about whether this is problematic and how to fix it. there are different ways of covering it in the u.s. and european union. this is work that my colleague has done. we looked at the press for five years. this is the u.s. press. we tend to be bullish on benefits. this is the same pattern we have with nanotechnology and gmo's.

most talk about the benefits. you talk about the risks. the european press is a bit more balanced. it is surprising when you break into issues. these of the issues that appeared in the american press. synthetic biology has largely been framed as a biosecurity issue here in the u.s. this is europe. biosecurity falls behind biosafety. there's a lot of discussion about the ethics and business issues of who owns this. it is much more balanced coverage. you can imagine a divergence in public opinion and public policy between the two countries. in the end, science has little impact on public perceptions. culture does. david foster wallace made the comment that humans are narrative animals. that is how we understand

science. the public concerns usually forms around threats rather than benefits. one of my favorite comments was from the 1950's with captain marvel. the narrative was the u.s. government was not paying attention to atomic energy. it falls into the hands of evildoers. these are deep narrative is. their powerful because science is presented in the context of society. it is a story. they were storytellers. we have gone back and thought about the focus groups. there are a bunch of americans that are powerful that come up again and again. i will give you three. dr. strange love, the corruption of scientists. this was in spider-man ii. if you have teenagers, they probably watched "agent cody

banks." there's also a video game called bioshock. the trojan horse is a very powerful. we accept the technologies into society. we learn later it was probably a mistake. ddt, vioxx. there is another video game called nano record that is another one. "oops!" is a book about the release of nanotechnology. there's also the michael crichton book about it. then there is also "splice" about combining human and animal dna. people learn from these

narratives long before they will pick up of biology. there is incredibly pervasive and powerful. -- people learn from these narratives long before they will pick up a book of biology. they are incredibly pervasive and powerful. we have 11 or 12 definitions on of website. let me make the comment that the science industry or government had no communication strategy about this at all. we're mumbling in real time. it is wrong to blame the media. the media has problems. the scientific community has enormous problems and being able to communicate what this is. conversely, we have not told them what it is not. we had a discussion yesterday about whether this was cloning. we never reached a conclusion.

it is open space for imaginations to operate. they will operate in it. the other thing is whether it is a big deal. who knows? if you look at the responses to the research, some say it has been overplayed. is this a big deal? we have any way of knowing? how would we communicate that? how it impacts individuals in society, we went through that yesterday. thomas o. weaken us to the larger impact we have to think about. -- thomas a weekenwakened us toe larger impact we have to think about. the public will ask our questions to as developing it, who wins and loses, and looking google -- and what can go wrong.

those are nagging questions for which we do not always have answers. i am voice impressed about how intelligent people are about this. the constantly ask what can go wrong. -- i am always impressed about how intelligent people are about this. they constantly ask what can go wrong. they want to know who to call. the other question coming up because of the gulf of mexico is whether we can fix it. obama's daughter has been asking if he can plug the hole. we have heard about handicapping and guaranteeing it will not fail. the public will ask questions like that. we need to be prepared with the answers. here are some final thoughts. i think it makes sense to launch the bigger a national dialogue on synthetic biology. this is the one u.k. adjusted.

-- this the one that the u.k. just did. it ran for 89 months. we may be able to build on the lessons they learned. there is a need to set up a visible coordinating office and body in the u.s. government. we have something called the national nanotechnology coordinating office. it did a lot of outreach and in- reach. there is a place to go to. it is not clear where you go here. this will happen soon. a predict within one year, someone in congress will ask the general accountability office to examine the adequacy of our regulatory system to address synthetic biology. the should. the gao would provide an independent assessment. they have moved into technology assessment. we need to do this sooner rather than later. this was preempted because someone actually suggested this of the national academy of

sciences to undertake a new study of environmental impacts. the last time with it biotas containment was 2004. the chapter on synthetic organisms is weak. there were very focused on animals and plants. it is time to take a hard look at this. people shave to start looking at extremely low probability but high impact events at the beginning of the nuclear age, the rand corporation said we need to think the unthinkable and think about things that could be gained changers that we are not thinking about. it is time to engage in greater international cooperation, not just around biosecurity, but around issues like risk research, intellectual property issues, and the one that is coming up again and again. that is the biosafety issues.

those are my comments. all the things i have referred to are on our website. the work we do is funded by the sloan foundation. >> thank you very much. we will get to q&a later. our next speaker is markus schmidt from the organization for international dialogue and conflict management in vienna, austria. his connected experiments -- he has conducted experiments the topic. >> thank you for inviting me. i think it shows the commitment to have the discussion on synthetic biology on the international level. i will not try to hide my lovely austrian accent throughout the

presentation. [laughter] you have asked me to give an overview on what is going on in europe this biology. i will do my best to do this. i will try to give you an idea of what we think falls under the umbrella term of synthetic biology rather than give a definition to see what is going on. i will tell a little bit about the role of your compared to the u.s., a bit about the funding a kind of recommendations they are giving, and give some examples of other projects in europe. [inaudible] we have heard something about different definitions and what it is and is not. it took me a long time. i have been looking at synthetic

biology for five years to grasp that. i think you can make out five different sub fields under the umbrella of synthetic biology. the first is dna synthesis. you could say it is like a good and bad of biology. it may be a step ahead. if they can create life, it is like asking who created the bible. gutenberg was a printer. he was not shakespeare or voltaire. the second one is by no- circuits. bio circuits.

the third one is minimal genome. the first three types you could say our life as we know it. they're using similar principles of natural organisms the next two attempts to make life as we do not know it. researchers are trying to make cells from scratch, from basic inanimate chemicals, putting them together so that at one point in the future it will have all of the characteristics of life. i think this is the category or you can say they're trying to make real synthetic life and cells. the last one of the attempts to diversify life. you could have dna with more

rose. these would be very different from natural organisms. there would be of biological far wall as a safety system. comparing europe to the u.s., there are many ways to do that. i went to the web site and found that the u.s. is ahead in terms of publications were receiving funding for the work, but europe is setup to the united states. together we make about 90% of the volume capacity in the world. europe is very diverse. there's european funding initiative. there are also national initiatives that are different. there is spending in france. in austria, there are hardly any scientists working on it.

the best gcase benchmark in europe is the u.k. they are required to work together and collaborate. that is a good example for you. all of these publications and work in europe and drawn attention to the fact there may be bioethical issues. the first example here is the u.k. and what the council on bioethics has decided not to work on it through 2008. in contrast, many of the countries have decided. there are many different ethics councils in germany.

[unintelligible] at first, the ethics council said it was not relevant and did not want to work on it. then parliament said it might be relevant. switzerland has a council but what especially -- that looked especially at the non-physical harm part of synthetic biology. the dignity of my groups -- microbes and whether we can treat them as machines or whether they have different positions. they came to the conclusion that the majority of people have a hierarchical biocentric view

where they have dignity but it is not as much as other animals and we can use them in any way we want. they gave the green light for scientists. i have nothing to add to that. in atlanta, the co-chairman made a statement. i would like to say more about european commission details. european group and science and new technologies was asked organized recommendations and come up with an opinion paper. the published that in november of last year. the one recommendation may be that you want to look at their recommendations and see if there's something to use. biosafety is an important topic in europe, much more than biosecurity.

that is one major difference between the u.s. and europe. there are several points where we need to do risk assessment methods so that we can try to assess the risks of new synthetic biology tools and methods. otherwise, we will run into uncertainties. the idea of labeling products came out of synthetic biology. include the biosafety standards when doing import and export of synthetic products. it is also necessary to support public support for basic research. here is the timeline of different projects in europe. the color does not have any meaning. some are stand-alone projects.

others -- the tape. in order to map the different projects, your has a history of colonizing. we have this virtual world. here are five different areas of synthetic biology and different aspects and also going to try to map the different projects in this virtual world. most of their activities are going on in biosafety and ethics. most of them are going on in dna-based by circuits bio - biocircuits. i would like to present some of the projects i know best and have been part of. one was the first european project on synthetic biology. it was a pilot study to map

fields and see if there's anything new and safety and ethics. we wanted to see if things could be added to three different areas by kim and enhancement. we can do synthetic human chromosomes that can be used for gene therapy. it could be related to distribution and the bio- economy, the effect of synthetic biology globally. regarding biosafety, we have three questions or challenges. the first is that we need to find new methods for risk assessment to make sure that we can have some certainty about the risks of new products.

the second is the ways to improve synthetic biology and biosafety. i mentioned before the different dna with different chemicals. we would feed them with things that do not occur in nature and so forth. the third is what happens with professionals and amateurs who start using it. in addition to some publications and booa book, we thought it was important to create material for the general public to get them interested. we did a documentary film. i have brought copies for the commission. you can get more information on the website. starting from the more general assessment of risk and benefits, there is engineered

microbe built systems -- microbial systems. we look at specific applications where a synthetic biology could make contributions and try to find economic, environmental, and social impact. this will be published in september. it is a draft. if you want, i can send you the final version. in by a fuse, we're looking at a funnel -- in biofuels, we are looking at ethanol. we're evaluating different aspects. this is a way to move from a general assessment to more case by case assessment. another project we have done in austria is that we wanted to know more about public perception.

mrs. in light of a certain lack of knowledge about synthetic biology. we have more press articles in the last few years. it is similar in other countries. most of the people have heard about the term. it is similar in the united states. in september, a new major study will be released. every three years, the european commission is doing a massive opinion poll in europe. the total of 30,000 people in europe are asked about different aspects of biotechnology. we were able to slip in some questions on synthetic biology. i have seen the results but i cannot tell you yet. it will be published. it will be useful for you. there's a lack of knowledge and awareness. we're doing a real-time experiment with press releases and asking journalists to write articles. we are giving that to eight

focus groups consisting of different parts of the public. these are the eight groups. the scale is whether they would be positive, negative, or neutral. in the beginning, they are all neutral. they do not have an opinion on synthetic biology. it turns out that after they receive articles, we see that half of the groups did not change their opinion. they still did not seem involved a lot. two groups had a suddenly very negative opinion. to the groups, a suddenly positive opinion. the group on the left was an environmental ngo.

the other one was a christian. we had people from student chambers. it has the ability to polarize part of the public. with a silent mass of people who do not care a lot. people on the fringes find it interesting. in the communication process, the ethics of synthetic biology got lost. in the beginning, scientists or talked about why it was different from engineering and engineering principles. this got lost. it got lost in favor of a more publication focused information conveyed. it is important from the point of view of journalists. they want to write something relevant for people in the applications. they just talk about publications and method. people cannot understand the difference to put it together. we found that there are nuances

in the communication process that are lost. if synthetic biology is successful, imagination will be the limit. if this is really the case, i think we should invite experts in imagination and not only engineers. we're inviting filmmakers and artists to give us their vision of what synthetic biology could be and how it could change our society in the future. we're going to do a film festival in vienna. we're inviting people to send us short films. i think it will be very interesting festival. with that, unlike to think the commission for your time. -- with that, i would like to thank the commission for your time. >> that is very interesting on european challenges of dialogue. our final speaker this morning

is dr. paul wolpe, director of the center for ethics emory. he sits on the editorial board of more than one dozen professional journals. he is the past president of the american society for bioethics and humanities. his work focuses primarily on the social, religious, and the ideological impact of technology on the human condition. i am delighted to welcome you here. we look forward to what you have to say. >> it is a great pleasure to be here. and the sociologists, social scientist. a typically for me, i will not be using slides. we will see if i can actually talk without a power point presentation. i was pleased of the depth of the ethical concerns expressed yesterday. it freed me up to talk about

some less often considered and perhaps more detailed -- deeper ethical concerns that i have. they are much more difficult to know how to address. my assignment today was to talk about religious perspectives. i spent a few weeks reading the literature. i spoke to people from a variety of faith traditions from buddhism with the wonderful tibet program we have at emory. i spoke with people from judaism, christianity, hinduism. i discovered there is remarkable agreement about it. at this point, they are unconcerned. the fundamental objections and concerns with those of all of us in the room about the potential harms, what might happen if

these are released into the environment. they expressed a concern that it keep its eye on maximizing human good and reducing human suffering. if it does that, it is acceptable. that was shown in the vatican response to synbio where they said that the recent creation of cells can be a positive development of correctly used. there was a warning that scientists afterwards guest-- te was a warning afterwards that scientists should remember that only god can create life. we looked at the traditions. we focus often too much on them to sanction what science is doing. i do not think that is the right question should be asking of

religious traditions. it is not where they can make the greatest contributions and telling us what we should or should not do. a think that modern science is simply the newest means of trying to struggle with the eternal questions about how to minimize human suffering, a proper relationship to the natural world, important problems we as a species must solve, and so on. religious traditions of had centuries to think about these questions. the smartest people of their age throughout most of human history drifted into religious dialogue. those traditions hold the promise that we can draw from. we know the role of science is generating knowledge. what i think is the most valuable role of religious traditions and what we should ask of them is how to generate wisdom. that is a different quality from knowledge alone. i want to talk about the wisdom we might glean.

is are not the points that are made specifically by religious spokesmen or from specific traditions. they come as a generalized religious sensibility, ' asks what our positions might be if we start from the premise that there's something sacred about our lives, even if you define the word "sacred" in the most secular sense. the sensibility is shared by people of faith and of those with no particular faith. it begins with the premise that life is rare and precious, that our biosphere is fragile and valuable, and we have evolved to be the estimates of the climate. -- to be the stewards of the climate. i do not think wisdom is an

exclusive domain of religion. we find it an art, literature, and science. if you look at the impact of science on religion over the last 100 years or more, we see as profound an impact going in that direction as we do on the impact of religion and science. i am interested in the dialogue between science and religion and how they can mutually inform each other. that is a dialogue of longer duration and greater productivity and is generally appreciated. i want to give four examples of what i think of as ethical issues that are difficult and perhaps intractable. they may reflect the generalized sense that i am referring to. first is the idea that human beings are co-created by technology. we think of ourselves as creators of technology that we

send in to the world. we pay far less attention to the ways that the technologies we create then reciprocally recreate humans and society. the plow shape society -- shaped society. the automobiles made suburban life possible and moved industry out of the cities. it ended the era when people have to keep animals for transportation and thus the strangeness from the natural world even more. we do not mention how computers have fundamentally changed us. it is not just on the economic and. parents are unable to figure out how to communicate with their children these days. the difference system of communication and parents do.

