trickles down. in the united states, we have been as fragmented as one can be. we have to model against thousands of rate structures to figure out where solar is the most viable. it is viable in almost every place, but we need thousands. it is not surprising that your caller called a local utility commission and got a head scratching. there is no real guidance out there. that is one area of policy on capitol hill that could be very powerful, to bring leadership in that area. host: thomas rooney is the president of spg solar. we are talking about solar energy on our week-long series on energy. ray, you with us? we're going to move on. california, hi.

caller: i was into solar what i was in my 20s, but now that i am 50, i worry about the unintended consequences. i wonder if there is a grand plan in the fact that solar means we absorb more energy than we ever have before, and whether this could lead to an overload of energy? guest: the earth receives the same amount of energy every day. you know, if you did a mass energy balance, when thesu sun shines on the solar panel, it is converted directly. it is interesting, but i do not know of we have long-range energy consequences from that --

if we have long-range energy consequences from that. interesting question, though. host: maryland, jane, hi. caller: if you ready for my question? host: yes, we are on the air. caller: i would like to know if someone is interested in job in solar, how we get trained for it with his company, if the person has a degree but it is not in engineering or solar. guest: to my knowledge, very few people have solar degrees. i am an engineer. engineering is always a great background. we have people from all degrees of education. if you are interested in our company, it is spgsolar.com. beyond that, there are

tremendously interesting companies in maryland. there is a great company that specializes in the financing of technology around solar. with the what to look at our web site, or a --, as i said -- whether it you want to look at our web site, or, as i said, you have a great company in maryland. host: thomas rooney has been our guest. in a few minutes, maxine waters will open her press conference on the ethics charges to cameras. she is in the capitol's visitors center, and one of the hearing rooms, and that is where we're going to go live, ratin

[no audio] [no audio] >> a live picture from capitol hill. california congresswoman maxine waters is holding a press conference with reporters addressing questions about possible ethics violations brought by the house ethics committee. she is expected to be joined by her chief of staff, michael moore, who happens to be her grandson. he is in the room on her left. she is expected to read a

prepared statement and then there will be a power point presentation and a q &a with reporters but cameras will not be allowed on that. this is live coverage on c-span. [no audio]

>> we are awaiting this morning of the appearance of congresswoman maxine waters told a press conference here, addressing possible ethics violations brought by the house ethics committee. here is how we expect this to go. there will be a prepared statement read by the congresswoman, a power point presentation refuting the alleged ethics violations, also q &a and we were told earlier that cameras would not be able to stay in the room for that. we are told that we may be able to stay for that afterward. among the charges that maxine waters faces is that she allegedly broke house conduct rules for her role in helping a minority-owned bank obtain federal bailout money in 2008.

we will expect maxine waters to address those charges as she arrives here on capitol hill. this is live coverage on c-span. it appears it will be a few moments before maxine waters appears that this press briefing. while we stand by and wait, your phone calls from this morning's "washington journal."

>> she will likely of ago some of the same things since the ethics charges were leveled against her. that is "bayville" newspaper this morning. -- that is "a the hill" newspaper this morning.

that is from as well. >> senate majority whip dick durbin had a tumor removed from his stomach and will be back at work soon.

he is 65 years old and underwent surgery at the university of chicago medical center to have a small gastrointestinal tumor removed from his stomach. there was no evidence the tumor had spread and his doctors gave him a favorable prognosis. mike huckabee, don't change the 14th amendment. mike huckabee says he is against changing the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship. "the supreme court has decided in three different centuries. every single instance, they have a firm that if you are born in this country, you are considered to be a citizen. the only option there is to change the constitution." the constitution reads, the first sentence reads," all

persons born or naturalized in the u.s. and subject to the jurisdiction there of our citizens of the united states and of the state where in the they reside." that is what we want to talk to you about. . it has been a simmering issue, whether or not this part of the 14th amendment should be repealed. if you support repeal of the birthright citizenship, the numbers are on the screen. again, we are talking about repealing the birthright citizenship part of the 14th amendment, as has been talked

about for a couple of weeks. some politicians are lining up in favor of it, some opposed to it. a former arkansas governor and now stands as one of the few gop leaders firmly against the proposal. that is from the politico this morning. go ahead and dial in. we will start taking your calls in just a minute. i want to assure you this picture from the front page of

"the wall street journal." there are six pictures of center schumer here. in an empty senate, the eye has it is the caption on the picture. how to fix a dysfunctional senate, cut 98 centers. a senate can work quickly after all, you just have to limit it to two senators.

>> we will return live to capitol hill from remarks by congresswoman method -- maxine waters who is addressing ethics charges this morning. >> well, good morning everyone.

you're not going to say good morning back? [laughter] i want to thank you for all being here today especially on a friday during recess. the press and public have had an opportunity to read this statement of alleged violations and have shown a lot of interest in the ethics matter that is now pending before the committee on standards of official conduct. i am eager to be able to have an opportunity to present my case. that is why i have requested that the standards committee schedule a hearing as soon as possible. unfortunately, the committee has not yet specified a date or hearing on this matter and given the congressional schedule, it is possible that no hearing would be held for months. , even after the november elections. such a delay is unacceptable. consider and that the investigation has dragged out

for almost one year. it does not provide due process. it prevents my constituents and the american public from getting answers and it delays me from being able to respond to the charges spelled out in the sav. i am pleased that the committee released to the sav and related documents earlier this week as i have insisted after waiting my rights to have the sav remain private until the a judicatory hearing. i have arranged this press conference to present my facts in the case and clear up ambiguities and misinformation. i recognize the transparency that i am providing may not eliminate and a judicatory hearing to reiterate. i am anxious to share these facts with you and the public because i have not violated any house rules. i have fully disclosed all of my

financial information as requested by house of roles and in fact went above and beyond what was required by repeatedly disclosing my and my husband's financial interests during the financial committee services hearing. neither my staff of more i engaged in any improper behavior as we did not influence anyone and we did not gain any benefits. we are here today because i believe my actions and the allegations against me are not easily understood. today, i want to be absolutely clear about one thing -- this case is not just about me. this case is about access. it is about access for those who are not heard by decision makers whether it is having their questions answered or their concerns address. for the past 14 years, i have served in elective office both at the state and national level

and i have made one of my top priorities opening doors and providing access for small minorities and women owned businesses. in fact, my advocacy and assistance in providing access for the national bankers association is why we are here today. the national bankers association consists of 103 minority banks. i have worked with this association and their concerns for many years. i have spoken at their conventions on many occasions. i have participated in hearings about their issues and i have worked with our federal agencies on their behalf including the treasury department, the fdic, and fannie mae and freddie mac. my telephone calls to then secretary of the treasury hank paulson during the worst economic crisis this nation has

faced in 80 years was to provide access to the national bankers association which was concerned about the fact that treasury had placed fannie mae and freddie mac into conservatorship. it was represented to me that many minority banks have over leveraged of their capital in fannie and freddie and the association wished to know whether or not there members capital was lost or if the government was responsible for protecting the capital of they had invested in preferred stock. they had attempted a meeting with the treasury department but have received no response. and so they sought me out to assist them in setting up a meeting. the question at this point

should not be why i called secretary paulson but why i had to. the question at this point should be white a trade association representing over 100 minority banks could not get a meeting at the height of the crisis. when i contacted the treasury secretary, i did not suggest any solutions to the problem of the national bankers association. i did not ask for any favors from the national bankers association. i did not ask for a meeting for any individual bank including one united bank. i did not suggest who would be participants in that meeting. i did not attend that meeting. there was no such thing as the troubled asset relief program known as tarp at that time. there has been a great deal of

confusion over a conversation i had with the financial services chairman, barney frank. the conversation i had with chairman frank was a conversation several weeks after this meeting had taken place and after tarp program had been announced. 1 united bank was raising questions about assistance from tarp because my office's assistant to the national bankers association was strictly to provide access for a discussion about the impact of the financial crisis on small and minority banks abruptly and because there was becausetarp program at the time of the meeting, i did not wish to get involved with 1 united bank against -- with any individual assistance or about this new tarp program. because my husband had once served on the board of 1 united bank and still held investments

there, i felt i should seek assistance from chairman frank, a representative from the state or the bank was headquartered and someone with a record of commitment to the health of minority banks. it is important to note that no government agency or their representative have ever said that i requested any special assistance or compensation for anyone or any institution or that i influenced the tarp process in any way. there has been a question about whether or not i instructed my staff not to get involved with 1 united bank and their interest in assessing tarp bonds. my staff had only been involved in understanding the impact of the financial crisis on small and minority banks probably and assisting in setting up a meeting with the treasury the nationalor

bankers association. i told my chief of staff that i had in ford chairman frank about 1 united bank plus interest and we were only concerned about small and minority banks brought late, that chairman frank would evaluate 1 united bank's issue and make a decision about how to proceed and given the e-mails that the committee has offered as their evidence, we communicated with each other clearly. this is not just about us. this is about those who lack access. i am honored to serve on a conference committee of the wall street reform and consumer protection act. i am happy to say that much of the legislation i offered come --authored access for women and shareholders and more accountable, and assistance for struggling and unemployed

homeowners were included in the final legislation that was signed by president obama. i am particularly proud of the offices of minority and women inclusion that will be set up at the federal government's financial institutions such as the fdic, all of these agencies continuing with my work about access will now have these offices of minority and women inclusion. hear me clearly -- because of the need for access and the work that i have done over many years, i have now opened up new opportunities by creating the offices of minority and women assistance at the fdic, the treasury department, the federal reserve among others to deal

with the historic lack of access that minority and women individuals and institutions have had in hiring, decision making, contract, and procurement opportunities. over the past year, high and nine other congressional black caucus members of the financial services committee have been meeting with the national bankers association, the national newspaper publishers association, the national association of black-owned broadcasters, the national association of minority automobile dealers, the national association of securities professionals, and the national bar association among others, discussing the plight of minority businesses, their lack of access to capital, and the lack of support from their government in banking, advertising, and consulting contracts. access is key to understanding the scope of this case. this case is not just about

them. this case is about fairness. in fact, we investigated "ignored or disregarded key pieces of exculpatory evidence crucial to my case and that is extremely troubling. a truly robust investigatory process would have taken all the available evidence into consideration. i believe that if this had been done, we would not be here today. fairness is also key to understanding the scope of this case. the case is not just about that. the case is also about my constituents and the american people. i have truly been touched by the outpouring of support for my constituents in los angeles and from friends in places like louisiana, texas, missouri, new york, illinois, florida, and even from abroad. i know the way of the american people view congress.