-- they have a different system of communication than parents do. powerful technologies can change show -- social relationships and change how we think about problems. new technologies called for new problems that call for new technologies. those create new challenges that we address with new technologies. that is why we always seem to have to much and not enough technology of the same time. how will the world of synbio changes? i do not have any idea, perhaps no one does. life may be redefined by the biomedical nature. it may change our perception to emphasize idiosyncracies. perhaps it will be the final step in the modification of

living things were all biological forms will be fought primarily of in terms of their utility. i do not know. it is too early to tell. it is premature for the commission to speculate on. i think we all agree that looking at technology in isolation from economics, social, and political implications of future development is to fail to fulfill the deeper meaning of the president's charge to explore the implications of the field. the second issue is speed. this is the point that is often overlooked in talking about technological change. speed itself is an ethical issue. we live in a society that presents it as a value. taking longer time is seen as less desirable, as wasting time. doing something faster is doing something better. synthetic biology and genetic engineering have dramatically

collapsed a time horizon of evolutionary changes. speed is a problematic value. selective breeding is limited, difficult, and time consuming. in that sense, a genetic technologies are an improvement. because it plays out over a long time, it allows for reflection and self correction. change happens slowly. that offers a large range of choices that new in -- at each increment. this collapses it into one single step. it may take many generations to understand the impact of even one gene change on the integrity of the organism. some transfers may have consequences that differ from selective breeding. speed has an impact on our deliberations. one in the way that it speeds up

natural processes and second in the explosive development and dissemination of the technologies and methodologies. how do we think about and understand the ethical implications of speed? the third is incrementalism. it is a difficult dilemma. we can follow a path for every step is examined individually and down to be ethical. yet 100 steps, we find ourselves in a place where no one wants to be. the idea is also captured by the fact that most research findings advance our knowledge incrementally. we see the entire process as transformative. one of the reasons for religious systems is to guard against incrementalism in what is seen

in these religious traditions as the pernicious potential to drift slowly away from what each tradition sees as the right path. i think it is actually a kind of incrementalism that people are trying to combat when they resist change or nanotechnology. it may underlie the playing god objection to some degree. i am not sure it addresses the incremental list question -- incrementalist question. is there some point where the changes have crossed some line, though the line is obscured by the fact that this is not much

advanced from the step before? it presents a real policy challenge. how can i say that a, b, and c are ok but d is not because i see h down the line. how do you create a policy that captures the subtlety of incrementalism? perhaps he should address it in a possibly by creeping goals and incentives rather than trying to stop tanks. t fourth -- perhaps we should address by creating goals and incentives rather than trying to stop things. a fetish is defined as any object or idea eliciting unquestioned reverence, respect, or devotion. i got that out of the dictionary. i think that characterizes the

general cultural posture of many people and scientists towards scientific process -- progress. humans have a lot to say. the european ecumenical commission said the we are taught to be skeptical of some progress. our support for scientific research is moderated by our awareness of human finiteness and fallibility. modern biological technology has a history of failed hyperbole with the predictions of gene technology to solving energy problems in virtually everything else. while some cautions are easy to dismiss, their questions about

scientific utopianism and underlying assumptions of advocacy. it might be instructive to conclude as the previous speakers did by drawing from two narrative details -- tales. there are two stories in addition to dr. strangelove and the other things that they were saying that have become apparent in this matter. the first is the tale of frankenstein. it is the product of a christian militia -- millieui. the idea of playing god is a christian idea. it does not really exist in judaism, hinduism, islam, or buddhism. all of those are much more

hysterically --historically predisposed to science than most strains of christianity. the story of frankenstein is a scientific one. anyone with the right technological knowledge can manipulate and create life. some may remember "young frankenstein" with a book called "how i did it." dr. frankenstein transgressors. he is condemned. the monster is a monster and a freak. the golem is different. it is greeted by a rabbi to protect his people. the talmud except the idea of creating life. there are stories of rabbis

creating goats and other forms of life. is considered a natural part of creation with god. frankenstein was greeted by putting together biological parts. the golem is a synthetic creation. it has letters of code written on his forehead and he is alive. victor frankenstein is portrayed as a driven man, arrogant, displays examples of personal cowardice. his temper is violent and his passions are strong. when the monster disappears from his house, he is relieved instead of taking responsibility. in contrast, only the most righteous can create a golem or life. the rabbi in relates god and sees it as his responsibility to

emulate godly qualities. -- the rabbi emulates god and sees it is his responsibility to emulate the of the qualities. finally, the second and last point i want to make about these stories is that dr. frankenstein loses control of his namesake. there is no safety mechanism built into the monster. ultimately, he must pursue his creation. he dies trying unsuccessfully to and the life of the monster. the golem always remains under the control of his creator. the rabbi builds a safety valve. when he gets out of control, he simply has to remove one letter from his forehead and he turns back into play. -- clay.

to the commission, i have tried to highlight three or four difficult issues. the challenge of the commission is to take the extraordinary knowledge presented to us and temper it with wisdom. thank you. >> we already have questions from the commission. >> i will wait for my question and go right to the commission. i will ask my leader. -- i will ask mine later. >> i want to reassure you it is perfectly ok not to use power point. i believe power point is the spawn of satan. [laughter] i actually applaud you for not using it. >> the commission will not take a position -- [laughter]

>> but i will be working on you all. i want to begin with this reflection on the absence of trust with regard to these sorts of scientific developments. i think he is correct in that this is the social environment in which we are working. it is an environment marked by an absence of trust. we see this all around us with regard to bp, climategate, and so on. there's a high degree of suspicion for major institutions. the church, science, business, government, everything. in this kind of environment, i think you are right that some kind of public outreach and

engagement will be crucial. i have read your excellent article in "the reader." it does talk about the importance of engagement with the public. i think we need to probe that deeper to get the rationale for doing so. one rationale could simply be to sort of work on the public's, massage the public to make the world safe for scientific development. another way of thinking about it which i think is much more plausible and philosophically appropriate is to view public engagement as a way to obtain public legitimacy. if the public sees itself as having a role in the formulation of public policy, that bestows a

certain amount of legitimacy on the project. we have anecdotes right now. we have a couple of case studies. one of my favorites is the program in the state of oregon. public officials in oregon reached out to the public and engaged them in a prolonged discussion. it turns out that in the state of oregon, people can read the state can ration health care in a rational, transparent, and effective way to gain public acceptance. i am wondering what you think about the prospects of this kind of public engagement in the area of synthetic biology. is there any evidence that this kind of engagement will indeed in gender -- engender increased

legitimacy? is it just a theoretical notion that involves a lot of hand waving? >> i think there's always a certain amount of skepticism and fear of doing this. the scientific community is often used as an efficiency model. the public does not get it and if they got it, they would get on board. instead, the public is asking a different set of questions. if you wait too long, it appears disingenuous. . .

there is a timing issue. i think he if you are really serious about this, it needs to be done fairly soon. the report we just put out on practices -- for does betray technology says there are ways of doing this that are well tested. we have done 16 of these types of exercises in the united states alone. they are used for the widely in europe. this is just a matter of getting a representative sample. one of the things i am sure you will be asked is if the people you're talking to rep. that is a statistical and a

methodology go -- and a methodological questions. there is a process run monitoring. it brought in a wide range of people from the public, a representative sample to talk about monitoring. it was a visit -- it was visited by the head of the national panel during an investigation on by a monitoring -- on biomonitoring. he was done on the level of information by the and not -- on informed public. you actually have to tell them what is going on. they came up with new ideas. it goes beyond legitimacy. people can generate new ideas for policy, things you have not talked about. i do not think it is just educating, this dumping of knowledge. and is not just trying to get legitimacy by having a dialogue. and is also the fact that people are smart.

they get this stuff. that is why when we did public focus groups, we have found a lot of public policy ideas and people come back. what do you think about labeling? what do you think about a moratorium? what that -- what should the fda do to build your trust? for me, i come from a policy role. i think the use of these as ways of forming public policy is actually very, very critical. i would push you to go beyond legitimacy. you should say, "well, how should live -- how could i learn something from a representative sample of these people"? >> i have two questions. first want to thank you for your specific recommendations. i felt they were incredibly helpful and i think your study is incredibly and lightning. my questions are directed to dr. wolpe. i was quite surprised when you

said there was no religious perspective or difference to at least, within the religious community. i wonder if that was a representative paul -- a representative population that you spoke to. i expect there would be some differences particularly on the questions of life, dualistic verses materialistic concerns about the creation of life. i wondered if the question of awareness, the degree to which synthetic biology is being included in the larger umbrella, and whether or not you think there may be concerns that would be developed to. the second question, your answer to incrementalism and to the rate of change was that we should create goals and incentives to keep in mind as a way to direct us. i wonder if the house -- if you have specific ideas and how they could address the shifted -- address a shift in the rate of change. >> i was not trying to say there are not religious objections to

synthetic biology. there are some groups that object to virtually the entire modern scientific enterprise. i spoke to almost the official or leaders about what their religious doctrine say about this specific cell. at this point, the actual act of creating a synthetic genome and inserting it into a cell that replicates is not one that we have any particular ideological or ideological objection to. i asked a very narrow question. >> it would not about said that in biology generally? >> right. and so far the conversation went on, as it invariably did, to where there problems light -- their problems lie. they were in the more intrinsic issue of hubris or limits of

human intervention, humility, issues like that. i think part of the reason for that is that synthetic biology is akin to enterprise. like us, nobody really knows the implications so there is a "let's wait and see" attitude. at said christian religions, they tend see the use of other forms of life to better human life as a legitimate enterprise within certain limits. creation of synthetic biology products that would cure disease or help with the things like mitigating pollution are seen as legitimate scientific goals. the issue of incrementalism, the reason i suggest positive incentives rather than regulatory limits is because nobody knows, and i do not know, where to put regulatory limits. and always seems arbitrary.

therefore, in some sense it is a very practical difficulty that leads me to suggest the positive incentives are a better policy strategy. at this point, i think it is premature to suggest where the proper goals of synthetic biology are. it is exactly what we do in medicine, of course. we create the nih it is the story of public funds and looks at all the possible places they could invest and then make valued decisions about what kinds of medical products, goals, cures, prevention's are in the best public interest. and incentivizes the system to try and move in those directions. that is what nsf as well as all of the private funding and public funding agencies do. it is such a problem, incrementalism, that that is a better strategy even though i do not have a specific

recommendation at this point about what specific goals of the incentive program should have. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask dr. rejeski be a little more granular about how you would organize the lack of communication plans certainly in this country compare to dr. schmidt's proposal, it was a stark contrast. how would you suggest based on your comments of yesterday that you want more government agencies to "be in the room and part of the process," and yet when you went for your five specific organization to suggested a coordinating body or office. where, in your view, should that be? what would you recommend for its composition outside the u.s. government agencies? how would you interdigitate the

approach you did mention that the very end? dr. schmidt showed with great granular the. how would you bring in an advisory process of this would not be a deliberative process that would seem to be in the hands of just policy or technologically wonky people? >> the last thing is obviously a big danger. i think logically it should be at the white house level. it could be done at the national science and technology council, the national mena to a coordinating office which was set up as a court in body the reported up through the white house. -- the national nanotech coordinating office was set up. i think they were consistently underfunded. you may have to figure out a way to levy taxes on agencies to make sure there were be enough money.

one of the tasks the office was given was to have to have a national dialogue on nanotechnology. there was never really enough money there. if you do this, you need to come up with some way of making sure there is enough of funding going to the coordinating function of the agencies to be able to pony up money to make it happen. in terms of advisory bodies, you'll run into issues in terms of the federal advisory act. it might be worth going to the process to actually set up a account that would bring in a wide swathes of the population and communities to a certain degree. but the other option, there was nothing that could stop them from going on the road. when i was in the white house, we did work on environmental strategy and had 25 meetings around the country. these of the kind of things you are doing, but they were focused on the specific technology and

science. . we ended up also with a white house conference which is another thing. we attracted 1400 people. we're constantly bounce and ideas off. we're getting a lot of different feedback. one of the things that came out of that was exponential improvement in our strategy is because we were able to really interact with stakeholders. there are a bunch of different ways. you need white house support, where it belongs. if you have a coordinating body, you need enough money behind it to make it work. there has to be some leadership there. i would certainly recommend the use to put in funds. >> thank you, again. i think we were treated to three very different but very good presentations. my question will be for dr.

wolpe. there are two ways we can think about religious voices participating in public dialogues like the one this commission is conducting. one strategy is to only give publicly accessible reasons and the second is to allow people of religious communities to speak out of the fullness of their traditions. you seem to have allowed a broader sense of the second kind of participation in the dialogue like this. i was wondering what you think the actual -- if that is true, what the actual value is of allowing people to speak out of the thickness of their own traditions as part of a public debate about a contentious issue like this one? >> welcome i think the problem with religious perspectives in a society that is supposed to have a state-religion split is that religious traditions do not

get to talk about why they really believe what they believe. if you get up in front of congress or a commission and you say, "i think this is wrong because the qaran tells me so," it is the end of the conversation. you need to translate these into universal principles if you want to be convincing about why you should take action. underlying the parochial reasons that religious groups think things are often very deep principles that can be universally expressed. i think in our society that is the greatest contribution and religious traditions because these are well thought out, centuries' old, much debated, very nuanced decisions. that is what i tried to do here rather than reiterating what i think are very easily accessible and commonly

discussed religious positions about technological issues. i was trying to get underneath the surface and ask what the font of the concern is from which religious conditions as bring? >> thank you, all three. this has been enormously insightful, informative, and i think it will help us moving forward. i really like the idea, if you would not mind, changing one word, "knowledge coupled with wisdom." we, as a commission, would like to issue a report that is informed by the facts, knowledge, and driven by values, wisdom to elevate it. i would like to ask any of you to share. we can stop -- we can start with

paul. what are the values that you see us having to deal with? what are the values that are most relevant to the issue of where synthetic biology is likely to go? what are the values we need to deal with as a presidential commission? i know this is a big question, but if you could give us one answer. >> my answer would be that even one single value is a balancing of the values problem. when i talk about the fetishes station of the scientific process, i would not trying to say that i am against the scientific process. i live my life in a scientific environment and celebrate medical advances. there are other values that need

to be brought in. your problem is not what is the value we should represent in our report that will be the value that synthetic biology needs, but rather how we've create a report, and i think temperance might be the right word, that takes these competing bodies and balances them in a way to make policy valuable. >> i should say that why i asked about values is because there was a famous philosopher who said that he is without fact r lehmann. facts without values are blind. -- who said that facts without values are blind. >> i would like to refer to the swiss commission. from that, different values, there were people that believe in the kind of group that every

group can be explained or reduced. there are other people who think there is something special in life, and x factor that cannot be controlled or engineered. they come from this monism concept. these two positions can get in the way in a way that is a direct tax on the idea that there is some specialists to life and this carries a lot of a value. and is always a position that is unfounded as the other one, but it is the way we view life. at this is attacked by synthetic biocryst this technology, it could trigger some strong reactions to that. -- synthetic biotechnology. >> one thing that would be useful in your berkshire --

report would be the celebration of plurality. we are a very plural, heterogeneous society. one of the things that is so striking is the huge difference. there is a huge difference between men and women. there's a huge difference between whites and people of color and how they do this. there are trust issues. i think could be phenomenal if the report could kind of reflect that. we have a plural society and we have gone out and look at that. we have dove deeply into all the different pockets of society. i think that is something that gave rise to, quite often, resistance, the environmental justice movement for instance. that is going to be the sense of how deep have we gone, how sensitive have we been to the plurality and the house energy and 80 -- the heterogeneity?

this is a basis that links values with facts. >> thank you. thank you to the panelists. i might ask david rejeski a question but also open it up to the other panelists. there are several unique capabilities of synthetic technology. one spoke of yesterday is the overlap in the issues between the new technology and other technologies, genetic engineering, stem cell by knowledge -- stem cell engineering. in terms of the public debate, and also the oversight from mark -- framework, are we better isolating synthetic biology or addressing these issues in the

larger context of the emerging biotechnologies? >> i will give you my opinion. i think there is a certain danger in creating different - ologies. 20 years ago the government -- whether it was conscious or unconscious, our goal was to basically build another in a revolution by gaining control of the matter in a banana scale. we started with nanotechnology which was focused on inorganic matter. now we have moved to organic matter. this is about precision control the matter. this idea of separating things, one of the ideas that was striking when you saw the slide was they mentioned a nanotechnology. there are people at mit that our re-engineering viruses to make batteries.

the and now people have been talking about self -- self- deprecating now -- nano. drew mention the idea to decouple things and address them back to the world of atoms. the national science foundation has talked about converging technologies, the nano and the bio. there is some value in thinking that these are all coming together now and asking the question, "how will the regulatory system work and will of the toxic substance control act work well with an cano and -- with nano and nano-biotech"? there is a tension there. it seems easier to break it down, but i do not think that is where we will end up in 20 years. i think we are already seeing a tremendous kind of convergence.

there are lessons to be learned, as we have talked about. >> let me ask the audience if there are any questions. >> wow, a large number of questions. widom i collect your questions and let them run through them? -- why do i not collect them? introduce yourself and we will turn the panelists loose on you, please. >> my question was for dr. schmidt. is there a need for international standards for synthetic biology and biotechnology as well? i am a student at dartmouth. >> welcome. glad to have the. >> i am at the aaaas. i have a pocket hobby of collecting policies. in terms of the winehouse

office, maybe this is related to the last question from the panel, is this so special that it really needs a special white house office dock -- office? or do they need to stand behind all these other offices? do they need lots of them or is this so special? >> i am from the university of pennsylvania. my question is for dr. rejeski and dr. schmidt. i was wondering if there has been an opportunity to question young people but for college and the impact of public perception on signs advancing technologies versus synthetic technology in particular? >> i am from the university of edinburgh. i the question for dr. schmidt. i like your appearances on the u.s. and europe. what you think can be learned in the case of connecting in

education between the u.s. and europe? what do we need to learn from what has happened? >> i did not get good notes on that one. slowdown so i make sure i understand the question. >> what can be learned from conflicts that have arisen between the u.s. and europe in the case of existing genetic modification technologies and what can be learned going forward for synthetic technologies? >> i think he just wanted to hear you speak. [laughter] >> yes, it is beautiful. >> i have two questions. the first is around the belmont report as it values discussion. i thought it was appropriate -- i thought i would ask how appropriate is that as a jumping point to investigate values in today's social context. the second thing is regarding education.

what role can the house of representatives play as a platform for educating their constituents on this? that is a general question. >> thank you. finally, in the back. >> i am a professor of law at george washington university. i am a member of the cognition project and got to cooperate with the doctor rejeski. i wanted to second what david said, at what david and markus said, about polarization and the need for sites based communication and delivery strategies. to make this more stark, the liberation can work and -- deliberation can bring people to gather, but done long it can push people to the polls and create a lot of conflict and

polarization. we are lucky to have the funding from the national science foundation as they are doing research in just this sort of thing. they're looking at how to the sides based education. i urge the commission to make evidence based signs communication a deliver it -- deliberate and formal part. >> and you are with george washington law? so we can find you? >> yes. >> there is one area of ground communication and education. thoughts about young people focusing on education towards them, the role of our congress and educating constituents, and i think the comment that the end. what about the education of communications, a gentleman? markus?

cracks in one of our projects, we have one package of where we take symbols from all of the blockbuster movies like, for example, "jurassic park," and other movies like science fiction. it is not totally science- fiction now. we take these and try to combine them with a scientific fact, what is possible, what could be possible, what should be done? should this be done? what are the consequences? and because the packages for teachers to be used in school. -- and we make high-school packages. this is a general strategy. there are people who work on climate change and tight -- george verticals and inform people. a couple of weeks ago, there was a 14-year-old high-school student and give a presentation

about synthetic genomes. they were very interested in anything that was a new. the teachers were more surprised. is this real or is this a joke? the children understood it, this is not a joke. but the teachers did not. they were really smart in grabbling this. >> wonderful. options for educating congress? let's coupled that with the question for a need for white house offices and this should have a high priority there. >> i think there is a tremendous need to, obviously, get congress up to speed on lots of emerging technologies. before the congressional people can educate their constituencies, they need to get educated themselves. the congress uses a system called caucuses. for years, they had the nanotechnology caucus.

basically, they bring people in to brief members that are in the caucus. that is a model that can be used for synthetic biology. you may even be able to build off of the nanotechnology caucus. that gets the staff and members involved. the caucus model as well known in the congress. >> thank you. >> i agree that we probably do not need another white house office. one option, since we talked about this option, would be to build off of the coordinating office that does nanotechnology and do nanobio. we are not doing another office, but we just admit that is where science and technology are going and we expanded to take on some of the synthetic biology issues. we're not putting into place another white house entity, but just expanding it around the world of converging technologies. >> one thing we heard was the

international fame, the need for international standards. what can we learn about existing conflict resolutions and agreements for genetic modifications between the u.s. and europe? perhaps -- i ask you to comment. who wants to comment? >> i think what you find when you look internationally, and it just not the u.s. and europe, but in general there are certain areas of convergence of values and a certain areas of divergence. for example, in china there is the genetic engineering of the human nucleus into a rabbit ovum and taking it into a certain number of cells. that would not happen here. it is crucial as these technologies progress that we've tried to come to some set of

international standards. while we can impose standards in our own countries, we can have a multi-country agreement. it is undermined in these particular kinds of technologies if there are those who are doing things outside the bounds of the regulatory system set up by a treaty, agreement, or by some kind of international regulation. there is a very, very difficult problem with trying to figure out how to universalize a set of standards scientific progress at these technologies get so much more powerful. >> in terms of technical, it is a very important. i remind you that one of the nasa mars landers could not go to mars because there was a misunderstanding between inches

and centimeters. >> yes, very important. >> this project organized a workshop earlier this year between the u.s. and europe. they were talking about standards for technology. they talked about biosafety standards. in relation to international trade, i mentioned one of the recommendations by the european group of ethics that things imported or exported by the european union should fall under the european laws and regulation. it make incredible sense. on the other hand, i think i agree that standards should not live in exploration of new ideas and there should be diversity, as well.

>> i agree with the need for international standards. let me take you in the other direction. we live in a large country, and quite often there is a some hesitancy by the federal government, state and local governments. the first municipality to put in place a biotech ordinance was cambridge, massachusetts. there are 55 biotech companies in cambridge. said berkeley, calif., and they are moving her to set up their own system to take care of nanotechnology issues. from the history of air pollution, water control, whatever topic to pick you have a huge system. we have our own e you here. one of the things need to be sensitive to is that someone may decide to move ahead of you. that drives the and is the crazy, because not only do they have to deal with this abrogation but now they are

dealing with disaggregated markets at a local level. and is important to keep your eye on local government and states. >> absolutely right. can you get your questions answered at breaktime? i would appreciate that. first of all, let's think of doctors -- let's thank doctors rejeski, wolpe, and schmidt. [applause] we'll reconvene in 10 minutes for the final session.

>> this week, on my safety and the cable industry in europe. discussions on this year pots a cable show with the maryland attorney general and the cable you're president. tonight on c-span2. this afternoon, republican senator scott brown says they will -- that he will support the compromise. he jones -- he joins susan collins. they need 60 votes to overcome procedural rules. they are waiting on words from snowe and graffly.

the trounces the legislation is a better bill than it was when the process started. congress returns this week from the july 4 break. the senate meets at 2:00 p.m. eastern for general speeches. at 5:30 p.m., they will vote on the judicial nomination. the house returns tomorrow to vote on a number of deals -- bills dealing with the federal land. they will look at the national flood insurance debate. while we are waiting for the start of the white house briefing which is a few minutes late, and that the legislative agenda for the week. -- a look at the legislative agenda for the week. ," joining us to talk about the washington summer agenda. they do not have a lot of time before they break again for august. what are the top five items on their agenda before they leave again? guest: you are right, they do

not have a lot of time. particularly in the house. it is the senate where most of the action takes place. it will take about five weeks. depending on whether or not they want to stick around. the big thing in this work. will be the nomination of elena kagan -- the big thing in this work period will be the nomination of elena kagan and environmental and climate legislation. that will take up a lot of time in this work session. that is really big. they have also got to reconcile a work -- war funding bill, matching them up before it is sent to the president. that will also be a fight because not everyone agrees on how much money should be spent. lots of people do not like spending more money on the war.

they also have yet to complete financial regulatory reform. president obama won the this finished before the july 4 recess, but they were not able to get it done. partly because of the death of senator byrd. there were also problems with republicans not liking some of the fees in the bill. they have got to get that out of the way. unemployment benefits, another issue that democrats were hopi to pass weeks ago. partly because of the republicans, partly becae of their own caucus. those are some of the things they will start tackling right away. host: we will try to go through as many of those as we can in the next 45 minutes. let's start with the nomination of elena kagan. the senate judiciary committee is meeting tomorrow. will they vote her onto the

floor tomorrow? guest: it sounds like that might happen. they may want more time to review her answers from the nomination hearing that took place over a week ago. it may be delayed, but that does not mean that it will not be confirmed. she is pretty much clear to go for floor consideration. most people think that she will easi be confirmed by the entire senate as well. there are some republicans trying to slow the process down, throwing in monkey wrenches, just because some of them do not like her. but i think that everyone pretty much understands that she will be the next supreme court justice. host: in "roll call," this morning, "congressional

democrats are facing a final window for legislative accomplishments and little chance that they could get a handful of bills through before election season slams shut." the fact that we are moving to an off-year election in november, is that putting more pressure on the democratically controlled congress to get something done? guest: technically, when elections approach, congress gets less done. it is almost a mathematical equation. on the other hand, democrats know that this election is about getting the base out. one way to do that is to move issues that are important to them. climate and energy could really help to bring out the base. immigration reform alone, trying to move one of those bills would do wonders for giving up the senate vote, ahough i do not think that they will take it up. it is true, many democrats might

want to get some important bills done before they go home and talk to constituents. but that is let -- less likely to happen because others in areas where there are a lot of republican voters, those democrats will not want to take up anything terribly controversial. host: we are talking about the summer agenda of ngress with susanerrechio of "the washington examiner." if you would like to be part of the conversation this morning, give us a call. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you have called in whin the last 30 days, send us an mail or message >> we will go live now to the white house. here is the white house spokesperson, robert gibbs. >> good morning. the president called the president of uganda this

morning and expresses sincere condolences for the loss of life and offered to provide any support or assistance that the government request. the leaders reaffirmed their shared commitment to working together to combat terrorist organizations that threaten innocent civilians around the world. >> just a follow on that point, is there any specific assistance the u.s. is providing at this point? >> i am told the fbi will assist in the investigation of the bombings. cracks on the oil spill, bp is working on this new capped today. what is the view from the white house? how confident are you that this will work? >> let's take this in a few different stages. the containment capacity prior to friday which included the top

hat going to the discover enterprise and the q-4000 connected to the choke line. that was 25,000 barrels of containment capacity on any given day, sometimes fluctuated to a little bit more or less. the containment capacity in the new structure, the ceiling cap will draw to two different boats and increase the containment capacity from roughly 15,000 to between 20,030 thousand. the helix producer -- to between 20,030 thousand. the helix producer is coming along separately. in the ceiling cap and the helix producer movements have been together.

they were going to be separately, but they were changed because of the weather. the helix producer was installed over the weekend and began containment around noon today. initially, we expect to get maybe 8,000 barrels of oil per day as the producer ramps up and pressure rises to a containment capability of 20,000 to 25,000. because of the increased capability, the choke line, which was beating tuesday q-4000 at about 10,000 barrels per day will have its capability increased. in short, as we replace the sealing cap and add the helix producer, we go from a container capacity around 25,000 barrels to a containment capacity of 60,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil per day. the ceiling cap will assist in

the eventual killing of the well, either separately if the integrity of the well has been maintained through the explosion, but it's not it helps when the relief well intersects to the well in having a separate point of pressurization. that is the process that is ongoing and the progress report we have gotten here is, as i have mentioned, the helix producer is now online. they are making progress with the new cap. we're certainly hopeful that over the course of the next several days that they will get that on, get it kind appropriately, -- get it tightened appropriately, and the containment capacity i just described will increase in the

way we have not seen. >> he said the capacity will increase. is this a point at which the white house can say to the american people this is a turning point? >> this is a turning point in the sense that our containment capacity is likely to be equal to what is coming out of the damaged blowout preventer. obviously, i think -- this is twofold. we still believe, at some point, the permanent solution to that well is to cap it. obviously that will -- i would not change the original time frame of intersecting the well and capping and by mid august. obviously there are still hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil in the water and we will continue to deal with that will

as it makes its way around the gulf, as it hits land fall in several of the gulf states. over the weekend, there was an increase in skimming and burns in order to try and gather the increased capacity that was coming out in taking off the top at which did increase the flow by about 15,000 barrels of oil per day. >> up to one other point, a couple of leftovers on the russian spying incident. i have heard you say that this whole incident will not effect the improving relations with russia, but i am still unclear why it will not. they are in the united states and spying. why would that not effect the relationship? >> that is not to send -- not to say, certainly not to give you

or anyone the impression that we cannot take that seriously and we did not handle it in a serious manner. we certainly did. the president would command -- to amend the law enforcement community for their actions. obviously we have an important relationship that we have worked hard to improve and need to maintain and the president will continue to focus his energies on that based on the reasoning that it is good for the american people. >> any update on where the people who have come back from the u.s. are resettling? any debriefing of them? >> none that i have heard. >> with congress back in the session, can you talk about what the president ought to prefer timetable for extending the middle-class tax cuts is? does he think that congress should try to do it in the next few weeks or does he think it would be better done in the

context of the deficit condition recommendations? >> i think if you look at the schedule that is likely to take place over the next several weeks, i do not know if i would push it that far or not. if you look at what needs to get done in the short term, the next three to five weeks depending on -- the house is here for three and the senate is here for five. obviously we would like to see wall street reform finished. they're making good progress on that. senator brown from massachusetts came out, as you know, in support of the financial reform bill. there will be another attempt to extend the unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed. we would like to see the small business lending package approved by congress. there will be an energy debate, obviously, at some point.