they hear talk of partisanship and power and money and influence. for congressional critics, it is easy to see a report of an ethics case and completely wash your hands. my constituents and supporters have seen the many inaccurate accusatory portrayals of my work and they know me better than that. they have encouraged me to fight. i admit that there are some who do not believe in my philosophy or my method. no one should question of my devotion to public service. therefore, i am asking us all to pause for a moment and set aside our cynicism and consider two things -- the facts of the case and my life's work in trying to provide access to those who have been denied. these two things will provide context for my constituents and your judgment. my constituents demand that i stand up for the values of they elected me to represent. some of them have no benefits,

no improper action, no one influenced one case. i think you for coming today. i will ask my chief of staff, m ikhail moore to address key facts in the case and our concerns with the sav to come forward. after the presentation, i will be happy to take your questions on the sav and answer them to the best of my ability. i will ask you to keep your questions to the sav and my experiences with the ethics investigation and process. i will not be entertaining questions about the supposed issue of race in this matter for the recent media reports that have nothing to do with my case pending before the committee on standards of official conduct. let me ask the camera guys on

this side, you are distracting me, would you please move back? please. when your lights go off, it bothers my eyes. please do not stand on this side and go back to the front row, please. please move back to the front row, i would appreciate it very much. thank you very much. mikhail moore. >> hello. i can't say. i'm sorry. ok.

we want to run through the basics of the case and share information with you that you may not be aware of that will give you insight to why we are at this point and white a settlement has not been reached and why we think the congress woman has a good case to hold before the a judicatory committee. the basics are the question of whether the national bankers association and whether or not there was a benefit for 1 united bank and whether there was assistance or a failure to instruct or a thing called the creation of an appearance. here we have the first letter that was sent by robert cooper, chairman elect of the national bankers association requesting the additional -- original meeting from hank paulson. here we have an e-mail from mr. mike: brandt -- michael brant.

he was acting in his capacity as 81 united executive. we want to show there was communication between folks at the nba and the morning of the meeting. here you see floyd weeks, the current chairman of nba. this is an e-mail to the entire membership. it says to please see the attached article in today " washington post" that the meeting requested by maxine waters was requested by her. this says we will send an update of the outcome. as we go through these, all of these documents are documents that were produced of the of this subpoena of the committee.

they were able to view these and this was part of their decision making process. on that morning, it says a number of hard hit banks, minority banks, wanted the government to help those bags raise replacement capital. treasury apartment officials agreed to meet with some bank executives today. we have e-mails from members of the association, the chairman and the president on the morning of the meeting ""the washington post"story. after press reports in march of 2009, we have a press release from the national bankers association which reads," the board determines that actions taken by mr. cooper were consistent with authority granted to him by the association." here was the letter that was

sent by the national bankers association shortly after the meeting reiterating the purpose for the meeting and the request for assistance to a broad set of banks and the association. we now go to the question of the elected benefit and the preservation of $12 million oftarp. it says the chief of staff provide a continuous assistance to obtain legislation that ultimately resulted in one united receiving funding from treasury. it says they did nothing which resulted in a benefit to one united and benefit congresswoman maxine waters. the preservation of the value of the respondents husband would person to benefit the respondent. the sav alleges tarp funding was requested.

it alleges tarp funding preserved one united. what did they benefit under and how does that process work? what is clear they benefited under the capital purchase program will tarp. one united had to raise approximately $20 million in private capital and get a tax deferment from the fdic, they had to get an approval by the federal regulator which was the fdic and get approval by the treasury department.0 this was all in the context of the bus administration. it was clear they did not benefit from such 1036. this is testimony from the director of resolution fdic.

they were -- they were critically undercapitalized and they were trying to raise capital and that also want to make sure that corrective action took place that corrected the issues that were identified. they had to come up with an agreement with state street bank for $70 million for the institution and they needed a waiver of deferred tax assessments and these are assets that could be considered capital. and then there was discussion of tarp money so we had to put a case together for board members. we presented the case for the board of directors and recommended they get the first tax asset waiver and they asked for 48 months and we sold 12 must read they ask for 24 and we said 12 and state street was going to put their money in that it had to be in by october 30. they had 30 days to file after that.

were you in favor of this action? she responded that yes, it was her recommendation and we have a responsibility to protect financial institutions, minority institutions in particular, but i am in favor of protecting depositors with to the mission of the fdic. there were issues like compensation and other things that were brought to our attention. we worked through the issues and the primary concern was the fbi official was to make sure the bank was sound and there is a law that we could do whatever we can do to protect minority institutions. >> what is her name, please? >> sandra l. thomas. >> what is your title? >> she was director of resolutions. we have done the fdic and now we go to the treasury department.

we have correspondence from brooklyn mclaughlin who was the assistant deputy secretary for public affairs. they were trying to figure out when united got money and if they benefit under this section. " the wall street journal" was told that one united qualify for the december investment. the deputy director of the capital purchase program response." ," they qualify for the december investment under the established return which is used for all applicants." this is correspondence with the treasury department that dates back to the current

administration but shows an e- mail trail back to the previous administration. in their response to questions, they want to say that this happened in the previous administration tarp bonds are awarded when the institution meets requirements and bank regulators declared the bank viable as tarp is insulated from outside influence. those are the three points. this is an e-mail from cashcari responding to questions did the meeting in september related to dse losses play any role in the decision by treasury to provide one united $12 million in funds on december 19. that is fairly clear. neil cashcari said they did not know about the meeting. >> could you all the microphone

up a little bit? >> i apologize. >> could you turn the podium microphone off? >> ok. we need you to hear this. if you need me to start over, i will [laughter] . did the meeting or the appeal by one united appeal to the fact that it was the first community institution to receive cpp funds? neal cashcari said not at all, we didn't know about a parenit. did this accelerate the consideration or play any role in the decision? he responded, not at all. finally, after we get past the facts that show there was no employees and nothing that was done by our office to influence the process, we go to the case law from the standards

committee. they said something important. this is what they said about treating a member and their investment. it says moreover, rep braced putative interest was not unique to him but then interest that was held as a large class of investors. as such, even if hu mr.rst's testimony or the personal financial interest in either investment would have been affected as members of a class of investors and not as individuals. that is a very clear statement and the question we have asked time and time again is how they treat the congresswoman's investment as a uniquely held investment as opposed to others. >> when did they decide that case? >> that was about six months ago. >in the midst of our investigation, the statement was made by the standards committee.

around the congresswoman's failure to construct and the timing of the conversation with chairman frank. i would like to point out that the investigative subcommittee never asked myself or the congress woman directly whether or not she instructed me to refrain. representative waters testified that the conversation happened sometimes t after theyarp bill -- and t after thearp bill was -- after the trap bill was floating around congress. if you remember aboutoce report and the sav, they referred to the meeting happening in early december. they tried to change the date of the meeting to raise the issue

of conflict of interest. hears testimony from the congress woman in front of the investigative subcommittee. did he have discussions about the legislation, chairman frank? no, i said that is your home and you need to look at it. i can't look at it. when you start to look at somethingt likearp which is brand new, the chairman has more experience. they have branches all over but it was headquartered in his district. because he was chairman and the abouttarp he should handle it. did you consider your ownership -- your husband's ownership of stock? it was important that that may have been one of my motivations

to talk to chairman frank and that i should not have been involved. tarp was new and they were asking for money and i did not understand the implications. if they're asking for money, i should probably be distanced from that. i told bonnie that i could not deal with that. i would not be involved in that. those statements are poor because the congress, clearly articulates that the impetus of a conversation was a recognition that tarp was a reality and to recognize that the investment would create a conflict this is testimony from meehan, the investigative committee. at some point during the fall of 2008, did you become aware of a conversation that the congress woman had with chairman frank? what happened after the meeting based on communication and by the fact that we have not

gotten results from a survey back that no other banks had stepped up to the fed and said they had an issue of fannie mae and freddie mac. the congresswoman said that we were approached a n by theba, but it seems like one united has a problem. i don't want to be involved. barney frank said to stay out of it or something like that. it was sometime in late september, early october. one thing that is frustrating for us is that the testimony speech to the fact that the conversation with barney frank was in late september and early october. finally, they asked -- the congresswoman appeared very comfortable that whatever the issue was if there was to be a resolution that barney frank would take a look at it and make

a decision as to whether it was something that i should be involved in. this is a recap of theoce testimony which recounts the same time line. it speaks to the fact that the congresswoman and i communicated that she had that conversation with barney frank. how do you place the time line? there was an e-mail on september 19. here we have a correspondence from the national bankers association to their members. we asked them to survey their membership so we could understand what the depth of the problem was with minority banks. here is their correspondents on september 17 which said they had found no other bank that had significant exposure to fannie mae and freddie mac.

on september 19, there was an e- mail from me that there was a recognition that you start a nb with thea and ask for the meeting but it was a more narrow issue. you have an e-mail from barney frank's staff to another staffer on his staff on monday, september 22 which said that we have heard from one of our minority members about this particular issue and come talk to me. moving on to the next question, this is the question of assistance. if you read the committee's motion to deny our motion to dismiss, it says a case the late sav.compelled an s respondykes --, oarsmen sykes

-- congressman sykes worked with federal and state regulators and instructed staff directly to follow up with state and federal regulators and then purchased two $2,500 shares of stock and sold those without disclosing all the. that is the case that the subcommittee is using to compel sav against the congresswoman. i want to quickly run through what assistance was going on at that time and show the assistance was happening as chairman frank already said and compare that to the things that have been out long s and in theav and has been called assistance. here you have a memo to chairman frank which is in response to the request to draft a letter to treasury about one united bank. it refers g to these issues.

one united bank discuss the problems last week. they told me that they would be monitoring the situation closely. they say that one united re office and did not discuss these issues. here you have the draft letter. this was agreed to sign onto and it was a request for hank paulson to look at. here you have another correspondence between staff on the full committee and it is between staff and the full committee having a conversation about their conversation with the fdic.

they say the fdic does not have the authority to in nb decadesis nba approval. that conversation is going on between staffers on the full committee. this is a further conversation between staffers of the full committee. even if they are willing to be flexible, they are still asking for a reasonable plan from flexible -- from banks as to how they can raise capital. more correspondence -- this is from a barney frank staffer. i know you are going under for a third time but i want to know about the national bankers association proposal.

we are talking here about the potential failure of minority institutions that treasury has a statutory responsibility to promote. the secretary said he was committed to being helpful. this conversation was going on between committee staff and the treasury apartment -- treasury department. on december 22, this is an update.

this is something that i want to communicate again parted this is september 23, michael grant, the president of the national bankers association communicating with the president-elect on a language they would like to see on nba proposal on the context taof tarp more communication. this was a reflection of language that was worked on in the national bankers association. here on september 24, you see the nba proposal. it shows there was a cooperative

effort going on to figure out how to solve the challenges of minority-owned depository institutions. this piece shows that at this time the independent community bankers association began to get engaged in this issue saying that 22% of the respondents g holds gse preferred stock. there were up to 40 institutions that could possibly be impacted by a section1036. let's talk about what the assistance that has been identified by the committee on my behalf. we have two e-mails sent to a barney frank staffer saying that they were in trouble.

we have one e-mail to the chairman alleged of thenba. --of the nba. the committee reads this as if this is something our office drafted. unsolicited the mel's. -- you have two unsolicited e- mail. s. this is a treasury p draft draf but the committee is reading this that i drafted this. the sky was falling into the as a maid and the treasury department can up with a three page bill the requested $750

billion to buy up troubles assets. this was this bill. this was not drafted by our office. it was a widely available draft of treasury department bill. let me get to the question of appearance. grace case, they found that no other standard of conduct prohibits the creation of an appearance of conflict of interest. the committee does not identify a house rule our standard of conduct that prohibits the creation of an appearance that a member is taking action. you are either doing it or you are not. if you read the motion to deny our motion to dismiss, they cite

a case of a gentleman named representativesbiaggi. the important part of this is here and it says that the committee believes giving rise to representative biaggi acceptance of guests show that his efforts were received under circumstances which could be construed as influence of his representation of duties. he was convicted of federal bribery statutes. they said because he was convicted, that is the appearance that it was an official action. the charges, cost 23-1, the types of things the example used

for our bribery statutes, sex with pages, things of that nature. the second is the spirit of23.3 that says you cannot lead benefits accrue. it says you did something to trade a benefit and the congresswoman benefit and the other side they charge you with spirit. all of these charges depend on the receipt of a benefit and actionable assistance. no benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influence, no case. >> thank you very much. i know this is a lot of information. you have not had access to the inner workings --

you have not had access to the inner workings for the ethics committee and the past. you probably were not aware of all the intricacies of these kind of investigations. and so if someone who is accused simply goes into the back room and agrees to some violation even if they have not been guilty of it, it would avoid all the public press, it would be easy on the committee itself, it means they would not have to go through and a judicatory hearing where they have to subpoena people and get more information on the record. it would be easier and convenient to everybody and that is normally how it works. we feel very strongly that we cannot do that. we are proud of our work. our work has been consistent

throughout the history of my career. we have presented no violations -- we have committed no violations and we are committed only to defend myself but also to open up the discussion about the process. is this process a good one? how does the standards committee report? the ethics committee, that is. should it be changed? should be made more fair? all of those questions i think must be dealt with and we look forward to the opportunity to put some of these ideas forward legislatively. beyond that, my reference to the laws that i created in the wall street reform bill is something that i want you to focus on. some people said the creation of the offices of minority and

women inclusion somehow got slipped into the bill. that did not get slipped into the bill of"the wall street"journal did a scathing attack on the fact that i had created these offices so that we could have their processes for hiring and contracting. this is what i do. this is what i consider as part of my responsibility as a legislator and a member of congress. .0 . .

despite the fact government agencies do a lot of advertising. when you hear me talk about the national securities professionals on wall street who happen to be people of color, why can't they get consultant contracts. what is it about that process that excludes folks that have taxpayers that should be involved? this system has not adequately recognized that it is not open

and available to everybody. i as an african-american woman must be aware of what i can do to open up the system to everybody. i'm pleased about the opportunity for this discussion. i would never have all of you all in the room if this has not taken place. not that i would have designed it this way. i would have loved for you to have covered the work that i do. i would loved for you to d interested in these issues. i would love for your newspapers and your television stations to be interested in this kind of work. but normally is not sexy enough. is not interesting enough. so i don't get heard and others that do this work do not get heard. now we're in the middle of a discussion and i welcome any comments you may have?

>> part of this is a time line issue and part of it is ethics committee. basically, did the ethics committee come to you a few weeks ago and say we have this case allegedly against you, we want you to take a certain penalty and did they offer a specific penalty, we heard they spell out what the penalty was? and at that point then you said no, this is absolutely wrong and i need to lay out my -- >> let me just say this. you must realize in doing what i'm doing, i'm teetering on the border here. and you're getting into a part of the discussion by the ethics committee that i can't go into any further. what i'm doing now is outside of the box, beyond what is normally done. but i think that when you get into that part of it, i have to

not go any further with that discussion. >> to some degree though, you had said earlier that there was, i don't know how to put this that there was a process behind closed doors and you didn't say it in these exact words but there was sort of a take it or leave it sort of impression. >> yes, what i'm basically saying is i won't go behind closed doors. i won't cut a deal. i will continue to talk about the fact i have not violated anything. yes, sir? >> did you or your office do anything to reach out to or communicate with state street for their assistance to one another? >> no, we don't know who they are. we don't know who state street is. nobody in my office has spoken to state street. we have nothing to do with the

capital that one united bank got from state street. i even said at one point in team to investigators why didn't you ask state street those questions? we had nothing to do with that. we know nothing about it. >> said he went on the house floor against the recommendation of the lawyers and against recommendations of his friends. today, do you seek recommendations? >> i have nothing to do with that case. as identified in my opening statement, i gave all the reasons why i'm here to give you my facts as i know them, as i understand them and to make my case. yes? >> has the leadership encouraged you not to do this? >> no, i have not spoken with any leadership. >> follow up question though -- >> my question repertains to the office of ethics.

former head of is chairman of that and you had some confrontations to him in the 1990's over the c.i.a. drug trafficking allegations. is it proper for him to be co-chair of the body investigating you with that kind of background? >> the o.c.e. is made up by members from both sides of the aisle appointed by the leadership on both sides of the aisle. they determine who will sit on that committee. if i had thought about it early on i may have challenged that. two people really do disagree fill of cli. yes, sir? >> did they give you any clue at all why they thought the meeting was in early september? >> no. i think they just missed doing their work in such a way that

they would know or understand that. they made some assumptions. they just aren't true. they just miss doing good investigation. i guess they just assumed it, i don't know. in the back and then i'll go back to you. >> after cooper go and they had for $50 million in the meeting, why didn't you get out of the issue then? and do you feel that they used you? do you feel like they were setting you up? >> let me tell you about what i understand in the meeting. i was not in the meeting. i understand that the meeting opened up pretty much in the way i would have expected a meeting to open up, the way it had described it was going to. why they were going to that meeting. to talk about the plight of minority bankers who had invested their money in fanny and freddy because they felt

there were safe places to invest the money and they were protected or assured by government. i understand some point in the meeting mr. cohe started to talk about one united and he raised the information or shared information that he had $50 million invested in fannie and what did that mean? was he going to lose that money or was the government going to make it good? that's what i understand took place in the meeting. that's just not written into our law. that meeting was over and done. they got no assistance and it was over. after that meeting, some time maybe four weeks later, tarp came into being. that's when we learned that mr.

cohe was not interested in tarp. separate and apart from the g.s.e. question that they had been in the treasury about. it was at that point that we said if this is about one united and tarp, first of all tarp is new, this is one uniteded now advocating for yourself. your headquarters is in your district, he's the chairman of this committee, you talk to them, i'm out of it. >> do you think he used he? >> i don't feel used. i just feel that things have unfolded the way they have. because this is how government is. things work on a fast pace. the meltdown was going on, conversations go on, people take actions of sorts. things go on. i don't think i was set up or used. i think this is the way things unfolded.