i know i am forgetting something. obviously there is the kagan. another is one i am forgetting. that was not the one i was forgetting. there is one in addition to that. the president would like to see progress in getting the treaty to the senate as well. that is something that is a big priority of his. my sense is that debate on tax cuts is likely to happen later in the year. >> also, -- >> i will say this. i've mentioned this to several people. i did think it was an interesting thing to see over the weekend with senator kyle hill has insisted on extending unemployment insurance, that it

be paid for. they did not believe in extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by those i mean those making above $250,000 per year. extending that permanently did not need to be paid for. i think that is an interesting kurtz is asian -- prioritization of your economic values. >> any kind of deal for republicans on the tax cut support -- tax cut for the wealthy? >> i think it is premature to get too much into that. again, i think the tax cuts will likely happen sometime in the fall and with the deficit commission in december. >> one more question about president medvedev's comments about iran that they are gaining the ability to build a nuclear weapon. i was wondering what your reaction is to that. >> i believe his comments

demonstrate the international consensus and unity of purpose in the international community in addressing iran and their illicit nuclear weapons program. with the help of russia and china, we have instituted the strongest sanctions ever placed on iran, sanctions that will have a bite and it will greatly complicate their ability to do business around the world. they will have a real impact on iran's ability to pursue this kind of capability. again, i think this demonstrates the kind of progress we have made internationally in bringing a community of nations as well as taking concrete steps to make it more difficult. >> on the six month anniversary, all reports say the money is being slow getting and

that. $700 million of u.s. money was supposed to be sent to haiti. >> some money is tied up in the legislative battle around supplemental appropriations. that was the one i forgot in the next three-five weeks. it is on tap. obviously, the supplemental bill. i think the six month mark reminds us of several things. first and foremost, this was a tragedy of unspeakable proportions. several hundred thousand people were killed. several hundred thousand people were killed in what before the earthquake struck with the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. it reminds us all that we have work to do in responding, not simply to the humanitarian

crisis that we see continuing today, but the long-term efforts to rebuild haiti and make a stronger nation. we are working with capitol hill to try and get the supplemental bill through. hopefully that will make some progress. >> has the president expressed frustration on how things are going in the region? >> again, it reminds us that we have work to do. it reminds us that the situation we found in haiti long before the earthquake struck called for the types of action that president obama and several of his predecessors, presidents bush and clinton, has been attuned to. not that i am aware of. >> what is different about the

offshore drilling moratorium? >> you have a question on haiti? >> it does it take president obama to come down to haiti to make things move faster? why has he not gone to haiti in six months? >> whenever a president goes into a place like that, you create -- we have not wanted to go in and create the movement of resources that it takes to support a trip like that. the first lady has gone, former president clinton, former president bush working in conjunction have all been. again, i think the anniversary remind us we have work to do and will continue to do that work. >> are you still getting daily

updates? >> the president gets a regular updates as do many in the national security council. this is above and beyond what the state department gets. i know that later, there are probably in the middle of doing that briefing, our usaid administrator is doing a presentation on our efforts in haiti today. >> the offshore drilling moratorium. what is different about this that allows you to believe you can escape another -- >> i do not want to get ahead of their announcement later this afternoon. i will say two things. first and foremost, the president has and continues to believe that we need to be careful with what we are doing given the uncertainty about what happened 84 days ago. we know that it is not without

some economic consequences to the region, but it is imperative that we have a sense of what happens before we continue to do this again. secondly, again not to get ahead with the department of interior will say, but they will take into account what the judge laid out in his initial ruling that the district court level. >> so you think you can crafted so it is potentially able to stand up in court? -- so you think you can craft it so it will stand up in court? >> yes. i think there was a summit misreporting of the appeals court case at the end of last week. the judge did not rule against our ability to prevent. the judge simply ruled that with no company seeking currently to

actively drilling in deep water that basically -- in a sense, we lacked standing for a ruling because the type of activity we were looking to ban was not happening. again, i think that the new moratorium will take into account the original lawsuit's comments. >> there is still a perception down there that you are choking off economic activity and jobs from people who will not be drilling in deepwater but just shallow water. >> that is a misperception as to what we have rolled on. no one has suggested that shallow water drilling presents any different challenge than it did 85 days ago. our moratorium has nothing to do with shallow water. if you are drilling in the shallow water, and one of the things that makes our response

to the deepwater horizon so difficult is that the blowout presenter -- the blowout preventers its 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. in shallow water drilling, it stands on top of the water. if there is a problem, access is unencumbered. 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean? we are at the market -- we are at the mercy of a remotely operated vehicles in order to change the situation. deepwater and shallow water have not been and will not be treated differently. well will not be treated the same. a little off. >> when presidents preval was here, he said america will be your partner. when you read the stories that only about 20,000 people out of the 1.5 million had their homes destroyed are back in real homes, does that suggest his

partnership has failed? >> again, i think you look at the response by this government, the response by the brave and courageous response done by our military, there are challenges that are unique to this country based on, as i mentioned earlier, the fact that we are dealing with the poorest nation in the western hemisphere the moment before the earthquake struck. it reminds us we have work to do. that work is ongoing. help is ongoing. we will seek to continue doing that. .

>> are you redefining what the border is -- what deepwater is? >> nasa will determine that and i will defer to them. if you have questions, allow doi. >> going back to the rest of your agenda, the political record conceded -- how concerned are you that the campaign season is here, for better or worse?

it will slow down much of you can get done. [laughter] >> wow, you know someone might vote no? the election calendar is what it is. it is not any different this year than it is every two years in a national election. what just outlined as the business that is left in front of this congress before heading home for the august recess is substantial, meaningful. whether extending unemployment insurance to those of a work for longer than in any recession since we began keeping statistics on such, making progress on funding for

afghanistan, small-business lending package -- there are a host of things that are important and the president believe should be done. first and foremost is getting financial reform done, and making it the law of the land. so that we don't find ourselves celebrating the two-year anniversary of an economic collapse with the rules that continue the way they did two years ago. that will be a big push of this administration to get that done. >> let me mas about comments made by harry reid after the airplane took off -- he said the president does not like competition too much with peacemakers and wishes he would be more forceful at times with the opposition. >> i would have to look at the copy, but i doubt what you think

they might have meant -- >> he thinks the president is not forceful enough with opposition. >> ambassadors are very nervous right now. the bearish sentiment is up because you have many economic commentators anticipating a double-dip recession, or worse. what is the bullish case that though white house is making? do you still have confidence in the economic direction your taking the country in, and why the? >> if you go back and look at where we are and where we have been, you can no doubt see an improvement in, whether you want to use the statistics on economic growth, or those on private sector hiring. on each of those, there's no doubt would you look at the last six months of 2008, the first

six months of 2009, you find yourself in a markedly different situation on both factors. we're not unfurling the mission accomplished -- seeing an increase in improvement in our economy does not mean the job is done. it is important to understand -- i have probably said this more than anything in the room for the last 18 months -- we did not get here overnight. we did not even get here as a result of what happened september 2008, or just that month. this was a long time coming. the hole left in our economy, particularly with jobs, was as deep as it has ever been. that will take some time. the president has put osama course toward improving economy.

we must remain vigilant. that is why financial reform is important. that is why unemployment insurance is important, small- business lending is important. the congress needs to get it done before august. >> you have had some days to digest with the business roundtable said the administration is doing as an obstacle to growth in hiring. are you having second thoughts either about the direction of your policies, or even a policy advisers in their current capacities the? >> no, i'm happy to compare the business environment now and the one they operated in say the end of 2008. i think corporate profits are pretty good example. i'm not entirely sure the business roundtable would look at the list they sent over and think it was necessarily their

best case. i don't necessarily think putting equal pay for women as a drag on the economy as a message they fully want to carry forward. >> when you talk about corporate profits, analysts would argue that the rebuilding profits were based on job cutting and cuts rather than topline growth. >> no, you cannot tell me the consumer demand and economic growth on july 12, 2010, is what it was the same month in 2008. you cannot make that comparison. you cannot look at a contracting economy, more than 6% in one quarter with one growing 0.75% in quarter and said the climate is the same for the consumer.

you cannot look at a month in which we're losing nearly 8000 jobs and one where we were getting nearly 100,000 jobs and say the business environment is the same. no one with a straight face would make that claim. >> how would you characterize it? >> the consumer environment is improving. we're not out of the woods. do we have to remain vigilant in ensuring the recovery? yes -- and will it take some time? yes. >> the business community is arguing that if you lower the corporate tax rate, that could possibly encourage hiring. early in the presidential a misters and he said he might be willing to look at that further down the line. >> he talked about that in conjunction with the loopholes we have in our tax code that allow, for instance, companies to drivderive tax benefits from

moving the company overseas rather than investing in jobs here. i do not doubt that corporate tax structure looking at the loopholes as mentioned a long time ago is something i could be valuable. >> the issue of tax deferrals, and how they are competitive abroad -- >> closing tax loopholes in retrench irestructuring the tax structure should be done simultaneously, believes the president. >> does the administration accept responsibility for the bombing the? >> all but i will say about this group is that the group has made threats to the people of yukon

and to the government of uganda based on its support of african peacekeepers in somalia. it is not to say there has been a definitive conclusion on who is responsible, but the group has threatened uganda in the past. i think there is no clear signal about the hateful motives of terrorists then was sent yesterday. what they seek to destroy, and who they seek to kill -- innocent people, just as the continent of africa and the country of south africa show the world what it has built. it speaks volumes to the evil motives of those that history will judge as looking only to destroy and to kill, rather than to build. >> robert, on the moratorium, do

you have the timeline? >> my sense is that it will be probably about 4:00 p.m. this afternoon -- but i don't know the exact time. >> there was a report concerning the 34 rigs station down there [inaudible] what concern is there at the white house about other rigs possibly leaking? >> this came up in our original discussions concerning the moratorium. the economic consequences of this were talked about, but at the same time we talked about the containment capability. what is the company's continued capability, and what is that of the government, and the event

something unique occurs. whether the deep water horizon was unique, or was something larger relating to blowout preventers or deep water conditions in the drilling. the president weighed in decided not to take that chance. there are certain risks that are taken when drilling at that depth. the deep water horizon explosion happened at a point in which the drilling for had reached the oil reservoir as we now see. there are risks as one gets to that reservoir, but the president weighed all the circumstances and believed that pausing the deep water drilling during an investigation made sense based on many factors,

including containment capabilities. >> overly worried about rigs plan now the? >> it was a concern, but on the scale of concern, having something like this happen again, before we know what happened at the deepwater horizons csite, the president believed did not make sense. >> there is a report that benjamin netanyahu seize direct peace talks with palestinians beginning in early august. do you have anything on that? >> i do not have anything specific on that. the president is helpful in creating conditions that move from proximity talks to direct talks. we're not having them simply to have them, but as a means to an end. we are hopeful that we're on the path. >> "the new york times" reported

that democratic governors privately showed concern about the arizona emigration law, concern about the climate, timing of the lawsuit. what is your reaction to that level of anxiety? >> from the reading i got from the individuals at the meeting, this came at the end of the meeting, the reaction is we understand the frustration of all those involved, ariz. included. and the federal government's inability to comprehensively deal with the problem of immigration. the president and justice to permit believe he could not have 50 states piecing together patch work immigration laws, and that is why the suit was filed. >> [unintelligible]

>> i would not say it even took up a big part of the meeting. >> are the concerns the admonition takes seriously, or an over reaction? >> i have not spoken individually with governors. everyone in the calendar has certain equities during political season. arizona acted based largely on the frustration over the federal government's inability to deal with the situation. we understand that. while the timing of these things may be inconvenient, this administration is here to do what it thinks is right, not simply to look at the calendar and aside for this right. >> did the administration asked the roundtable to submit a list of things like reviewed, and

those that fall in front of pending congressional issues? >> frankly, we have worked with people like the business roundtable in implementing the healthcare reform. to the point that i believe they have found our discussions with them and people like nancy to be extremely helpful in understanding how the law will be implemented. during the transition the then- soon-to-be administration said we would look at and evaluate regulations from all perspectives to ensure that we had a common sense review. the review continues even now. i will say while the president has always said he would look at any list of regulations people

believe to be burdensome, obviously we must ensure the health and safety of the country. we will evaluate any regulation based on that scale. >> would you clarify -- you're looking at things you proposed that their concern? >conversations about regulation that predate your administration? >> if someone came to the administration to make the case for burdensome regulation, we had been and always will be happy to take a look at that. it is not to say that we will walk away from our obligations at insuring the nation's health and safety. >> have you been over- regulatory? >> i think you know my position on that. >> you can stated, if you want.

one more question. you said yesterday that enough seats are in play that republicans could take control of the house, [unintelligible] the you really believe republicans could take control of the house the? >> i think i did what is maybe uncommon in this town. yesterday i open my mouth and stated the obvious. i do not believe that you all announced during around to cover this election markedly differently based on my having said there are a number of seats in play. understand this, i think this will be an election where, as i said yesterday, during my answer, there will be a choice. there will be a choice about whether you want an economy that looked like the last six months of 2008, or the last six months of this year. you have a choice between the

leadership we have now in the leadership that believes that bp should be apologized to. and that the type of climate be rocked by -- wrought by the financial meltdown in the size of 2008 is analogous to the size of an ant. the people will be able to choose in november. >> you said earlier ticking of priorities for things in the congress. you want to see progress made on the start treaty. what is the current thinking about that? >> it is our hope that we can make progress, many getting this to the presidential desk this summer. i outlined a very busy senate schedule. it was made more difficult by

the fact we do not have a full senate at the moment. that may well delay moving forward on a number of these topics. i believe the president still strongly feels that we will get started on it this year. >> what about during the lame duck session searcy's the senate will be back before they go home, and there's an opportunity than as well. >> what is the impact of the spy scandals? does this show we cannot trust the russians? or why should we approve a treaty with them that involves some degree of trust? >> to quote ronald reagan, there's both trust, and there is verify. there is plenty within the treaty that allows us a robust verification protocol that ensures that each side is living up to the spirit and letter of

the truth. >> one question on emigration. do you think whatever is going on in arizona will affect u.s. relations with other countries the? >> look, the mexican government has spoken to this. i would point you to them for their viewpoint on that. >> [unintelligible] president obama has told the banks that the need to be healthy. >> the president believes one of the things on the agenda that needs to be done before leaving for august is an increase in the ability to lend to small

business through an initiative we think will make progress. it will be the job creation. businesses that are most charged with creating jobs in this country. >> two quick questions. first, getting back to the president on the certain case. >> i have not talked to him about that. >> has the president had a reaction to the sarah palin mama grizzly ad? >> i assume that 2012 will sort itself out then. i think there is a viewpoint that we will have a debate in discussion about it, both likely in 2010, and probably again in 2012 about the direction this country will go.

i made this pint, so did david axelrod, and will have been a pretty to think about whawhethee will go back to where we came from, or move for it. >> many folks are wondering why nobody from the former m.m.s. or the interior department have been held accountable for their part in the bp disaster? is there anything happening? >> both the director of mms and director of permits within mms no longer work for the federal government. they no longer work in the federal government. >> last week you said you would check on -- >> yes, i will get that done right after this. [laughter]

>> checking on the notion of the sanctuary cities. >> si theis there -- >> wow. please note that in the transcript. i'm just saying, that is remarkable. >> [inaudible] immigration reform, lame-duck session. >> i don't think the calendar determines this, but the support of those in both parties. the president is confident he can bring most people in his party in the house and senate to the table. as we have discussed on many occasions, there are those who have supported comprehensive reform in the past the do not appear to be supporting it now.

it is no less of a problem then when the senate tackle this in 2005 and following years. there are 11 senators currently serving the support a comprehensive immigration reform. there is a path to get it done, but it has to include those who originally thought this was a priority and who spoke out passionately for a comprehensive solution. >> did the president make progress on friday about the idea of moving to direct talks? given the statements of various palestinian leaders it does not seem the more convinced about moving to direct talks them before the meeting with netanyahu. >> again, we feel we have made

progress in proximity talks, and believe those conditions should lead to direct talks. i have nothing beyond the read out that came on the call cameabbas, bubbly we're heading in the right direction. >> [inaudible] meeting with the dominican republic leader. is he going to ask about taking some of the citizens of haiti in port-au-prince, and relocating them there? >> i don't want to positive with the president might do or say, so let me deal with that afterwards. there are a host of regional issues concerning that. >> is it the administration's desire that deep water drilling resume after words, once it is

safe? >> yes, once it is safe. >> thank you, robert. you frequently point out differences between this administration and the previous of ministers and. with the latest recess appointment, the obvious question is, quite simply not wait for the confirmation process to go through and submitted to the senate when they schedule the hearing before the proper committee? -- you point of divorces between this administration and the previous administration -- differences between them. >> we cannot have hearings that take months and months before the senate will be allowed to take it up. when i mean be allowed, i mean simply giving unanimous consent for debate and vote. after 10 months, that unanimous consent and approval of nominees is unanimous -- then one simply

wonders why we waited for 10 months. the health-care law -- there are those in the senate that had no intention of dealing with this nomination of the band to play the political game. [laughter] i'm not a political person. i just have ample evidence. 21 times. when you compare the bush administration, on 21 occasions unanimous consent was blocked in order to -- and culture had to be a vote to get someone a vote. that was in 21 cases. -- cloture had to be invoked. how many times did that happen in the bush administration? zero. guess what? you both knew the answer to that.

[inaudible] >> how can you then complain about the process when the process-- >> this was not a hearing. this is your latest attempt to decide the process was being upheld because there have not been a hearing scheduled. the hearing was not a problem, right? he would have gotten out. and guess what -- months and months would have passed before anyone would have consented to simply taking up the nomination. we passed a law, health care, affordable care act, that must be implemented. there things that must be implemented by the first of the year. we will not wait for those in the senate who want to see this delayed before this is taken up. i know there is this a grand

conspiracy theory that somehow the american medical association, the american hospital association, the american association of retired nurses, mark and tom seemed clearly not to be complacent in in supporting someone amply qualified to run cms and to implement the law. >> why not have a hearing where all that can be decided in july? >> we have three weeks until august. we're going to implement the law, not wait around. not with a run for the same old people to play the same old political games time after time. >> i hate to get away from the

excitement, but on israel and iran given the statements from the last few days, does the president have a feeling that the u.s. has bought an of time? >> i will not get into that type of discussion except to say at think if you look at all level of sanctions placed both unilaterally by congress -- i mean by the treasury department, and by the united nations, there is no doubt we have made it harder for those, for iran to pursue that capability. we will continue to ratchet that up until we see the type of progress we need. >> the administration concerning hiv and the aids policy.

the previous administration had a robust policy. >> they will do a column this fairly shortly and will have the information i think you are looking for. thank you, guys.

>> looking at live pictures at the equipment at the bottom of the sea. for this lady michelle obama is traveling to panama city beach, florida to meet with community members and discuss the impact of the oil spill. in the meantime, bp will be trying to attach a new cap on its leaking well. it is a 150,000-pound metal stack known as top hat 10. the chief officers are testing.

he says it is scheduled to be finished by the end of the week. the latest news is that the cap is about 125 feet away from the oil leak on this, the 84th day. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and u2. signup for our schedule alert in males at c-span.org. >> this week, online sit the and the cable industry in europe. discussions from this year's national cable show. tonight on c-span2. >> live now to discussion on the situation in haiti, six months after an earthquake that killed

hundreds of thousands of people and cost billions in damages. the speakers include the lieutenant general who led the u.s. relief efforts there, and the haitian ambassador. >> we are so pleased to have a very distinguished panel of speakers today. i'm with the americas program, and on behalf of myself and my colleague heather, we have decided to co-sponsor an event with our trusty who will do most of the heavy lifting and hard work today. i just wanted to open and to welcome you. our panelists whose names are there, will be introduced. on this sixth anniversary of the earthquake in haiti we feel it is inappropriate moment to look back, and more importantly, to look for it.

we have had a long and abiding interest in working in the caribbean and with international donors partners. we're pleased you are able to join us today, and i will turn my panel over to my colleague. >> thank you very much. we're very proud of your programs here. thank you for doing this six- month anniversary for the haiti as great. i just spoke to the ambassador who you do not see on the panel today. he is in port-au-prince. he has just come from the ceremony at the palace honoring the six months. today was the ceremony to thank the world. he asked me to carry a few thoughts to you. here they are. people say there is no progress. yet president clinton today in

haiti said in his 30 years of experience that haiti is ahead of where the asian tsunami reconstruction was at this point. that the people of haiti have been -- thpatient, and we're asking them to continue to be. the second phase of construction begins them. in approximately six weeks we should see a lot more things happening. those are his words. he wants to thank the people from around the world for their good will, and for their extraordinarily generous outpouring of help to the people of haiti. that is from the ambassador. let me begin with this panel. it is the six-month anniversary today, july 12, 2010. it was after the 7.0 skill as

quake destroyed port-au-prince in many surrounding committees. the scale disaster is even greater than the tsunami of asia. it is the largest natural disaster recorded in the western hemisphere. you already know the statistics of the 230,000 people dead, 500,000 injured. moving from crisis to recovery haiti is nothing new for these resilience people. when i was administrator and general keen was also there, we visited a town and found four major hurricanes that wiped out the services. the town was under water. 6000 people had been killed. today after the earthquake, haitians are still recovering.

the city of port-au-prince remains the site of several thousand cans of displaced persons. the government is still operating from temporary headquarters, in the country is still in a humanitarian recovery stage rather than one of rebuilding. i visited in march with presidents clinton and bush, and general keen was also there. we saw there had been some progress, but not enough. in the last two decades, haiti has been the scene of eight un peace operations. at the time of the earthquake, the un stabilization mission there was in its sixth year. the mission had close to 7000 soldiers and 2000 police. it marked an important collaboration for the region's military is. in spite of all the assistance

entering haiti over the years, typically must build back better me know the clintons left bush had to find is focused on economic opportunity, the interim commission for restriction is focused on rebuilding infrastructure and coordinating assistance to match with the nation's own development him. our panel assess the idea of building back better. international philanthropic support, the role trans atlantic partners have played, and all of us are feeling a sense of urgency that the assistance is slow. we're all trying to help the haitians to rebuild their own lives. let me introduce our panel. i will begin on my left with general keen.

he is the military deputy commander of the u.s. southern command in miami, fla., the second-in-command of one of the 10 unified commands under the department of defense. he is a native of kentucky. he was an infantry officer with 18 years statice. his experience includes assignments in panama, honduras, brazil, colombia, and a commander of cells. the ambassador unfortunately is not with us today. raymond joseph. he has a fine background as a journalist and has been there since march 2004. next, sam worthington, the president and ceo of

interaction, a coalition of u.s.-based ngo's focus on the world's most vulnerable people. with more than 180 members working in every developing country. the u.s. public interest rates about $6 billion annually to its members. the members themselves manage more than $4 billion in the partnerships with the u.s. government. before this he was the national executive director and ceo for plan usa, focused on child- centered community development. he is a good friend of mine. next, dr. antonio, director international of financial affairs for the european commission. he has been director of international affairs with a couple of different agencies.

he also access the eu's financial authority. he has most recently been a financial advisor to the previous european commission president, and is an associate professor of applied economics in basque. paul, i was get before moment because you speak first. we're hoping that a to be joined by reynoso. she is currently at the white house. she is in the bureau for western hemisphere at affairs of the department of stick. she is an attorney. she has recently been less a law firm in new york focusing on international arbitration and antitrust law. she is published widely in both spanish and english.

let me first turn to our colleague tou.s. aid. paul is in charge of the entire u.s. government approach to reconstruction and development. he is the task team coordinator for haiti. i last saw him in peru as mission director. they were just in haiti on friday. please tell us a little about what you saw on the ground, and the conditions. >> thank you. one of the first things i would note that i saw on the ground is the results of an enormous and successful assistance effort. it was truly international. but there was an enormous logistical support that was critical, led by our own

military forces. the results of that effort are still of them. we have not seen a subsequent disaster related to waterborne disease in haiti. the media has talked a lot about the six-month commercial. today you will see the statistics. potable water is 50% more available here now than before the of quick. there is an important opportunity for the ngo community. in terms of the ongoing effort, we had the good fortune of traveling on friday. there is a lot going on with transitional housing programs -- close to 5000. we saw one of the programs very

inspiring, an effort to repair yellow houses. it began with support from engineers of the u.s. military forces. 170,000 structures have been assessed, 46% deemed safe. those were marked green. 28% are deemed yellow, those requiring minor repair. one of the things we have launched with other international partners is an effort to repair those. we saw engineers on the ground working with the haitian engineers, ministry, masons repairing the house is an encouraging people to move back.

at the end of the day we want to rebuild communities. another big issue, still an overwhelming issue -- there are still 1.5 million people displaced in port-au-prince. the effort will have to focus aggressively on helping them move into better shelter. the hurricane season has begun. you will hear the general say you do not need a vicious hurricane, just a lot of rain. the effort moving forward must involve moving people into transitional houses as quickly as possible. the international community hopes to have 125,000 up by this time next year.

moving as many as possible back into the green houses, or yellow and red ones that have been repaired. on the ground after meetings with the prime minister, we saw the haitian government is interested in taking a lead role with some of these key obstacles. i will highlight two. one is the removal of rubble. it is an impediment to getting people out of camps and back into decent housing. we have 25 million cubic meters of rubble there now. the world trade center in new york generated only 560,000 cubic meters of such. it is an enormous quantity of rubble that must be removed. the difficulty of finding clear land is the impediment.

the prime minister of haiti told us they are spending about $50 million over the next month of their own resources to bring heavy equipment from the dominican republic to unblock the major thoroughfares. that is very hopeful. coordination is another big issue. the amount pledged for haiti is extraordinary. they pledged close to $10 billion. it is easy to spend money fast, the difficult to spend it effectively. we want to make sure we're moving ford in the right direction. we need leadership from the government of haiti to do so. it has created the interim 80 construction commission cochaired by the prime minister and president clinton. they have already approved a number of projects going forward. one of our efforts needs to be

to support them with staff resources and equipment, technical expertise. to ensure that money is spent effectively and trans primly. so that the international committee can have confidence in it. thank you. >> we will come back to you with questions about property totaling -- itiling. general? >> thank you for calling this forum. i am pleased to represent the u.s. southern command. i would like to begin by taking us back a little bit and putting some of my remarks in context. i refer to the photograph shown here.

this was taken a few weeks after the earthquake. it is right outside of a certain town. the banner reads -- the brazilian soldier is standing there -- it says, would guarantee the security for the reconstruction of haiti. that was the message that the un forces had. thankfully, they were there. the u.s. military and other military forces that responded to the of quake -- it was indeed fortunate the u.n. forces were on the ground there. they had been there for years. the conditions they had said with respect to security enabled us to focus efforts on humanitarian assistance.

the close collaboration we enjoyed with both the un, civilian leadership, obviously with the general of haiti was extraordinary. we were able to work side by side from the first days. from this picture, this is a food distribution point, one of the for 16, to feed all those in need through port-au-prince. the u.s. paratroopers were standing side-by-side, as on many places throughout the city, with the un military forces. there were handing out food. in other cases, there were providing support to clearing

rubble and all sorts of tasks. we were able to do our task within the envelope of security provided by the u.n. forces there. at the height the of the u.s. joint task force deployment we had approximately 22,000 military people by fed your first. we stood down on first of june. we continue with about 500 soldiers from our national guard led by the louisiana guard it in haiti today. they will be there for several more months doing a number of projects. we call them the new horizons exercises, and support of u.s. aid, the government of haiti,

and u.n. efforts. we focus particularly outside of port-au-prince -- while not directly affected by this quake, they are impactedd. it puts strains on medical capacity and schools from displaced people going there. we are providing assistance programs and working with the ngo's in those areas. the highlight of my time in haiti is captured by the close coordination and collaboration we had working in support of our lead federal agency, but particularly with u.n. forces and the ngo's. what i have learned from this experience was the real scouts and soldiers for humanitarian

assistance are ngo's, the ones doing the heavy lifting. we were able to redeploy military forces so quickly from this devastating earthquake because of the capacity of theirs. a like to talk second about what we're doing now, and what we expect to do as we go down the road over the next few months. in terms of potential impacts of weather, is a major concern. we have worked closely with u.s. aid, and u.n. forces there to be

prepared for a storm. it does not take an earthquake, just a lot of rain over a short time to create a major catastrophe. we have the number of things. we have been rehearsing for contingencies. we are determining what we think we might have to bring to bear if we had something similar to that of 2008, or something worse. we're rehearsing both in haiti as well as with joint staff and u.s. and command. the united nations have all so been rehearsals. everyone is focused on what could happen if we were to be

faced with a major storm, or even a lot of rain over a short time in coming weeks and months. that is in order to allow the reconstruction efforts to continue. i think i will turn it back over and take any questions you may have. >> thank you, general. >> sam, you have had the perfect introduction for the nonprofit world, and just completed a survey. we tell us a bit about the response, how the money flows through the system, and how effective you think it has been? >> thank you. good afternoon. to understand the context of haiti is important to understand a few basic elements of common knowledge. the sense of scale.

if you imagine every third or fourth building in washington, d.c. damage and people living on the streets -- then multiplied times three. the other reality is this remains the poorest country and the western hemisphere. 70% of people in port-au-prince were in abject poverty before the earthquake. we see a massive public out reach from europe, north america, that results in a big, public engagement. and lastly, the world has created non-state actors who now play a crucial role in all global disasters. many are professional institutions. we are releasing and accountability report for 38

organizations and their work since the beginning until now. the others are institutions that have been in haiti for decades. we have a map on our website of all the major operational ngo's. the type of projects they're doing, and so on. there is a significant responsibility that rests on the shoulder of onngo community. our members raised $978 million. they spent $294 million on reconstruction efforts. these are all been named organizations you will recognize from the red cross to other services, to c.a.r.e. the organizations will be there for a long time.

because of this and because they know resources are ultimately scarce, and public giving happens up front -- over $500 million has been set aside for reconstruction. our main fear is not that we're spending too fast or slow, but whether there will be enough left. the burn rate in these camps is enormous. we do have 1.6 9 million people still living in camps. as they slowly transition to transitional shelters, we will witness a reconstruction effort happening simultaneously as ongoing relief. it will not change any time soon. . .

and yet, the complexity of the disaster, the magnitude of the problem, the number of actors on the ground have made it very difficult. i think it is important to recognize that all resources were stretched. are we focused on haiti? the ngo community has reached the limit of its capacity down here. the question is, are there and not highly-qualified individuals who can handle the distribution and have done this before, working with the

military, coordinating the thousands of volunteers -- volunteers in the camp? these are jobs that are required at the time in the professional -- and the professional global ngo community has remained stretched. we have seen some of our members go from 80 people on the grounds to over 1000. i am only talking about one interaction member. the reconstruction of haiti is a very positive step. our challenge is it the capacity to coordinate remains limited. we need greater resources invested into that capacity. the ngo community stands ready to commit resources to haiti. our focus is at this -- our focus is at the district level. our challenge is on what has not happened. as paul mentioned, it is the

disease outbreaks that have not occurred, the access to clean water that is in place, the shelter that exists in cans. in many ways, this could be one of the distortions of aid. for some individuals, we created conditions in the camps that were better than the slums that they lived in. the humanitarian community recognizes it is our priority to make it as easy as possible for individuals in difficult circumstances. the next step is a complex one. the world has significant difficulty dealing with an urban disaster. they cannot be handled fully in different styles of activity. there needs to be broad, strategic planning. well we did have a presidential -- while we did have a presidential commission of looking at ways to move

individuals, we still have a circumstance where individuals remain afraid to go back to their homes. at last estimate, there were 45,000 homes labeled green with individuals who had not yet migrated back to their homes. to some extent, this is understandable given the shock of the earthquake. this is not just about reconstructing buildings, but it is about rebuilding lives. it is enabling individuals to have a sense of economic well- being in places where they are resettled, a sense that the roof over their head is one that is secure and safe. and that they can have of livelihood -- and it is crucial to talk about the rebuilding of haiti and not just port-au- prince and other earthquake- affected areas. if you look at our map and see where the u.s. ngo community is

working, it is all over the country. it is crucial that reconstruction efforts look at haiti as a whole, and invest in the haitian people. on the real front line are the haitian people. the work being done in the camps is being done by the haitian people. on -- 90% of all ngo staff are from haiti. so, it gives you all hope. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, sam. i know we will want to come back to your comment about running out of money, in the long term and the short term. antonio, let's turn to you. i know you have focused on the shelter, transitional shelter, and sanitation.

where are your priorities? >> thank you very much for having invited me. let me add to the nice words. i am participating in this. coming back to the main subjects, indeed, the approach the european union has taken in this catastrophe has been based on a quick assessment of the situation. others have highlighted this. it is a major humanitarian disaster. that component was key. it was mo important than the

asian tsunami. that is the first point. second, a crucial point that was not the case in many other capacities, was that in this one, there was almost a complete disruption of the country and the state. key institutions of the haitian state were destroyed, but besides the human, physical losses of the country. all parts of government were affected. that limited their ability to respond in an uncoordinated way to the -- in a coordinated way to the huge challenges that were facing. the country was already in a very fragile situation. they had plenty of weaknesses.