>> were there any red flags though when you were asked by cooper and those who have connections to one nighted? >> no, listen -- >> instead of just eating it up that way? >> trade associations have representatives. small trade associations usually have representatives of one of their member companies who speak for them, particularly if you can't tell they have a paying ongoing lobbyist of some sort. not only do these small associations use the offices and personnel of their members, but this is kind of how associations work. he was representing the national bankers association. and i took it for that. and that's who i went to the

meeting for. yes, you ma'am? >> it focuses a lot on the actions of your chief of staff mr. moore. although it seems to indicate an opinion that you are responsible. but is he under investigation? >> not that i know of. >> why do you think not is it revolves so much around their action? >> because if you look at the emails that they would claim, you would have to ask yourself what did he do? what did he say? did he in fact ask any agency of government for assistance for one united. did he make a telephone call? no one can actually say they took any action that would help one united. that's my thinking, yes. >> this may not be the main issue here, but do you feel that

the current ethics process should be changed? and how would you change it? >> i just think it should be improved. i'm not opposed to the ethics process or any ethics process. but i think there must be due process. for example, i think somewhere in this process you cannot file a claim after a certain date. if that's the case, why do you have an o.c.e. that can release investigative report and findings at any point in time as they have done in my case? because they say once they've helped it for a year they can release it at any time. once they release it, it goes to the ethics committee, what is the ethics committee responsibility in terms of the time frame? can they say well, we wanted to

wrap up our allegations right before you go on break. no members will be around. we don't have enough staff to get to these hearings. no you probably won't be heard prior to the elections, so those kinds of things in the process must be sprented, they must be identified more clearly. and the process must be one that can be negotiated by anybody. yes over here? >> is there anything that you would have done differently, or anything that you didn't do that you would do from that time period regarding this case or anything you would have had mr. moore do differently? >> no, because as you can recall in talking about this, we had a letter from the national bankers association. we had requests and person from the national bankers association.

everybody who had been witnesses in this case said that the request was from the bankers association. and i stepped forward to say please meet with these people. when i call secretary paulison i didn't suggest what he should do. i didn't say meet with them and do this. i didn't say meet with them and solve their problem this way. i said simply meet with them and he said yes. and i would probably do the same thing. yes in the back? >> a report on msnbc.com found that of the banks that received a bailout in the fourth quarter of 2008 one unite had the lowest ratio. also find on october 27, 2008 the fdic issued a sees and decyst order that was excessive

executive compensation and some weak reckstration. is this the kind of bank that american taxpayers should be paying out? >> if the fdic has information about a bank that makes them ineligible for being a bank, or or if they have some information that they should investigated about and close them down, they ought to do it. and in addition to that, if the fdic had information about them, that they should have given to me, they should have done it. i don't know these things, members don't know how banks are operated. that's why we have regulatory operations to determine whether they're operating under law, and if they're not, they'll shut them down. or if they think there's some information they should caution me about because they're

investigating or doing something that i should know about it, they should tell me. nothing stops them -- >> is it not odd that the weakest bank -- >> i have nothing to do -- >> direct relation to your husband, is that not odd? >> i wish i could make this clear to you. i have nothing to do with with the regulatory agency and how it operates and making those kinds of decisions. we depend on our regulatory agencies. to make decisions about whether or not these banks are acting properly. if they're not, they ought to shut them down. >> congresswoman? >> yes. >> on that report, one thing you should recognize that report was based on data on september 30 and does not take into account the $20 million investment and tax treatment. so at the time that they applied for the money they had a reasonable capital ratio. thank you. >> ok, let me go here.

>> at what point you talked to mr. moore about staying out of it, can you tell me the dates and what you exactly said and what you meant? >> no. i can give you the flavor of that as we have done. but i do not want to pretend that i know exactly what i said. if you look at the testimony in this case, what's interesting is when the witnesses try and go back and remember everything they've said, it comes out in all kind of different ways. one witness thought they had done something they had not really done. so no, i can't give you the exact words they really said. but i can tell we did have the conversation. no, i wouldn't know the date. but, it was after the meeting with barney frank. yes?

>> do you have any evidence that the meeting or the warning from barney frank, or your talks with barney frank took place in late september. that seems critical to your time line and he says when i talk to him he says he doesn't remember and he told the committee that as well. he only remembers it took place sometime in september. that's sort of incidental to part of the case but it is part of the case. >> well, the fact of matter is that if you can recall in all of this what i said to barney frank and the point that i went to him was that the point that the tarp became a reality. tarp was not a reality when that meeting with the treasury took place. so it had to be some weeks after when tarp became a discussion, because that wasn't one of the reasons i was talking to him, because now one united was seeking assistance in a different way.

and we're looking for information to confirm that and we think there's other interest information that could perhaps confirm it. and perhaps barney frank's staff could help with that. yes? >> over that time period, how it was impacted and where it stood through the process. >> well, i'm not sure about the time frames but i remember kind of this. that my husband's original investment was about $350,000 or so. i'm told once we started to look at this, that his investment in the bank had been reduced to about $179,000 i think it is because it was not worth as much at this point because of, i

guess, the financial situation of the bank was not as much as it had been what the originally invested. that's kind of what i know. >> does he still own those shares? >> yes, he does. nobody wants to buy them. >> question about the implications for democrats in the elections. in your case, you're moving forward. are you concerned about the effect for your party in november? >> there's a lot of speculation about whatever happens on either side of the aisle prior to an election. as far as i'm concerned, most of it is speculation. it must be concerned they're representing their stitch wants

and doing the best job they can possibly do and that they are not only producing the public policy that the american public expect them to do. but they are honoring all of the laws and they are living by the rule of law. that's all i can tell you. i am not about to try and get into what is a benefit or lack of benefit for either parties. i want to deal with the case. that's what i want to deal with. yes, sir. >> if i can follow up briefly on this point. the same token you've been critical of the slow pace of the ethics committee dealing with this. if this bleeds out past the election, wouldn't this be better to have it settled far before where this stands? >> i think any member who finds him or herself in this situation would have it better off to find it resolved as quickly as possible. if there is to be a hearing, it should be done. and the facts should come out

and the decision should be made. so i think it's important for due process to take place. it's kind of guaranteed by something called the constitution. yes? >> what do you feel is the most compelling piece of evidence to support your case? >> i don't think there is. for my case? well, i think as we have walked you through it, what you will find is this -- no one in any regulatory agency, the fdic, the treasury, no one has said that maxine waters or chief of staff called them, wrote them, asked them to do anything. as a matter of fact you see just the opposite. you see where heads of these agencies or significant persons said no, we were not influenced by anybody. we have our criteria. we judge people by that

criteria, and using that criteria one nite bank qualify because basically they were adequately capitalized and. so i think that's compelling. if you would like to accuse me what did i do? if you would like to accuse me chief of staff, what did he do? and i think that's very compelling. i believe that having looked at this case this business some coming down to well, we can't find anything that you did, we can't really find anything where your chief of staff did, you must not have spructed them. that's the case. >> why weren't there any other member banks from m.b.a.? >> i don't know this question.

this question keeps being asked why weren't there other member banks. and i'm trying to understand the question because when a train association comes to washington, or when they send their representative to washington, they don't usually bring all of their people with them. there's somebody who represents them. when i looked at the testimony from the fdic, that's basically what the lady said. she said well, usually she talks with representatives of trade association who represent hundreds of companies, and so this idea about why weren't there other minority banks is another kind of question. i don't quite get it. >> can you talk about your concerns about this money that

was in the bank? and how important was that $50,000 investment? >> no, i never had any concern about my husbands investment. i wouldn't do that. so i have no concerns. someone who has not spoken? yes? >> did your lawyers -- >> but you spoke already -- >> one question -- >> ok, someone who has not spoken? >> so why come here today and talk to the media and the public? >> i believe that if you're going to write about the story you need to know what you're writing about. some of you have been all over the place in what you know and what you don't know. and so, i thought it was important for you to get as much information as you can possibly get so at least you can have some basic information, based on

documents, based on an understanding. still there's some people who don't know the difference between representing an association and representing one individual bank. and still write a story. congresswoman waters arranged a meeting for one united. congresswoman waters did not. she called secretary paulison to arrange a meeting for a trade association. when paulison responded as a witness, he didn't tell anybody i called him and asked for a meeting for one united. he kind of placed in terms she's got these members of banks who are concerned and they're in town, something like that and they need a meeting. as a matter of fact, i think he said she never said anything about one united bank.

so i want you to know the difference. that's number one. number two, tarp was not in business. the business that we helped to get tarp money at that meeting, tarp was not in existence. we didn't know anything about tarp. it didn't come into existence until later on. i want you to know that the conversation took place weeks after tarp became a reality and about one nite and other banks being assisted by tarp. so, those are important facts and for you to pursue more information aunt. but you have to know the frame work of all of this. and i want you to ask me, why is there something in government that says government has a responsibility to be of assistance to minority banks. there are so few of them. that when it appears that they're going to be brought up,

merged, they should be eligible to receive some assistance in some way because they want to preserve minority banks. these small banks were charged with the sponity of getting money out in communities that don't normally get that money. i want grow to understand the question of access. why is it that bank of america, wells fargo, citi, chase manhattan can get on the telephone and get the treasurer on the phone to walk in? why do they have such access. and it's not just a minority bank, it's community banks also. i really want you to ask these questions so that when you write

your stories, you can at least have some basis on which to write your stories. i think that's about it. >> one thing though, the answer as to why one united was present this specific representative was present at this meeting, you do not know why that occurred? >> mr. bob cooper was a chairman of the national bankers association. he was there and then they had -- excuse me was it legal counsel? who else was therefrom mba. what was his title? the outside counsel was there and the chairman elect was there. thank you guys. i think that's all we can do today. we have tried to be as transparent as we could possibly be and afford you the kind of opportunity that you would not normally get in this kind of case and we appreciate your attendance. and i won't be holding any

interviews outside this room. this is it! >> because it seems like the appearance here, i know you're saying this is how trade association works, that they don't get a bunch of their members to come to a meeting, but the fact is even people who kind of were wearing two hats, one of them was an o.u. hat, and the questions or conversation really seem to center around o.u., so don't you see how that kind of creates you know -- >> no, i don't and you can't define appearance. i want -- >> i'm not talking about in terms of the ethics committee saying appearance. i'm talking about the idea that the conversation on that day, on the night revolved around specifically this one bank. i mean doesn't that create -- >> that's not true. you forgot what i said. if you look at the witnesses testimony, they basically said that 60-75% of that conversation was about minority banks, that one united entering into that conversation was after all of this conversation had taken place about minority banks.