these were made even more difficult to respond to. the international community -- not only the governments and the state's -- but the international community working on the ground was very much touched by the earthquake. in our case, the head of our delegation, our charge d'affaire was killed in the earthquake. they were in a situation of the stress without the capacity to react. -- a situation adistress without the capacity to react. -- a situation of distress. what was the eu response? it was injured to the main problems. the first one --

[unintelligible] the second one was reconstruction periods -- the second one was reconstruction. in the first aspect, humanitarian aid -- there are just a a very few figures. almost all relief was within 24 hours. 800 experts, 2000 military personnel were posted on the grounds. and of course, they did not come by themselves. they brought with them urban search and rescue teams, advanced medical post, modification modules that were absolutely necessary to face the immediate needs. as the ambassador rightly said, in the short term humanitarian

protection element, we were also looking at the reconstruction of the states. reconstruction both in terms of physical assets, but also neighboring the state', those activities. this is the point i would like to make. we would like to make the point that reconstruction cannot be done without the haitian state. reconstruction must be run by the haitian state. this is a very important point. in the short term, there could be a price to be paid for that. in the longer term, in our opinion, it is crucial. after awhile, the attention of the media will fairway. it is not much use to leave the

country with a government that is not capable of running the day-to-day affairs. -- after a while, the attention of the media will fade away. we will help the government restore its basic activities and be back with the military and the other international community organizations. as for reconstruction, in accordance with the government of haiti, we have based our action on three main objects. one was good governance. second, infrastructure to enable the reintegration of the country and delivery of the aid. it was critical to start the infrastructure. and a third, to maintain social

services. so, much of the aid was geared toward helping the state to work. much of the aid was to let the country go on. to let the government keeps on providing services and the basic necessities. of course, there was military aid. to help reconstruct physically with the post of command. and a point i would also like to emphasize -- to some extent, the capacity of the government' to respond to society's needs has been hampered by the political situation and the fact that there are elections scheduled

for the month of november. we believe is important that haiti recovers its own normal activity, democratic activity, and also this works towards fostering the electoral process. and also helping the state to restore and recover and continue. we have provided significant assistance. a final point -- indeed, as we all mentioned, it was an unprecedented challenge. it was -- it had this possibility because there was a bilateral aid, official aid, and it cannot be disappointed. we know is a possibility.

therefore, these examples can also be useful for the future. so, there are important problems. on our side, it was also somewhat unprecedented. the need to coordinate the military and the citizens, the humanitarian aid, and also the recovery. it is significant and cannot be separated from the fact that there is indeed a lot of suffering and a lot to be done. i will stay there. we have learned a few lessons. we have improved cooperation

within the eu for promulgating the assistance run by the european commission. this comes from our member states. we do have new programming, a joint programming as such. and also, we have a new message of coordinating. so all of that have been methods we have learned -- lessons we have learned. we hope the second stage of reconstruction of haiti -- and also for other cases that may appear in the future. >> thank you, antonio. let me ask our panel a couple of quick questions about what they think lies ahead so we all have a shared sense of what the people on the ground may be expecting, and those of us in the development community.

so, panelists, in the area of housing, what can people look forward to? we have a number of issues on property rights, rubble removal, transitional housing. there are a great number of people, as sample -- as seen mentioned, that are still in tent camps. what do we see ahead? >> i think what we see ahead is a need for a major planning effort. at one level there is port-au- prince and areas outside port- au-prince. we had 600,000 people migrate outside port-au-prince. they present different challenges. i think what we as the international community needs to do is help the government develop a master plan. they need to have a vision of what they want port-au-prince to look like. there are some camps in areas that are potentially viable as

areas for new settlements and other places that are not because of the terrain. the need to be master planning decisions made. there are other key issues that need to be walked through. one i mentioned, and others have mentioned, is rubble removal. we need to accelerate rubble removal in a robust way. there needs to be planning to do that, which includes an increased number of disposal sites. there is one major disposal site, and that is an impediment. roads that were being used for traffic are being used for rubble removal. we need to help them plan increased numbers of roads. a network of crushers' around the city. so you can reduce the amount that is being physically removed. the tent issue is complicated. the prime minister said they had a high level program years ago. they asked people to come forward and put forward their claims for land.

the numbers that claimed in that one city exceeded the land mass of the country of haiti. working through the property issues -- exceeded the land mass of the country of haiti. working through the property issues is going to be a morass. we need to know who lives where and who owns what. 70% of the population of port- au-prince are more or less renters. many of them live in multiple- family dwellings. a model being pursued by a lot of ngo's are these transitional shelters. they are getting people in more functional shelter. if you have a plot of land that has a plot of -- multiple families living in several stories, and some are renters and some are owners -- there is a long list of things that have

to be worked through. at the same time, i think you will see in the coming months, i think there are five transitional shelters that have been put up. there are thousands of houses that have been registered as habitable. we will see movement in the coming months. in order to deal with the 1.6 million displaced people, we have to work through the complicated morass of issues. >> thank you, paul. antonio, you mentioned the election. will it help or hurt the situation with housing? >> land rights, to some extent, have been the solution to the settlement of these rights. they have also been hindered -- [unintelligible] gong through that may clarify

the situation and enable the government and parliament to focus on that. >> and, sam, would you weave in your thoughts about the health, the sanitation system, and school? >> president obama had as his top priority getting people back to school. there are people in a lot of the camps now, child-friendly spaces, school spaces, where children can begin school. i think there was something like 3000 schools destroyed. many of these are unfortunately buildings where you look and there is the floor and then two feet above the floor there is another floor, and unfortunately, you know there still may be a lot of bodies in that school. it will take a long time before

we can begin to rebuild schools over time, and this is back to the question of rubble removal. it also has to do with issues of human remains. a whole sense of how can the community feel this is a safe space for their children to go to, especially those who have lost children and so forth. sanitation and health overall -- the big challenge is can we have the conditions achieved in much of the camps become a reality for the rest of the city? that will not happen overnight. it ultimately means that in terms of health, the building of a ministry of health infrastructure from the top down, but also from the bottom up. the ngo community is less good at working with the top of the ministry, and we'll leave that to nation states. when it comes to front-line

clinics and delivery systems of those from my clinics, vaccines, and so forth, that is an expertise that the ngo is currently working with the government of haiti, with the ministry of health to develop that infrastructure over time. in terms of land, i think it is important to give a sense of how crowded some of these camps are. there are camps on median strips of roads. they are on very steep hills. there are people -- i have witnessed two soccer fields, about 5000 people living on them. space is at a premium. and this whole issue of how to find appropriate land, and yes, there has been resettlement outside the city, but as paul indicated, this is a slow, complex process, working now

land rights. -- working out land rights. you cannot simply go out there and wrecked a building if you have not worked out with individuals what to do. lastly, beyond all of the planning that any of us will do, i think we have to acknowledge the ingenuity of the haitian people, the individuals to go back to their own plot to set up something. some of the logic behind transitional shelter is to give individual something to work with to rebuild a home, recognizing that a fully- reconstructed home will take time and that it will require extensive urban planning, which is yet to occur. >> thank you, sam. and, general keen, you had brought in the issue of comfort, precisely the fact that there are not enough facilities in the country. do you feel there is enough capacity in the country to pick

up where you leave off? all of us are a little worried about you leaving. general keen? >> in this particular case, the devastation of the earthquake was so significant that the overwhelming response from the international community, and of course, the robust deployment of u.s. military there in all of the areas, particularly the medical area -- we were not quite sure what was needed in terms of how much was needed. therefore, we responded with a hospital ship in order to deal with what we knew was going to be a great demand. i think many of us were surprised, in particular medical marines, how quickly the ngo community was able to respond

and rebuild capacity, even in a rudimentary way, to address the devastation. from a military perspective, the way we enabled that was by opening the airport and seaport as quickly as possible to enable these deployments of ngo's with hospital capabilities from governments. we were not quite sure how quickly we would be able to transition in terms of decreasing the size of our military, based on the increasing capability of the international community with the ngo's or other militaries. in some areas, we were surprised at how quickly -- medical being one of them -- i was personally surprised how quickly that capacity was built. just getting around the city, transportation was a huge problem. not because of the devastation

and the numbers of roads that were blocked through rubble and everything else, but just getting transportation assets in theire. i think on the positive side, and the city was in a buildup of capacity, but the long-term reconstruction efforts to sustain that capacity, i think is the question. the lesson we took away was the numbers of displaced persons and how we were having to deal with that and the lingering effects of that as we talked about, i think that is the capacity that has not reached the level that is something our military was not there to provide. but we were able to support the

efforts of the ngo community. >> one quick question before i turn to our just-arrived panelist, ms. julissa reynoso. are we ready for the hurricane season? hold for just one moment. are you ready for the hurricane season? are we ready? >> at a fundamental level, i think you can never say you're ready for a hurricane season. there is an enormous amount of work that has been done. there has been a major repositioning of medical supplies. on the u.s. aid side alone, we have kids for 300,000 people in port of prince or in -- kits for 300,000 people in port-au-prince or in storage.

blankets, food items, medical supplies. i think we are prepared. i think in discussions in haiti on friday, i think there could be better coordination. all of these groups are doing wonderful work, but i think some conversation still need to take place to understand everything that has been done and what potential gaps are. there may be no gaps. there may be some gaps. i think we can do a little bit of a better job doing that. at the end of the day, if a major hurricane hits, it is not going to be pretty. we are ready to respond quickly. i know general keen can speak to the great work the u.s. military has done to prepare to respond to a hurricane. >> general keen? >> since last november, u.s. southcom has had to respond to four different natural disasters, this only being one

of them. i think it is a matter of win, not if we will have to respond during -- when, not if we will have to respond during this hurricane season. hopefully not in haiti. haiti is a very vulnerable, not just to hurricane, but to a heavy rainfall, if you will. i think that is something everyone is taking seriously, on the ground and those of us in u.s. southcom. we watched the weather very closely. we do what we can do in working with those on the ground, and also the international community. >> thank you. it is wonderful to have you here. we are interested in your thoughts on how we are doing. you have been gathering the latin american and caribbean community. your thoughts?

>> i apologize for being late. i think the most remarkable piece of the story is the response from the international community to the disaster. we had at 1.430 nations respond -- we had -- one point 430 nations respond in one way or another. almost everyone in the caribbean or a black american community responded to haiti. it is truly amazing, the fact that haiti was isolated for so many years because of the way it became a nation. and also because it was simply

the poorest country -- because it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. many people did not want much to do with it. now, brazil was the lead, and the diversity and the contributions of many countries -- especially countries from south america, chile, brazil, argentina, uruguay, paraguay. now we have contributions and the presence of the entire region in haiti, from canada down to chile. the community of the caribbean has played a significant role in haiti today, primarily through its political leverage. it will also play a role in the upcoming election, being a major

factor in terms of the observers as an organization and a community that can have the political standing to be an honest broker. obviously the dominican republic is critical as well, given its proximity. and much of the initial assistance for haiti came through the dominican republic. it has continued to be a sound neighbor and partner with haiti. and we hope and believe that will continue. the biggest challenge is keeping that level of commitment from the world going forward, and making sure the pledges made in

march -- and obviously the monetary commitment, the political, economic, and moral support that haiti deserves, that is sustained. our job in the state department partly is to ensure we keep our neighbors invested in haiti, from reconstruction to political support and stability. that will take all of us, from the richest to the poorest. that is kind of where we are. it is something we have never seen before in terms of the role we have put forward in the participation of the western hemisphere in our country. we hope it will continue that way. >> very good. thank you very much. all right. we are now ready for questions

from the audience. please come up why don't we take two at a time. both of you drop. please, sir. you are the first period -- both of you two. >> [inaudible] my questions are these -- it was a terrible earthquake. i would imagine great numbers would want to leave. we have not heard very much about moving people. i wonder if that has not been reported come up sorta belatedly, i am wondering -- i am wondering if that has not been reported, sort of belatedly, i am wondering. >> thank you. >> thank you.

i am here from the center just from the corner. my question was something that's general keen said about the ngo's being the soldiers of the work being done there. i wondered if you could speak on that in regard to the bureaucratic challenges and if there is something we can learn from what the ngo's are doing? >> thank you. all right, panel -- who would like to take the immigration question? [laughter] general keen, you have a question. >> on migration -- i will leave the family planning up to someone else. we have not seen an increase in those leaving haiti, and historically, a natural disasters have not initiated any

increase in migrants moving out of haiti. i think obviously, we all pay very close attention to this, following the earthquake and the devastation, and we continue to see the same trend. no increase, whether it be up the north coast, through the border area with the dominican republic. i think that is the good news. we have not seen historically in these conditions, whether it be an earthquake or tropical storms, they have not initiated a major my great boost. -- migrants boost. >> thank you. >> individuals a have moved within haiti -- individuals have

moved within haiti. again, not out of haiti itself. you do have reproductive health services as part of ongoing health development efforts in haiti. that has been going for a long time. i do not work for the u.s. government, but in this case, we saw u.s. aid at its best. they took a leadership role throughout the government. there was active but coordination with the military, and there were on the ground -- there was active coordination with the military, and they were on the ground from the get go. i think there is a story about the development of professionals at their best. it is a pretty tough environment. >> antonio, any thoughts from the european point of view? >> [inaudible]

>> all right. julissa, would you like to say something? >> just to concur on the flow of migrants -- it has been the same as the year before. usually what we have seen is there is a slow migration during political turmoil. we have not had that yet. we hope we will never have that again. in terms with the border with the dominican republic, there has not been a massive migration. so, these things are stable at this point. >> thank you. all right. let's start at the front row. why don't we take three at a time? the gentleman, and then the lady. >> i have a question. i was on the ground in haiti.

there's no water or sanitation. i want to ask about the issue -- and i know we have talked a little bit about housing -- i think all of us understand the constraints the government has, the government of haiti has with this. but it has been urgent for a while to get our resettlement plan written and disseminated widely, because people in the camps need to know what their options are. they need to be able to make decisions based on an informed choice. up until now, there has not been information about whether they will get a packet or whether they should go to a new camp that has been developed for transitional housing, etc. there are a lot of issues. i know the ngo community has been clamoring for this plan for a long time. how close is the government to of fully-understood, well- disseminated plan?

and how will they make sure that happens? thank you. >> thank you. >> henrietta fore, i know this was a big thing you champion. public-private partnerships. timberland, dow, and pfizer were on this. we saw a lot of opportunity for businesses to get involved. i would like to hear from the panel on these public-private partnerships. i am wondering -- i know dowel is looking to do a recycling plantd recyclingow is looking to to a recycling plant -- i know dow is looking to do a recycling plant. it is agreed framework for that. >> thank you.

>> i am from "the washington post." i am wondering if there has been a delay in the supplemental haiti aid. and i am wondering what could happen if there is not a quick passage? >> thank you. >> ok. >> very briefly, on the strategy and framework for these opportunities, it is important to support the government. that is what we try to do. so that the planning is adequate, so they can start working. just to clarify, there are certain key issues about the rule of law that are crucial for the republic and for businesses. this is where we have put much

of our emphasis and priorities in our assistance, to enable the government to run the country, and also to hear the political problems that may be on the road, so we can get the government through the election so they can address quickly and clearly the framework problems the country is facing. >> i would add to that that we're also focused on economic recovery. much has been said and connected with the diaspora community of haitians in the united states and europe. they would be cut -- good contacts for everyone. >> i think the questioner is exactly right. there needs to be a resettlement plan.

the good news is that four weeks ago, there was a presidential commission on this issue. they are looking at the camp outside the palace as an initial activity, and they are trying to resolve a number of the issues i outlined earlier in response to henrietta's question. we've provided them with two or three staff members to work directly on the presidential commission. we are looking at providing more staff. the haitian diaspora is an enormous resources in this effort. they lost 15% of the civil servants. there is weakness in the government offices. providing technical expertise is

critical. we signed an agreement just last week with habitat for humanity that is going to provide additional staff to primarily haitian-american engineers. public-private partnerships, absolutely. from our development perspective, we do not think haiti will recover until the economy recovers. they will not survive on handouts of humanitarian assistance. they need resources to purchase the basic necessities of life. the way to do that is through stable investment from public- private partnerships. we launched three weeks ago a partnership with the bill and melinda gates foundation. it is a $10 million incentive fund to provide money to the first operator who sets up of functional banking system in the country. coca-cola is looking at a number

of efforts. we're still in the design phase of our programs. the question about the supplemental -- we hope to have the supplemental soon. we hope that congress will pass its. that is the decision of congress. that is not one of our decisions. we will look at the areas or we need to work -- energy, agriculture, health, in support of the government. we are looking at setting aside an incentive fund, like we did with the banking effort, to stimulate innovative ideas that have high impact, involve private sector partners. >> thank you. sam? >> first, acknowledging federal express involvement. we have 980 projects mapped throughout the country. not only is this where some organizations are working, but

there is the partnership with the hospital, an organization you can engage with over time. the idea is to know what is happening on the ground and allow corporations to engage with the actors on the ground. this goes to the point of the supplemental. there is always a difference between the efficiency of private development systems and otherwise. private aid flows right away. there is $2.2 billion of aid out there. there's about $250 million from the canadiens. -- candaian -- canadians. that money is flowing. the challenge is, once you get into resources that are being set aside for reconstruction. because ngo's will continue to

spend on relief needs, and we need these resources that are slower to raise. they have to go through congress in the supplemental. we need them to be in place to kick in for the longer-term recovery and also because some much of our resources have been front-loaded by u.s. aid. these resources need to be replaced. >> thank you. one over here, and you two. >> i am with oxford university. in with a group here in washington. i appreciate what everyone has done it here. i was an aide officer in darfur. i know how difficult it is. the burden -- even in the public-private partnership will

-- there is a lot of pressure for the government to be the heavy lifter. i am very curious from the perspective of longer-term investment opportunities in that country, about creating the conditions for the risk profile in haiti. right now, haiti is blowing radioactively. having worked with a lot of these private equity firms, the risk is too high. there is our role for the government -- a role for the government to play. they can throw their weight behind a concerted effort to set those conditions and to lay that groundwork so haiti is a lot

more attractive to fdi. if you can please explain what is being done beyond u.s. aid and the whole government approach to attack this pernicious issue for a lot of countries like haiti. >> thank you. and you two. whoever gets the microphone first. >> i am with evidence-based research. i am also concerned with the government question. i am a political scientist. we use the word "government" as though it is the solution to all things we have trouble defining. i have a question about what more specifically the european union is doing in terms of building a sustainable government capacity. the op ed -- op-ed by the former

prime minister and bill clinton called for a more robust role in administering these funds by the world bank. what is the position of the world bank? no one has mentioned that in the discussion. finally, my friends in the dominican republic observed that their response to this crisis really is one of national security because they know the burden of the outflow people is likely to fall on the dominican republic. what has president hernandez asked? >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a private attorney with a

number of business entities. we recently came back from an american chamber of commerce for haiti and the dominican republic conference in haiti, talking about business to business opportunities. one of the issues that has been raised is the capacity of the haitian government to handle the procurement aspects necessary to get the business sector involved. understand there is a structure -- i understand there is a structure in place to review all procurements over $100,000 and all procurements above $500,000 falling under another review process, and those over $1 billion fall under another review process. are those being discussed?

thank you. >> thank you. all right. julissa, would you like to start? >> sure. keep in mind, the president has just got here. he still has not finished. obviously, essentially from the beginning -- the dominican republic, we have been working very closely with them and asking for assistance in terms of facilitating the flow of goods and people and the like. we have been working closely with the government, especially around the border, to make sure they have what they need in order to help -- at least in the initial stages -- but the flow of haitian migrants -- with the

flow of haitian migrants that were flowing into the dominican republic in search of emergency medical assistance. to that extent, we did supply assistance to the dominican republic. we have not received any specific adds for the dominican republic, but we are in continuous communication with them, to make sure we are fully cooperating and if there is immediate need, we are there to respond to it. ed the number of -- the number of -- i mean it is hard to describe how helpful they were. especially in the days immediately following the earthquake. i think general keen and i had a couple of weekends where we were trying to find assistance for two women, and they needed to be

medevaced. the dominican republic was always there to take haitian patients in the thousands. at one point, they had over 10,000 haitians at their hospital -- in their hospital system. and they waived any migration status problems that have resulted from the haitians being in the dominican republic. that is a polemic issue to begin with, given the history. frankly, it has not been -- there has not been a list of particular from the dominican republic government. so far, so good. >> thank you. we have two more answers. antonio, can i turn to you for

the world bank answer? and paul, can i turn to you for the financial risk and procurement questions? antonio? >> thank you. the first point -- we work recognizing the government -- we were recognizing the government before the earthquake. after the earthquake, we reviewed the priorities with the government, and we thought authorization was important in order to provide services. the state of governance before the earthquake was not ideal. taking the opportunity to introduce small, ethical standards and transparency in decisions was important.

there was the immediate need of finding additional alternatives , lodging for the administration. providing assistance to cope with the problems was the main priority in these first days. as for the world bank, we have seen there is plenty of infrastructure work to be done. and also the world bank is an expert in this contribution. >> thank you. paul? >> when the economy recovers, haiti will recover. the question mentioned at the security issue. political stability is absolutely key. we talked about what we and our partners are doing to promote that.

also the business climate -- we have been working in this area. we will continue to work to make sure the bureaucratic procedures to bureau of the government of haiti has to register businesses will be simplified, said the businesses at the micro level can be improved. haiti is also affected by the infrastructure capacity. there will be a big focus on that. lastly, decentralization, as antonio mentioned -- i think creating alternative economic growth zones will not only help depopulate port-au-prince, but it should stimulate additional investment. in terms of the procurement question, i think the recognition of the weekend capacity of government, particularly subject to the earthquake -- the recognition of the weakened capacity of government, particularly subject

to the earthquake is important. as mentioned in the op-ed this morning, a commission is receiving president obama support from price waterhouse and mackenzie in -- is receivingpro bono support from price waterhouse and mackenzie -- is receiving pro bono support from price waterhouse and mckinsey. >> thank you. let me apologize to all of you who we did not get to your questions. will you join me in thanking each of our panelists? [applause] thank you, all, very much for

coming to mark this six-month anniversary. we will meet again. >> on behalf of your program, csis, we thank you. obviously we could have stayed here for many hours with the talent on this panel. i want to let you know that ambassador raymond joseph sent me another e-mail regretting he could not make it. i guess csis did not make it back on at the list of priorities. we have questions we put together with all of the questions you raised. our thanks to our panel and our trusty's. thank you. -- our thanks to our panel and our trustees. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

>> republican leaders say they have no plans to filibuster the nomination, but under committee rules, any member can ask for a one-week delay.

online safety and the cable industry in europe. discussions from this year's national cable show with maryland attorney general. tonight, on c-span to. what world leaders from the white house to parliament around the globe with the c-span video library, online and all free. it is washington and the world, your way. >> state department officials said today that housing remains one of the biggest issues in haiti. six months after the earthquake struck the country, other issues such as disease and hunger have been managed effectively. this briefing is about half an hour.

>> during the six months, a great deal has been done, at enormous -- an enormous response from the international community to this unprecedented disaster. it has been roughly three months since the international community came together at the un and pledged billions of dollars in assistance to the people of haiti. we thought it was important on this six month anniversary to bring back our dynamic duo, cheryl mills and rajiv shah to give you an update. the way forward, both politically and in terms of long-term international support to the people of haiti. we will start with cheryl mills.

i want to put us back in context and then take any questions. on jan. toile, we remember where we were all -- january 12, we remember where we all were and how challenging that moment -- that moment was. 28 out of their 29 ministries collapse. they were in a very challenge place to begin with. i think there is a lot that has happened in haiti and there is an enormous amount that needs to be done. that is one of the challenges that we will be confronting now. we are beginning to look toward the long term and we are in that challenging face -- space

between the immediate crisis and the long term. in a lot of ways, i have been reflecting back on what has happened to see where people were at those times and to speak about where we want to be in haiti. if you look back, there were lots of conversations about land rights and challenges that they presented. we are having the same challenges in haiti. they were seeing a great deal of inflation. we have not seen a lot of that in haiti. we were lucky in that regard. they had a number of folks who were living in temporary shelters. we are seeing the same things in haiti, where we have an enormous number of people who are still

living in tents. it is one of the most presidents it -- pressing needs. we have started to see some movement on the building up temporary shelter, but that has only been in the recent few weeks. the international community has pledged about 125,000 it -- shelters. i think that is something that will be one of the bigger challenges of the next several months. the international committee is committed. the help of metrics are better in haiti than they were before the earthquake.

that is not necessarily a statement of how great things are, but some of the challenging places where he began. we have not seen an outbreak in major disease. we need to keep knocking wood and work hard to continue to see that. when it comes to things like getting civil service back to work, this is something that haiti has seen progress on. we are tracking that particular space. we have been able to coordinate donors. it was set up in record time given the set of challenges that are there. the donor community is going to have to step up and play the obligation that they will need to play, to be good partners. i think that will also be one of

the challenges. in a lot of other ways, we have been able to be a good partner, but we also have to make sure that we are continuing to step up. we have spent over half an hour -- half a billion dollars after the aftermath of the earthquake. we have been using the set of resources that we have available to help with the degree in management that is there to make sure the rubble of remove dirt is -- removal is going forward in a way that we can provide support.

we want to work with the local governments to help them stand up their lost offices and things of that nature, youth services, all of which have been helpful in getting to where we want to go up to the long -- for the long term. we will be on to the long term investment that we want to see in haiti and to be good partners in both investing deeply in the areas of agriculture, energy, health, and ensuring that -- security. that is kind of a top line overview. i am looking forward to questions. i want to turn to my colleague, rajiv shah. >> i want to build don -- built on her points.

to recognize that this was one of the most damaging and destructive natural events that we have ever seen. in response to that, the united states did not is significant and effective early response -- did mount a significant and effective early response. the international humanitarian community effectively match the food needs of more than 3.5 million vulnerable haitians. they have effectively conducted evacuation -- vaccination efforts. it has contained and large-scale epidemic, which we had all been concerned about. they are in the process of providing emergency shelter to more than 1 million haitians and working on transition strategies to get people into real transitional housing and to

rehabilitate homes so that people can return to their normal homes of living. we, of course, have had some unique successes in being innovative about trying to solve some of these problems. the efforts to use mobile phones and to use the mobile banking platforms is an interesting and important potential innovation that can really help improve the lives of patients. just last week, i was in haiti and had the chance to see some of the reconstruction efforts. some of those efforts to embody what we are trying to do with the relief and the recovery. we have been working together with the government of haiti to identify and help train local construction workers to create actual segment so that bricks

stick together to improve their technique based on local material and local availability. as a result, they have a protective strength that is 223 times the strength that the wall previously had. -- two to three times the strength. how did you remove 25 million cubic meters of debris, probably more than 20 times that existed in other tragedies, in an environment that is congested and infrastructure was counting to begin with? it is a tremendous challenge and we honor the fact that the government is making some important strides in addressing that. there are important challenges and we will continue to stand with the government of haiti as

a partner to the release -- for the relief. i look forward to taking some comments or questions. >> >> thank you for doing this. i would like to talk more about the long-term and the fact that they both acknowledge that because he did not have the infrastructure in place when this happened, they were set back a lot more than other countries were. it was not the physical infrastructure, but also the infrastructure of government and services. while i know you have been a working closely with the president, i was wondering what efforts have been made after the earthquake about what you do to make sure that they have the infrastructure of government and services in place that they are not starting from - 0 is

something like this happens again. i was wondering more about the kind of building up of government and traditional nation building types of activities. >> building the capacity of the government of haiti is something that all the donors have been focused on. it began with the war. you are seeing more specific investments in how people are deploying their technical assistance, but also how they are thinking of aligning their money. i think that is very important. the reality of the challenge is that we have lost a lot of people. that ended up in the action plan. we are doing that in the

partnership by learning our own expertise to people. we are working side by side with other ministries. they are in a place to be able to train and help make decisions consistent with the way the leadership is identifying badge. it will require the investment and capacity building that means more than just sitting beside somebody in doing what they do, it means whether we can provide broader mechanisms and training, particularly in the financial areas. it is going to be a long haul. i do think that unlike in the past, or there was a lot more comfort of everybody choosing alternative mechanisms, people were spending time trying to make mechanisms that go through the government or that creates cells or coordination centers within the government that allow them to be trained.

that is helpful. is a long path. it is going to be a very long path. it will require a lot of recruiting. that process is also going to be one that will be a long one. >> our teams have been working with the government of unpreparedness, prepared mr. raines, hurricanes, flash flooding. on an annual basis, it has a tremendous negative impact on what port-au-prince and other cities in haiti and other environments have been rainfall. we have been working on a planning effort. we have been working on a shared prediction efforts. we are sharing data. in addition to that, the humanitarian community working together has essentially prepositioned food, medicine, a variety of other shelter

equipment in place is that we consider high risk. we have moved about 7500 people from very high risk dwelling settings to other, safer sites. as part of our work in port-au- prince, we have been working with the government and removed quite a bit of trouble. it is has cleared the canals and the drainage systems. the idea there is to have mitigation measures in place so that when these natural events to arise, they have less than harmful impact on the population. >> i am assuming that there are new mechanisms in place for accountability of age. that was one of the complaints

viet aid to haiti over the past several decades. we gave all this money and we did not know where it went. maybe it is a little bit different now. >> it is too late to say about that. we need to be able to track the outcome specifically. all of our programs are being designed to ask what the outcomes we want to measure. how are we going to measure it over the time? that is actually one of the design differences. we need to be able to tell what we are doing ourselves. in addition to the kind of emergency preparedness, there is also investment capacity that we are building into the long term. that will deal with the paraprofessionals in the health arena.

we will be spending -- as we step the agriculture investments that are being made, a lot about will be directing some of the losses that were done at the university that had to be with their agricultural professionals. ways in which we are building the skills of other individuals who can help leak increase the productivity and the marketability of their goods. -- help increase the productivity and marketability of their goods. there been designed that way from the beginning. it is going to be the best long- term investment that we can have. >> i would just make the point that the program designed and die again peace -- evaluation peace is very important, so thank you for raising it. and almost all of our big programs, we will specifically

collect baseline data. we want to track progress against the wheel and data base line. that is how we knew that the real illness rate in port-au- prince has fallen 12% less than pre earthquake levels. it brought in case data and let us make that kind of judgment and evaluation. that is important as a whole for the nation of haiti. it takes a little bit more time, but it is part of getting it right. >> it seems like the real and urgent problem right now is housing. with the land dispute cropped up and the slow pace of rubble removal, that is a real problem. are you changing your plans?

do you see ways to address those problems? >> they are not new land problems, unfortunately. they are long existing ones in haiti. we started in a place where land was already fundamentally challenging constructs. the government has exercised eminent domain over certain plot of land that do allow for the opportunity of building of transitional housing. the real issue will be the designation of where those spaces are and how to do that in a way that is planned. so that people are not in a place where they did not have access to services. how do we coordinate bad in a way that people will invest?

otherwise, you are just living in the middle of nowhere. i think this is a very big challenge. this is the area where the international community has been more pressing. the president established a commission on this. how do we go about identifying where the transitional housing should go? how do we incentivize people to do that? that has been at a slow pace. it is one of the things that we have started to see movement in the last couple of weeks. i do think there is a lot more that has to be done to be able to see the kind of movement and the pace. we are not on a pace to do that. i think it will be complicated.

as the muscles get exercised, it will also help make easier some of the other decisions that need to be made about land and use of the land to get more traditional housing put up. a lot of people are not excited about being back in some of their homes, which is totally understandable. there are 79,000 houses were people can move back into them. we have got to get people to a place where they feel incentivize to be back into their houses. we need to beat -- make repairs and some of their homes. that effort is going to be critical because it opens up a whole new set of homes that people can return to without having to deal with the same kind of land issues. >> that covers it.