and that's the kind of information that you will get if you read all of this and you real aud of the documents that are associated with it. thank you. >> from capitol hill this morning, maxine waters wrapping up her press briefing addressing ethics charges presenting evidence in her support. part of this in a statement she read to reporters in the outset. she insists she has not violated any rules. she also restated that the house committee has yet to schedule a hearing to review evidence and she insisted that they release to the public all documents related to her case. incidentally if you missed any of this briefing you can go to our website where you'll find the house ethics committee on the charges. her response earlier this month and also find a link to her

house committee appearances. all at the website cspan.org. >> mr. president just before christmas dem 1968, i was appointed to succeed alaska's first senator, first senior senator bob bartlett. next month will mark the 40th year that i've had the honor and privilege to serve here in this great chamber. >> with almost 900 appearances over 24 years, the look at the life and legacy of former alaska senator ted stevens. news conferences, call ins, committee hearings and from the senate floor all free from your computer. any time. it's washington, your way. >> here you are senator. not a bad desk either. daniel webster used to use it. >> daniel webster sat here? >> harry truman in 1939 hated

this movie, just really despised it. at the time harry truman was seen as a senator from the machine in kansas city. and i always wondered if he didn't think at that point at least that the movie was looking at him and his relationship with the political machine back home. >> on washington movies and his new book, sunday night on c-span's "x & a." this weekend on book tv, claude steele on the state of education in the united states and the affects of steero types. on after, a view of war as adults is shaped by how we perceive war at the time of maturity. also this weekend -- our 2010

fall book preview. for a list of programs, visit booktv.org. >> and now using the internet and social media during emergencies with officials from the american red cross and the white house participants include representatives from cnn and facebook. from a day long conference this portion is just under 2 hours, 15 minutes. >> please welcome our masters of serm. >> good morning everyone. i'm the vice president for public relations here at the american red cross. on behalf of the red cross i would like to thank you all for being here for our first ever emergency social data summit.

an honor to have everyone here in the room today. we are absolutely thrilled to so so many people here at our headquarters in washington who not only care about social media but care about the way we communicate during disasters. but most importantly we've got a room full of people today who really do truly care about getting help to people during times of emergency and crisis. so we thank you for that. i'd also like to say a special welcome to nearly 500 people who have joined us today on the web, who are participating via youstream. we are live streaming an event so we're excited to have everyone joining us online as well. i'll be taking you through our morning events. before we get into our program i do have uple of house keeping items. first of all, very important, we do have restrooms located in the back of the room. also a set down stairs at the

bottom of the stair case right outside of the clara barton cafe. as far as the wi-fi access we have in the room today, you'll see the instructions that are on your table. there are cards there so that will help you log in. also we've got a number of i.t. and a.b. teches in the room. if those folks could raise their hands for me. they're going to be roaming around. flag them down if you need any help logging in to the internet and getting online today. also, you'll notice that we have l.c.d. screens along the sides of the room. and we'll also be featuring on those screens the twitter feed from today. if you're going to be tweeting about the event, make sure you use that tag so we can capture everything that the people are talking about today

during the event. we're recording the entire proceeding today so that those who couldn't make it in person or couldn't be with us on the internet can also see it recorded and take a look at it at a future time. also for those of you who have joining us on the web today, you're going to have the opportunity to interact with your panelists during the panel discussions today. you'll make sure we have the instructions about how to submit your questions to the panelists. and i'm proud to introduce to you the president c.e.o. of the american red cross, gail mcgovern came to the red cross

two years ago during a very critical point during our organizations history. and from the first day that she walked in the door with us she made it very clear to all of us that she wanted to invig race the very venrabble red cross brand. gail has done a great deal for the organization and along with overseeing high profile disaster responses, including the recent quakes in haiti, gail has worked towards streamlining our red cross operations and enhancing the organizations financial stability. and probably most importantly to all of us here in the room today, she has been an absolute champion of using the social web to cultivate a community of red cross supporters, and to communicate with those affected by disasters. prior to joining the red cross, gail was a faculty member at the harvard school of business. served as the president of fidelity first investments and also an executive vice president for the consumer market divisions at at&t and she has been recognized twice by fortune magazine as one of the 50 most

powerful women in corporate america. so please help me welcome today the president and c.e.o. of the american red cross, gail mcgovern. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much laura. i am so very excited to be here today. i think this is going to be a very exciting event. and i can't tell you how much i've been looking forward to it. i want to first thing all of you for carving out a solid day to be with us. i can't even imagine the kind of things that are on your calendars and they are so very grateful you were able to take a generous amount of time to spend it with us today. there are so many things that i love about being a part of the american red cross family. the part that i love the most, i know when i wake up in the morning and i come to work, i could be working on issues that

help people in need. what we're going to be tackling today are right in the center of that. we're going to be looking at issues that truly can save lives. i can't think of anything more exciting than that. there is an incredible amount of wisdom in this room. i'm actually in awe of the people that are here. wiz come, creativity, expertise, experience, we have people here from emergency management. we have people here with the title of chief information officer. we have someone dem this room with the title of social media swami. we have somebody with the title of storyteller. we are actually in the red cross hall of service.

this building is actually dedicated in 1930 to dedicate the women who served during world war i. so this building was used to roll bandages and send off to the battlefield. the thing that is so amazing is ever since then for the next 80 years it's been used for service. but i have a sneaky suspicion that this is the very first time this room has been used to post live blogs, tweets, youstream. so i'm excited that also represents a new face to the american red cross. i think just the fact that we're all in that room we all know that. but a subtle thing that is happening is that social media is also changing the way we respond in disasters. and it's being used for calls

for help. this is a fairly new phenomenon. i have three examples of that. first there was a 10 and 12-year-old girl, and they got stuck in a storm drain. my guess as to how they actually got that done. they had their phones for them. and instead of dialing 911, they changed their status on their facebook page to say they were struck in a drain. and a friend of theirs called it saw it and had the presence of mind to call 911. second of course was the earthquake in haiti. we saw tweets and posts and texts from people that were trapped and needed help. and the third example happened recently with the floods in tennessee. people posted on our facebook when they needed help in their neighborhoods.

we were able to dispatch and get food and emergency supplies to their neighborhoods when they posted on facebook. emergency managers, government, we all have to figure out a way to deal with this real time imprint. we have to figure out a way to address what have been a challenge and an opportunity. so today you're actually going to see some research. and the research was surprising. first we learned that people expect, people expect government, emergency managers and relief organizations to respond to their tweets, to their posts, to their text messages. here's the killer, they expect us to respond to these cries for help in less than an hour. less than an hour. you'll also see survey data that highlights the potential gap in our ability to respond this way and what their expectations are.

they read the tweets and call the traditional challenges to try to solve that problem. but we have got to stay ahead of this. or else it can turn into this issue. that's the purpose of this summit. to respond to this potential gap. so i have two girls and one hope for the summit. the first goal is how do we galvanize all of the social media to get the message out that today in today's world the best way to make a cry for help is to use 911. how do we get that message out to everyone? we have to figure out how to use technology we can actually respond this way during disasters. my hope is the following, there is so much creative juice in

this room that my hope is that we can stay focused, that we don't try to boil the ocean and that we walk out of here with a strong commitment to continue the discussion and attack this gap. in addition to having the privilege of welcoming you all today, i also have the privilege of introducing our next speaker and that is megan fill ips. he is special assistant to the president and director of media at the white house. my very first conversation happened, i think i was on the job for three months. i was telling my husband about some of the challenges that we face. one of them was finding new, creative ways to raise money. so my husband pointed to the newspaper that was sitting on our kitchen table and he said you ought to ask this guy for help. and he was pointing to a picture of president obama. and he was referring to the article about how they raised a

staggering amount of money for the campaign using social media. and i thought what the heck. i called them and much to my amazement he called me back. he told me he loved the red cross, he was a katrina volunteer and i have to say that half-hour that he generously gave me on the phone really was the defining moment. the catalyst to get engaged in social media. he probably doesn't realize what a great influence he was on us. more recently he and i had lunch together and we were brain storming. the idea of this summit came out. he was giving me names of people and my hand still hurts from writing so furiously to get all those names down. and lo and behold here you all are. it's really quite stunning. it is my great privilege to introduce to you megan phillips. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> i'm really thankful to be here and welcome everyone to an incredible event that the red cross, gail's team has put together here. we've got all sorts of people in this room with a range of appearances, i'm very confident are going to yield something very special. when gail and i were having lunch together and i was talking to her about all the things we were seeing, i don't know if you feel the same way but in the last year and a half it seems like things are just starting to explode. really starting to see incredible leaps and impact of social media and crisis situations.

speaking as someone who was looking for ways to innovate and it occurred to us that we should just get everybody in the same room and we should try to lend a little bit of invasion that's happening with all these small groups, with all these upstarts. some of the knowledge that some of these larger organizations have. have to admit the approach is decidedly not that high tech. just bang a bunch of rocks together and see if they can get some sparks. that's what i'm hoping comes out of this day. and i also found out that if you casually mention an idea to gail, the next thing you know you're getting over your fear of public speaking. [laughter] so you'll have to indulge me here. woman of action.