>> both of you have had some praise from the president, but he has been criticized for a weak and ineffectual response for creating a plan that can be implemented. one that would allow the donors to fill comfortable in releasing their funds. can you tell us about how you will work with the president that will allow donors to feel more comfortable about losing their funds that they pledged? >> i will speak from the standpoint of the u.s. they do have a plan. it is not a plan that is at issue. these plans need to have details but their overarching vision. -- with their overarching vision some of them do not.

we want to ensure that we are completely aligned with their plant and that through the ministry, their understanding of what we're getting ready to do and how we need to do that. make sure that we get the specific approval that we might need. i do think that is going to be hard, but i am not worried about the ability to identify what our needs are going to be. i worry about making sure that we get time and decisions in response to that. a full staff will be able to help enormously with that.

that process, once it gets up and moving, will help a lot of the donor money to be able to move forward all the ministries are able to continue working on projects they have been working on so that we're completely not overloading the ministries. >> i have a question about local procurement. as you are looking forward, i'm curious as to what your plan is about local procurement. so that they are not living hand to mouth. >> that is a great question. with the amount of assistance that will go to haiti, that will be an important economic boost to the haitian economy is procurements are done in a way

that are transparent and allow for access to local partners. the examples i used about each -- the examples i gave about using a local construction firms, is part of getting that right. we will prioritize local procurement and using local firms wherever possible across all of our portfolio areas. sometimes that takes an extra step of qualifying -- qualifying certain firms and ensuring effective auditing and transparency systems are in place. we have a party to protect the sanctity of every dollar and making sure that firms have the capabilities to implement programs to code. you are trading partners on how to reconstruct homes in a way that meets their standards and certain code. these are things that we are prepared to do. even if they take a little bit of time, we believe that they're

worth doing. it is important to recognize that to get this right, it might take some time to find the right partners. the priority should be on achieving the outcome as opposed to the pace of program disbursement or a metrical like that. this is a unique opportunity to build back better. >> i was wondering if you could talk about what challenges there are for the november 28 elections. do you think that they are setting things up -- are we on track to get something that will be a credible election? >> my question is about children. we spent a lot of time after words about adoptions and kids and lost parents and parents to

have been killed. can you bring us up-to-date on that? >> on elections, we're on track to have elections november 28. that is what the target is for both the parliamentary and presidential elections. there are a set of needs that are important to have -- to be met in order to have credible elections. we need the haitian people to feel comfortable with the outcome and have leadership that will be responsible for an enormous task. certainly, from our standpoint, we want to see is high level observation. we believe there is going to be a need for high levels sustained and larger observation than has been in the past.

it is identified early enough so that there are alternatives. we would like to see very sustained and long term observation team. i think the other thing that we've been spending a fairmount on time -- at times about is the technical assistance to the electoral council. people need to be embedded as they have in the past. there is a need for more given the challenge is to ensure that they have the assistance that they need and the support. we've indicated that we're going to participate by supporting the elections and participating in the logistical and security support.

ways in which we ensure civic engagement. the things that will be interesting for me to observe is to see how they choose to organize itself. there are a number of bylaws with respect to the election. he made a clear distinction between -- distinction between the role of judge and jury and the management role where there was somebody who ran the elections. i would like to see that again. that line got blurred in subsequent elections since the last presidential election. i also think that it will be critically important to ensure the different parties have the opportunities for their voices to be heard.

the foreign governments are not in a position to be able to support any other elections. we want to ensure that people do have the right opportunity for their message to be heard. all of those challenges are going to be being stepped through over the past -- of the next several weeks and months. we will be very involved. >> on children, child protection and child welfare is an important priority across everything we're doing in haiti. when you look at the pre earthquake statistics, up over 40% of kids for being malnourished. -- roraback -- or malnourished. these are the types of things we are focusing on in our relief

program and in our recovery program. the opportunity to rebuild the haitian agriculture sector and to do it in a way where there is additional programming for children, and the opportunity to reconstruct feeding programs and efforts that reach children in a targeted way it with food, with clean drinking water, with disease protection and control really will make a huge difference in child welfare. it has been a main focus of the ministry and of much of our programming. >> on orphans, as a look back to see where we ended up with the orphans that were identified as meeting the criteria to be able to be paroled at of the country, we ended up with somewhere around 1150 children who ended up being cissus -- successfully placed. there were about 400 kids who were identified as adoptable and

met the standard to be able to be adopted out of haiti. we did end up seeing about 1150, 1200 kids being placed. we are now back to the pre earthquake process for paroling children for adoption. that process has been working consistent with the paradigm that they had in place before. >> people were stopped from smuggling? >> i totally forgot about that. you are taking the back. we have not had been recent reports in that regard. the process has been working relatively well, a little bit faster than the way it worked pre earthquake. >> thank you very much.

>> the state department today confirmed the death of one u.s. citizen and you gone that with five others hospitalized following the bombings in that country over the weekend. this is 50 minutes.

>> as the secretary said, in the past six months, the haitian people have shown their resilience and strength and efforts continued to inspire us all. the united states remains committed. earlier this morning, the secretary had about a 45-minute conversation with the turkish foreign minister. they reviewed a wide range of subjects during the call, including the situation with respect to iran. the secretary also talked to the foreign minister and reiterated the united states commitment to help with the designated foreign terrorist organization. the pkk remains a common enemy with turkey, the united states, and iran.

the secretary encourage the foreign minister to continue important dialogue with israel because that relationship remains a vitally important one to the future of the region. we congratulate spain and the people of south africa out of hosting an excellent month of soccer. they showed us the passion -- their passion for the game. it was the first time and african nation hosted the world cup. they proved its ability to do so quite nobly. we obviously congratulate spain as well for it's a thrilling when. -- for its thrilling win.

how they contrast with the cowardice and destruction would tuesday's celebration of the world cup to commit cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians. the united states condemns the tax that took place yesterday that resulted in it so many deaths and injuries. our condolences and prayers go out to the victims of this cowardly crime. we stand shoulder to shoulder with you gone down -- uganda in the fight against terrorism. its efforts against the boards resistance army as well. the united states commenced its for the role and a continues to play to bring security to an unstable part of africa. we have an fbi team on the ground collecting evidence, to

diplomatic security officers will arrive later today to assist the government in its investigation. we have an additional fbi team standing by in the united states into -- ready to assist if needed. we will continue to do everything in our power to assist them and bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. we regret that we have confirmation of the death of one u.s. citizen killed in the attack. he was an employee of the mgo. there have been five u.s. citizens hospitalized for injuries resulting from the attacks. we are in touch with them and will be assisting in their medical evacuation in the coming hours and days. with that, i will take questions. >> do they include any peace corps volunteers? >> no. all of the peace corps

volunteers have been accounted for. >> are they in critical condition? >> a couple cases, they have sustained serious injuries. i would not characterize them as life-threatening, but they need a significant medical attention and that is one of the areas we're focused on. >> should we understand that you accept or believe there claim of responsibility? >> they have made a public claim of responsibility. an investigation itself is ongoing. the preliminary information that we have certainly it would confirm that link. >> can you be a little bit more specific? are you talking about something other than the spokesman saying this? >> yes. in terms of the evidence that we

are aware of at the attack scene, it confirms their connection. >> can you be more precise as to what the evidence is? >> no. >> in the past, they have threatened -- do you have any reason to believe that these particular venues were targeted because westerners or americans might have been at these venues? >> that is hard to say. clearly, the attacks were perpetrated on civilians. one of these locations is an area where -- that has sometimes been frequented by westerners or by americans.

as to whether this attack -- fory had threatened uganda its participation in the african union mission. and the attack occurred in the capital. whether it was directed at the people, others to support its efforts, i cannot say at this point. >> the u.s. has been active in supporting the transitional government. are there for their actions? >> it is a broader strategy of working with the transitional federal government, working with regional factors, kenya, others to try to stabilize the

situation in somalia. it reaffirms the international community's commitment to both build effective governments in and around -- to its ongoing struggle and the narrow brutal vision that it has. >> you mentioned the international community. what are the larger implications for the international community? >> first and foremost, if their intent in orchestrating this was to somehow we can their resolve, every indication that we have says the opposite. the assistant secretary and the ambassador have both talked to the president in the past 24 hours. he is determined to continue

constructive action in the region. if this was aimed at punishing their resolve, we think that this has backfired. lot ofis still a investigating to do to figure out how it was carried out. clearly, we will evaluate the implications. we have no reason to doubt the claim of responsibility at this time. >> is this a new face? >> i will leave that for them to describe. we understand that in africa and

elsewhere, we are in the midst of a very significant struggle against al qaeda and those who identified themselves with al qaeda. they're one of those groups. this is nothing new in the sense that you have a group that is striking out where it can. again, i would look at the response of the government and be very encouraged by what the president has told us. he has indicated that they remain committed to the mission and that is the strongest retort. we are going to continue to support those who want to responsibly government in somalia. we will resist those who have a narrow, brutal, of violent vision of the future in that country.

>> they do have an address in somalia. >> i cannot predict. the best response to this kind of violence is to do exactly what they are doing, do wh the united states and the international community. we will still determined to help build effective structures of government in somalia. >> does the u.s. send a message to all of the regional governments urging them to continue their support for the peacekeeping mission? is that the message in all of this? >> erotically, upcoming -- ironically, somalia was always it -- already an issue that was going to be discussed as part of that conference. i will expect that its

importance will only increase given the attack yesterday. i would fully expect the response by other countries to be the same response you are hearing from the united states. we will do everything in our power to resist those to resort to violence to threaten and kill innocent civilians. >> has that been the u.s. message today to these governments? stick to your guns? >> i cannot point to any particular outreach that we have had to date with the exception of the call yesterday to the president by secretary carson. i am sure we will have conversations in the lead up to the summit next week. i am sure that also we will have krenz -- we will have conversations with our own ranks. we have been grateful to the efforts to support the a you

admission. -- au mission. >> sudan -- the icc today had three charges of genocide. >> it is an update of the existing warrants, adding genocide to the existing charges that included crimes against humanity. we continue to support this process. in our previous discussion with officials, we strongly encourage them to cooperate fully.

at some point, the president has to present himself to the icc and give a count. >> -- and give a count. >> you have to hire a good lawyer. that is what it means, among other things. at his own discretion. there is a warrant out for his arrest and we believe that he should present himself to the icc and answer the charges that have been leveled against him. one needs a legal process. everyone is entitled to a day in court. the sooner that he presents himself to that court, the better. >> he has requested around 50

taliban leaders. what is the u.s. position on this? do we support this? >> i would be careful about putting a particular number on this. the united states is in the process of reviewing the status of several former members of the taliban currently on the 1267 sanctions list. most of the individuals have already reconciled with the afghan government, while a few others are allegedly deceased. as with other members of the security council, we are considering specific individuals. the number under review was

cited to one particular report. >> as far as the status of women goes, if there is some sort of reconciliation, how will the united's -- how far will united states go to protect women's rights? >> this should not be seen -- women are fundamental to the future development of the afghanistan. we have made clear that there are specific stipulations that anyone who wishes to reconcile has to meet. that includes support of the afghan constitution, including the fundamental rights for all afghan citizens, including women. we do not think that any reconciliation process in afghanistan should come at the

expense of women. >> it might, though. >> you know the secretary of state very well. she has spoken about this. she will have the opportunity to reiterate this at the upcoming auto conference. -- cobble -- kabul conference. reconciliation cannot come at the expense of afghan women. that would be as very strong message that we will continue to reiterate. >> do you have anything about the swiss decision? >> the united states believes that the rape of a 13 year-old child by an adult is a crime. we continue to pursue justice in this case. i will let other countries explain actions they have taken or actions they failed to take. >> any follow-up discussions?

>> i am not aware of any follow- up discussions. we will evaluate today's decision and neck steps will be up to our colleagues at the department of justice. >> according to reports, this was attorney general -- the swiss attorney general alluded to potential technical errors in the u.s. extradition request. do you buy that? >> a 13 year-old girl was drugged and raped by an adult. this is not a matter of technicality. >> she reported to have said that one of the reasons for not extraditing roman polanski was that he had been coming to switzerland for many years in good-faith that he would not be

extradited to face justice. do you see any merit to that argument? >> no. >> would you say that the u.s. is disappointed by the swiss decision? >> yes. look, i can reiterate what i just said. the rape of a 13 year-old girl by an adult, he should know better and he does know better. it is a crime. we will continue to seek justice in this case. >> the federal government is actually taking a position on this? you believed -- 9 >> you have the california courts that educated this case. i think the facts in the case are not in dispute. the girl was 13. he was an adult. there was a rape.

we think that is a crime. that is why we have been pursuing this case for over many years. i will defer to other countries to describe how they view the tax in this case. -- a view the facts in this case. this is a crime for which justice has not been served. >> will be any ramifications or consequences? >> it is a process that is ongoing. we will evaluate the basis by which this action took place. we are disappointed. as to our next steps, that is a matter that justice is reviewing as the speak. >> when you say you will continue to suggest is, can you specified? >> we have not tried to hide

behind technicalities here. this is a judgment that goes back many, many years. the city of los angeles has had this -- has not forgotten about this case. we have not forgotten about this case. it sends a very important message regarding how women and girls are treated around this world. to push the case aside based on technicalities -- >> again, are there any consequences? >> let's see -- >> your comments, which have been pretty dismissive and derisive of any kind of technicality issue, seems to suggest that you love already evaluated the reasoning and that you completely disagree with it.

>> we do disagree with that. as to the next steps, we will evaluate the implications of this plan forward. -- of this going forward. >> the foreign secretary, she really was very critical of the unilateral sanctions. she said that our attempts to meet the needs of our people are going to be affected. what is your comment on that? >> i am not familiar with those particular comments. every country pursues its own self interest of its citizens. we understand that. by the same token, all countries have international obligations to fully respect and

to keep the sanctions that were passed by the security council. we are taking our own steps to fully implement those sanctions. to take additional steps within our own laws, we would expect all countries to respect and commit themselves to undertake and enforce the sanctions that have been passed by the un security council. >> she mentioned that these are unilateral sanctions. they're going to affect the business of indian countries -- companies in iran. >> we have ongoing concerns about the nature of their nuclear program. there are many questions that we have that have gone unanswered.

we have concerns regarding his concerns which we share about iran continuing to move closer to having a breakout nuclear capability. it is of to iran to come forward and engage the international community constructively. they have failed to do that. from our standpoint, this cannot be a situation of the business as usual. this is about the future of the world. this is about the danger of nuclear arms race in the middle east, which will affect countries outside the region, including india. everyone has a responsibility to do what each country can to convince iran to change its