i think it's important to set out social media. i'm sure everybody has a different definition of what it means. i'm going to try to focus on three important elements that i like to think about when we're talking about crisis situations. the first is that it's informative, right? the ease of publishing has brought literally millions of new voices to the public spear. in fact a lot of these voices talking about what i'm saying right now by the looks on the faces of the screen. information can come from anywhere. and when it comes people can say one thing, somebody can disagree with it, somebody can comment on it. through the process it becomes more informed. some of you will say well, it could be wrong. that's true. but what we see is the more information people are exposed to, the more they correct it. that's particular in crisis situations where nobody knows

what the right source of information is. bring a lot of people together, that consensus can hopefully flf the situation. we're also seeing new tools developed to filter out the signal from this noise, as you're sitting -- a really great example of a filter on social media messaging. taking a loan at twitter streams is pretty unini believe. but when you filter it across certain key words or other ways you can start deriving some meaning from it. how they move online is important to understand. they move through networks of friends, through networks of expertise. my hope is we're forming one right now. they move in geographic networks. they also move across platforms. you want it immediate. so, we're seeing a jump on mobile phones. you trip and fall these days and

you're tweeting. every br you go, there's an interfazing to somehow participate in social media. the final one, the one that's most important to me is it's empowering at an individual level. we now live in a world where one person can publish 140 character message, one person can publish a photo. one person can cry for help. and it changes all of our understanding immediately. one person can do that. instead of waiting to be told how to help, people are taking the initiative to do it. they're responding to situations, identifying problems, proposing solutions, finding collective resources, getting volunteer hours and moving towards that problem. they don't necessarily need the red cross. they don't need the government. they're just doing it. this is a very important thing

for the big institutional actors to take away, i think today, is that we're necessary but we're not gate kinders and we can't act that -- but we're not gate keepers. we need to shape those efforts. lart me start by telling you why i'm so fascinated with this area with two stories i think represent the fundamental ideas and urges behind all the social media activity we're seeing recently. i volunteer in the gulf after katrina hit. i flew in to birmingham and loaded up a truck full of diapers and baby formula and just set off driving. i don't even know that's web 1.0, but very 1.0 operation, like whatever, i'll just figure it out. we went down to basically get

some communities. i'm from alabama so we started there and moved into mississippi and louisiana. one of the things we're trying to raise awareness about was a project called hurricane housing. i don't know if any of you know that. maybe nod my heads make me feel -- maybe? ok, hurricane housing. so hurricane housing was a very simple idea. basically i was working in d.c., i knew a lot of people running online political operations. when the hurricane hit they realized they had these assets, emails, this social media presence. they had networks of people who were pretty likely going to help. so the idea was they were going to send out word that people should submit available rooms, available homes. any temporary housing that could take in people that were displaced by the hurricane. they started collecting an online data base. at the same time they were trying to market this new resource to people who were out of their homes.

they were marketing it through the web, you know. it was tough. they were marking it through word of mouth, traditional media. and our technique was a bright orange signs that we would nail up at the sort of long lines where people were going supplieses. need housing? hurricanehousing.org. there's something about that experience. seeing how quickly it was spun up. seeing its impact, they helped over 30,000 people. who were affected by the hurricane. that made me start thinking there was something really powerful when you use the internet to connect a crisis to public good will. then we moved onto baton rouge. that's where i actually volunteer at the red cross shelter. and there was a shelter, it was a giant arena. and the group that was funding

our trip was also at the same time collecting frequent flyer miles from americans who wanted to help around the country. trying to pool together these resources to help fly kids and patients who had been separated and reunite them. working in that system. well, let me back up. it wasn't hard to find patients who were looking for kids in that shelter, and certainly wasn't hard to find kids who were looking for their parents. it was really difficult to help them find the right person. many of you are probably really familiar with this. multiple systems, run by mltpl organizations. created a data nightmare. which only compounded the more general nightmare these frustrated, traumatized people were experiencing. they weren't talking to each other. there was something powerful there. the collective action organizations across the

country, to organize resources. it left me believing, or the technological challenge of collecting and sharing names across multiple systems. it left me believing in the potential of the web. and how it could be applied to crisis situations. then a few things happened. a few months after katrina, youtube officially launched. a few months slater, twitter went live. and a few -- a few months later, twitter went live. and then facebook opened up to anyone with an email address. now, people watch two billion youtube videos a day. develop via twitter. the earthquake in chile comes to mind for me. and a third of the u.s. population has a facebook account. all of that since katrina. so quickly. and those are just three companies positioned at the

center of this search. these technologies have become a cloud of messages, posts, tweets, pics that fill our daily lives. how we stay in touch with friends, find jobs, work smarter and increasingly an important part of crisis response. and that brings an important lesson to communicators generally. that technology has fundamentally changed how and where people consume information. people are getting information and streams from our assess readers, social networks, text alerts and more. i say the only person who has white house.gov marked as their home page is my proud mother. and just who is using these social networks? you'll hear a lot of statistics today, i'm sure, but here's one that surprised me i think underscores the sort of adoption we're seeing across the board.

facebook started on a college campus. grown through other college campuses. perceived i think for a long time as full of young people, talking about school, talking about parties. i think you guys know that's not the case anymore. more than half, 52% of the white house facebook fans are over the age of 35. and 14% of our fans are over the age of 55. we're seeing -- and it's growing. two weeks ago i gave a presentation that was 50%. so we are seeing an incredible index of people who are a little bit older on our social networks. not only are these technologies becoming increasingly familiar to the republic, but they're increasingly decentralize. rather than one source of information, there are many. and a web browser isn't the only

window into social media. s.m.s., smart phones, and other devices are rapidly growing in the u.s. indeed in other countries it's the predominant form of access. you know this, it's many to many. and that means that the monoliths of old government, large and nonprofit is no longer afford to do that. we can no longer dole out resources. a person with a twitter account can save thousands of seconds and that person doesn't need to be a fema employee or red cross staffer. familiar platforms, extensive networks, decentralized, they bode well for crisis situations. but as exciting as it is, there

are still challenges, as information flows more freely from more places we have to constantly work to filter out the signal from the noise. we have a responsibility to make sure that the time, money, and other things that are volunteering are used effectively. .

>> for some of these small groups, getting the endorsement, working with a well-known name, working with people who have been doing this for decades can change the course of their work. i would argue that for some of these large organizations that are trying to figure it out there is nothing better than timmy up with a group that is doing it the right way to figure out how they collaborate. collaborate. develop common understanding so

the myriad of applications being developed for your applications can be used throughout the wide to emergency situations. this is where i think government can be particularly useful we can help set expectations and standards where this can best work and lead by example. i hope some of the feedback we get coming out today is what you need from your government in this space. my e-mail address is macon @who.com. send me suggestions. we need to share the responsibility for collaboration. when it comes to emergency response, we are on the same team. the final note is to innovate. we hear that a lot. never stop arresting.

this keeps changing. innovate. be smart about it. do not taste buzz word technology into shallow pools of users that medicate your impact and tie up your users. keep your fundamental goals in front and use the right tools to achieve them. that is why the group of people in this room at events like this are so exciting. we are smashing these groups into wise groups of policy makers and the upstarts. ♪ discovered the amazin people in this room and make the connection that will lead to the validation that these new groups deserve. talk about the problems and build a common understanding that makes it easier to collaborate and push each other to think about what else is possible and how you can achieve

it together. let's start banging some rocks and see how many sports we can create. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. one quick housekeeping know before we move forward -- for all the folks who are online, we know we are having issues with the stream right now. there has been a ton of demand for the program today. we are working for those and we think those -- we have those pretty well resolved. keep everyone up to date on twitter and give you half the tream feed. moving along, before we get onto our more technical discussions

on the round tables and panels, we thought it was important to talk about this whole issue and from that in terms of what web users say they need during an emergency and how emergency responders also view the social web as well. joining us today to present two sets of research on the topic are susie defrancis, and trevor riggin. susie oversees the enterprise- wide communication government relations and strategic partnership for the american red cross. previous to that, she served as the assistant secretary for public affairs at the u.s. department of health and human services and in the white house as deputy assistant to the president for communications. trevor is responsible for planning and implementing all the red cross programs that meet that the direct needs of our

disaster clients for our domestic disaster operations and he served as a member of leadership teams for many of the largest disasters in u.s. history. please welcome susie and trevor. [applause] >> good morning and thank you, laurel. twitter tells me that laura as a birthday today. if anybody is interested in sending her a happy birthday tweet, i let the news out. i will walk you through the results of the pall that is already in your packets. these are the highlights. we decided to do this paul in advance of the summit so we could better understand how people are using social media in crisis and also what they are expecting when they use it to get from responders and relief

agencies like ours. we wanted to raise awareness of the issue but we also want to get information that could help inform the decisions and solutions we come up with today. we did find out from our research that we have a lot of work to do which is why we are glad you all are here. this was an online survey of about 1000 respondents and we took it in late july. the first slide is how are people getting information about an emergency. most are still turning to tv news and radio. this is particularly true with older respondents to the survey. 37% are going on line for emergency information. one in six are going to social media sites. that makes social be a cites the fourth most popular source of emergency information.

in fact, it is edging out some of us in the room like noaa and fema and red cross. think back five years ago to her day katrina, we would not have seen this social media on the chart. to think for five years, where will it be? we can only assume it will grow along with mobil apps and texting and all the others. not only are people going on line looking for information and going to social media sites, they are also indicating a preference for electronic or digital information coming to them. about half of them are saying they would sign up for e-mails, texas, alerts, or apps that would tell about things like floodwaters or traffic jams. evacuation routes, shelters, they want the information to come to them.

they want it customize. they have a strong appetite beyond traditional news to get the information to help them in emergencies and be up to date. not as getting the a commission than cells, we are also learning they want to share it with others. -- not just getting the information themselves, we're also learning they want to share with others. half would mention emergencies or events like crimes are traffic jams on their social media sites. laura said she went to the grocery store and there was police activity and chiefe andd. -- and she tweeted. people are being more participatory in the disaster situation. they want to be part of it. we asked them to imagine an

area-wide disaster, a big one. we asked them to imagine it 911 was busy. i want to repeat what gale said. 911 is still the first and the fastest way to get help either for yourself or people you love. we need to keep getting that message out supposed 911 was busy. most people would try to contact their police or fire department or hospital. in terms of how they would do that, 42% would use their telephone or a cell phone credit indicates a preference that they want to talk to that first responders and get somebody on the line to be sure. almost one in five would use social media. that is a number that was not on the charts of five years ago. it is a number that will grow as we see more young people entering the fray. more than half would send a text

to an available response agency. we see this in response under 45 years old armed law or likely to send a text. there is a surprisingly strong use of social media to get the attention of response agencies. 44% would ask others to help them reach response agencies through facebook and twitter. our new have disaster services says a lot of mountain rescues and a friend he had gotten a bad situation on a mountain and twisted his friends to call 911 and they rescued him. 35% would post a request for help on a response agency on their facebook page and 28% would send a message to them via twitter.

how are their expectations in terms of how response agencies would handle that? what are we doing with your posts and tweets and texts? more than 2/3 expect response agencies to monitor those posts by 59% said it would make a phone call to be sure. they are about split about whether response agencies are actually doing that. 49% say we are probably already acting on this request by 44% say it is likely that they don't know about these requests. finally, here is the kicker, they have very high expectations about the time with which they posed a cry for help and somebody gets an answer to them. this number of 75% think they posted a request on a social

media site they would get help with a one hour. that is a number that all of us in emergency response and really should be very concerned about. not many of us can stand here today and say we will be there in one hour after seeing a post on social media. that is a high expectation. now that we have seen how the public is using social media in emergencies, i will turn it over to treasure -- trevor, our senior director of disaster services to talk about how first responders and managers are using it. thank you. [applause] >> before i get started, i am assuming there is a button to change the slide. is that the garage door opener? click that? ok. when i first saw that study came out, the numbers were scary.

i would be scared of it was not social media. if it was phone calls or emergency phone calls. if there was an expectation within one hour that assistance would arrive, we are talking about not just lifesaving equipment, maybe i am hungry, war i can't find my grandmother. all those things are things people call about. that is a scary number and the expectations we talk about not just the expectations of what our system can handle or track, it is the intention of the agency is of what we will do with this. the public is not just sending it to us to think about. they are sending it to is to do something. that is where we have to challenge ourselves. i will share with you something from my boss. a domestic preparedness publication of shared views from

disaster professionals and the readership of the journal and what their insights were on social be and the impact it has on disaster and what the expectations and realities are. we are stretched for time. happy birthday, by the way. i will run for these quickly. -- through these quickly. the first slide shows the consistency with the general survey. over 60% of the agencies active in disaster for to this survey are active in social media. -- through this survey are active in social media. we're talking to our constituents and gathering data, but to be honest, most of that is pushing information to them. most of that is capturing what we are doing and what we see as going on in the communities and pushing that out to the public. very few agencies are starting

to pull that back in and use the information to drive our service delivery. that is a real challenge. these numbers will continue to grow. the numbers on what happened since katrina take my breath away. the fact that facebook and youtube and twitter came to be amounts post-katrina show amazing growth where the next five years could see astounding growth in all sorts of technologies. this next slide is probably the one that makes me the most nervous. we know we have this heightened expectation from the public. we also know we have emergency response agencies and government agencies using social media. are they in conflict? because we are out there and we are talking to the public, we

have raised their expectations. we have cause that one our expectation. 90% of those who responded believe that using social media as trees -- has elevated the citizens expectation of our ability to respond. counter to that, we know the public is getting there, have we scaled up accordingly to get that and the answer is no. almost 90% of the people surveyed said our organizations are not adequately staffed to monitor social media and do something with that information. we have to flip those numbers. it does not mean it is not just the red cross or fee mob but it is how we involve the community and those o there. to use the information and get a hold of them. the last slide ask the general question of those who are in

disaster relief agencies to use social media, how are you doing? how are we doing as a sector in using this information? it is not good. 60% of those responding to are already using these tools say we're not doing a good job of using them. when someone says they need help or they need a place to stay or where is the closest shelter, where can i get a hot meal, i am trapped on my roof, we don't know what to do with that. friends or families in a h aiti were pushing that to a third party. how could we and the information off to someone who can show that their doorstep? that is difficult. this highlights what the survey

validated now was the expectations are high and our capabilities are low and we need to change that around. if we can imagine what 9/11 and patricia would have been like with social media in the hands of the public, there is a the scary part of that on what we have seen, what we have heard, and what would our emotions be like if we were right there in those crises. we could leverage that information to respond more quickly and have better intelligence on how to do the right thing. i challenge everyone today to think about how we could come up with the right answer but also we as a group can come up with the right solutions to help our community leverage the information they are pushing out to come up with the right answer to help each other. i look forward to the rest of the day. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, susie and trevor.

we will move into our panel today. in each of these sessions, you will have the opportunity to interact with analysts and ask questions. we will have a roving microphones in the room so if you have a question we will get a microphone to you and you can ask your question. if you are an online person, we ask you to post your question via 20. you can also use the chat box on u-stream. we have good people who are monitoring those questions and we will feed those to the folks at on the microphones in the room. make sure you are participating and taking notes and get your questions ready as we go for the panels. the first panel we have today really does address what some average folks are doing and some everyday people are doing to rise to the occasion and help

during times of crisis. we know that time and time again, we have seen people do this. we see concerned and informed citizens come to the aid of others during a crisis using a social web. our first panel wants to focus on the best practices and some of the leaders in that grassroots movement. eric hoon of cnn will moderate in the session starte. we will have an executive producer of black box communication out of toronto. she is also a media user who became extremely active in the haiti response. let's welcome our first panel. [applause]

>> thanks. i was asked to start by briefly giving an overview about what cnn does and does space and during a crisis. i will do that quickly and hear from you and i would love to hear your thoughts and questions. as you know, cnn is a huge news organization across the world. i spent a couple of weeks in washington, new york, atlanta, and i love walking through our newsroom. every single computer has some sort of social media up and running and everyone is monitoring news and information. cnn has over 260 people on twitter. they are constantly in all parts of the world creating relationships with people. when something happens, we are able to use social media not

only to verify stories but to find stories. the most important thing is how we use social media to get stories but also use our worldwide resources to verify. i want to give you three examples of what we did during 80. the twitter list was a very new thing. we immediately started making twitter lists and trying to find people on the ground in haiti. we did that with i report. we got photos and pictures on the ground from people submitting it back to us. the community on i report was able to give us sell intra -- so much information backer we created a missing person's report. we used to the i report to connect people were looking for people in haiti with people who were submitting information.

we also tried to help in many ways, not only our viewers, but the people on the ground area i want to give one example. about 20 days after hd hit, -- aiti-- haiti hit, a producer was there and someone on our international group sought a tweed that someone had just been found alive 20 days after. danielle got this tweed and saw the location and could not make a phone call so she stopped and went to the location to confirm the news. sure enough, that person had been found alive. that is an example of how we are using both our resources and people on the groun and the information thaat the red

cross and everyday people are giving us. we want to figure out how we can help. how can you get information but also how can you help? we did a telethon for "larry king live." we did one for the gulf and for haiti. the 148 he raised $10 million. -- the one forhaiti raised $10 million. you could sit at home and watch television and look at your laptop and interact with people we had. we created a social suite. andrew noyes helped as well. if you checked in onguala, it was monday night, so you checked in friday or the weekend, you would get into a national park

and you would get a tip how you could give help in the gulf at "larry king live" dead. badge. if you use a hoesch attack, -- hash tag, one of the celebrities in our social suite would respond back to you and tell you how you can help in the gulf and haiti. within 30 minutes, cnn helped haiti and it hash tag became a trend worldwide. we tell people how they could help. we used facebook and their pages to continue this conversation and send out information about how you can help. as cnn, -- all the nonprofits

that are out there, our producers love the press releases but not really. our prisons want real information. the more that you can help and the more you can send this information that we can verify, there is a tremendous opportunity to triangulate was going on on the ground with what you we are seeing on computers. from that -- i will introduce trekmayer from ushahiti. patrick. follow him at >> i have some slides that i was going to share. excellent, great, thank you very

much to everyone in the red cross for putting this summit to get rid of want to say some words about collaborative crisis mapping and use haiti as the springboard to draw up some preliminary conclusions. i would like to get your thoughts on this and have a conversation. 10 days after the earthquake, the head of fema was here and noted that the map of haiti was the most comprehensive map available to the humanitarian community. you would say something like this and if you presume that out, you see hundreds of thousands of individual reports that had been filtered out and geo-located on this map. you see the density of reported that took place. we had a cluster of reports.

who was behind this massive mapping effort? it was not the united nations nor the united nations agency in port-au-prince or any other humanitarian organization. it all started here. in this living room with a handful of graduates to. students. several dozen showed up but days later they movement grew and got more and more graduate students and we got undergraduate students and tufts university in boston, london, montreal, washington, a d.c. it was not only students but the haitian diaspora. they treated this matter and maintained it over the next few weeks. by the end of the first week,

thousands more volunteers across the world came together connected by social media and networks online to translate tens of thousands of text messages that were coming and from the disaster-affected populism in haiti and translating these text messages within minutes and locating them and adding them to this map creating this live map. if you put the faces behind these spots, you have a human story. you have individuals with their own lives and responsibilities and work and concerns and families who still find the time and make the time to come together and help thousands of people from thousands of miles away that they will never actually made. eet. they get that information from this ecosystem we are talking about today, the social media.

not all sms but the first sources of information we had that evening we lost that map was twitter and facebook. it was not only slicker and video but it was the mainstream media looking online at bbc and cnn and watching television. all this came together to try and help populate the men -- map of haiti. these volunteers would come this information ecosystem and take out actionable reports like this one that can result from a text message about two individuals being trapped. the hundreds of people in the u.s. and around the world did this day and night. days, morning, evening, night, over and over

and over and they were not getting paid. they did this because they wanted to help. social media and the free and open map sources provided a space to help. it was not that people were excited -- ecstatic about the tools. what about response? 75% of people expect a response when they post something on social medea. i think what we need to do is combined this crowd sourcing with something i call crowd- feeding. i mean getting that information that comes from the crowd and feeding it directly back to the crowd. it is information from the crowd, by the crowd, for the crowd parted they might need that information just as much

as the first responders. i think we have some interesting examples of this showing of. one month after haiti took place, in washington, d.c., one of the largest snowstorms that the city. this paralyzed many of the residence. pic-net put up this matter within days. residents themselves put them on the map and said they need help. they also allowed the other residents to say that they can help. this created a crowded-sourcing marketplace where those in need could find those with resources and vice versa. as we know, disaster response officials will not be available at every street at every corner

at every neighborhood. there is not enough of them the crowd will always be there. what we need to think about is finding ways to connect the crowd with each other. what we see on a higher scheldt now over the past week -- what we see now on a higher level now, russia is getting hundreds of hits on their website. the model they used with crowds sourcing and crowd feeding. they did not match for the fires are but allow people affected by the fires to maps themselves and say they need help it would allow others to say they could offer help. sometimes, there will be a fire in a city but 20 miles away, the next city will not be impacted.

not all society is impacted in the same way. the ones that are not impacted could help those factors that are not impacted -- that are impacted. the professionals will not be able to be there all the time. with that in mind, just a few words in closing -- this is the model we have come to know. we think we agree this is no longer viable. we have this other model that i think many of us have in mind where this is perhaps the role of citizens in disaster response i think this does not tell the whole story. i think there is another story going on. i think there are social circles and networks existing before a disaster that already connect and connect with other social circles that they would not have

otherwise be connected with the right to social media networking tools. passionate individuals connect and their efforts are now being aggregated and magnified in this way. because of all this, we lost something called crowd matter earlier this week on monday, in fact -- because all of this, we launched something called ma crowdp. within hours ofcr --owd mowd ma. in response to this, they set up a map because of the floods in pakistan. we don't know the individuals but they are clearly well- connected and they are moving things forward. they are ordinary, average people just like most of us in this world. if you want to learn more,

please come to the crisis mapping conference in october in boston. you can look us up at crisismappers.net. thank you very much. [applause] >> go ahead. just kidding. [laughter] st catesarboard is fromk --ate starboard is here. >> that shows that i need to redo my twitter bio. i will echo of -- a lot of what patrick said. i will present tweet to tweet. this is a part of a much larger project at the university of colocolorado.

we are looking at a lot of different pieces of social media during crises. we are looking at everything from collection and storage of the data and we are looking to process crisis-related data during an event and things like that. tweet to tweed was an idea that and.n collaboration perr i was thinking how hard it was to do natural language processing. we wanted to invert the problem and we want people in a crisis

to process the information better than computers. this is a micro syntax of crisis reporting information. it uses a two-way public information system. it makes machines -- it makes tweets more machine-readable. it is based on empirical research which is what we are .eginning to call despera people use terms that are easier to remember. important to this idea is the

information on twitter is public and searchable. anyone with access to the twitterapi can get at it. that makes twitter different from facebook where only facebook can do much of the publishing. you can begin with instructions -- begin with a specific hash tag about the advantage and to ask users to use one main tag about what they are talking about. then you add data aspects. this is sort of what it looks like i don't have a good french accent so where i will not read this. there is a french hospital ready to receive one did. -- received of the wounded.

if a person could write the tweet and this is a translation, righted in the syntax below, the computer can take that and ask what is happening. they can instantly pulled that information into a record. we flushed out what this would look like. after the earthquake in haiti, we molded over a few days and decided to push the tweet to tweet idea out into the public and have people using social media to report and put their tweets in this syntex "so people could easily find them. we headed out there and by february 1, we polled our push

out of the information'sspace. we did a pretty good job but not perfect. this will be hard to see. we actually pulled a stream of anyone who ever used a tweet to tweet tweet. these are users dreams of all of the tweets sent by the 350 people over time. time runs a left to right. the yellow line is where the earthquake hit and the blue line was 2.5 days later. every time a someonere-treated

information in our format, that is what the great area is. at the top, i put the research from our lab. we were sending out examples and prescriptive tweets. down here are people in yellow who were using that sweet with the original information. four people in haiti actually put information in that format. what is interesting to me is the middle area where we have an intensity of red tweets which were actually people translating other information they were finding into our format. we ended up with over 70 people in the information space and/or translating it into our format and made it more searchable and available to the rest of people who were looking at it.

that is one of the most interesting things about this. the fact that we can use combinations of computers -- computer-related processing with all of the human volunteer efforts to use different layers of faltering. we have people of loading it and we have computational stuff and we've got to have volunteers to figure out how to use them well volunteers need to make that information more usable. it is a combination of crowd- feeding, crowd-sheltering and they talked about a with other processes. this is one of the most powerful things. weekend just flips through. i don't need to go through all the slides. in that area where we were

talking about people's spending tweets, melissa was one of those people out there in twitter transmitting information. her story will be interesting to see. this is how the response community can incorporate the volunteer effort into this bill during of information on social media. thank you. [applause] >> now she's getting nervous. >> melissa is listed as a citizen but she is so much more. you can follow her on twitter. i am watching the twitter stream. if you have questions, you can tweak me or any of us. most of the strategists and producer of live events, assessor of travel, heavily

involved with haiti relief and working with dedicated volunteers. >> good morning. i am honored to be here amongst some make large brains in this room. it is exciting to see that a change is about to happen in the way disaster relief is handled. yes, i am a citizen at this conference. i am the common person, the everyday and jane and i don't hold a phd. i don't have access to dozens of staff and millions in funding and i am not a technology whiz by any means. i represent those individuals who were able to make a difference. due to incredible technologies available, we made a difference. many are astounded by what was accomplished by common janes and joe's like myself.

i hope to help organizations in future emergencies and give credence to the fact that every individual can help make a difference by simply stepping up in using the tools provided. there are four steps to my involvement. step one is a long complicated story and i will make it short. i spent the first week after the earthquake searching and finding local self was that needed to be found. in haiti is by minute plan. we wanted to have money to but on those cell phones of people could communicate on the ground 121. by doing that, and with no master plan, we had created a network, and on the ground immediate network that we could

communicate with one another and use them to help distribute aid to help with search and rescue. it was incredible how happened and it was very fluid. i did not sleep for about three weeks. the most important thing in this stage i quickly realized was the topic of sharing. sharing the data was the ultimate key to success. without a willingness -- i think this goes in general for how this movement will continue -- without a willingness to share whatever you know with whoever you know, the system will fail. the concept of proprietary information in this realm is a topic -- touchy subject i am of the belief of getting it out there. share what ever you can share. information came out of the most

improbable sources and the simplest of twitter searches. using the contacts we have by putting up the cell phones and twitter searches to see who is on the ground, we were able to connect with people in hospitals. we also contacted medical researchers and others. we were able to deliver food, water, and medicine as well as distribute some of the eight sitting at the airport. i am not sure if you can see that dates but twitter would not let me go back to the beginning. you would see how people just want to help from the beginning. they wanted to jump in and help. this next one was interesting. this showed the power of this incredible tool. there is a field medical hospital that had someone dying

of rabies and they needed the toxin for rabies. by spending time on twitter, we were able to get our context in the dominican republic who was a helicopter pilot to fly in the antitoxin and save her life. a small thing but really powerful how easy it is to use the tools that actually make a difference. step three, we spent a lot of time embedding doctors. this was two or three weeks after the earthquake it was a lengthy process. there are three phases. first to have to find the doctors willing to do it. you have to obtain transport during the restricted schedule at the damaged port-au-prince airport. it was difficult to land planes there at the time. you have to find someone who can fly their but could guarantee they had fuel to fly out. the also had to secure

replacement for the many working facility. i am sitting in toronto and we placed 36 doctors over the course of the time in haiti by twitter and by connections. step four, sorry there is information on embedding doctors. we're connecting people back and forth to each other as we could get them place. step four was teaching others to slow down and verify the information. you get excited on twitter with all this information but it was important to teach people to slow down. you have to check information. there became a time when a verification became an issue and people were shooting information out that had already been

researched and had already been resolved. search and rescue teams were going to locations twice which was horrendous because there are so needed elsewhere we had to slow people down and remind them on twitter to slow down and take a look at the information and verify. check the pages the there if there was an update. youhiti i can't tell haven't changed again for the common folk. it was incredible that we had access to real-time data. we could see who needed help and where they needed and what they needed. it was astounding. once the locations were mapped to gps coordinates and before i

learned to use it, we are trying to do it ourselves. we knew that the value ofgps coordinates in a city that has no street signs. members took over a role of a g doing theeo- mapping which was very handy. around this time, we started using the tweets centex quite a bit. we were trying to find ways. i did not know how it would help the and but i could see the value of having an organized search tool that would take amounts of information that we were seeing and get it out of human hands and into computers and sorted out. we also ran into feelings of powerlessness. we are the common people. the need was just so incredibly massive. there is so much information out there. were notger ngo's

visible. i realize some of the tweets i am showing you are controversial. they mention the red cross, are lovely house, but i am doing it because i saw and a recent survey that the expectation is out there and people like spect ngo's to be responding. they expect them to get on the ground fast and to be responding to these things. people are saying they are not seeing the vehicles on the ground. they may not be in the right area. it does not matter. the point is that the conversations are out there. social media gives a voice to the public at large and those voices travel far and wide and the media. there was a feeling there was no online voice from the red cross. the activation is that you say

-- see is called into question. sorry. these last few slides are sort of success stories we have. they are probably small potatoes compared to what the red cross and others are doing but for us, it was moments of glory. one step further and you have homeinhaiti.org. a man from atlanta georgia ship to tents from atlanta. it was incredible the fact that one person can have. to wrap it up, we are the common people and we are really excited to see organizations like the red cross recognizing the power of tools like social media in general. my fear is that we will get

taken out of the picture and i don't want that to happen. there is a lot of power in the individual and i hope i have shown you that we are small but we are mighty. keep us in the game, thank you. [applause] >> i want to go to questions first. [inaudible] >> how much is social media information aggregative tr iniage? >> that sounds like patrick. >> there are so many aspects of

that question. i can tell you what we are working on. we are working on collecting the information. we try to do it in as but there are people doing in other ways to collect that data and we are trying to use computational stuff to filter it. we look at keywords and do some processing, natural language processing on a to figure out which tweets are important. we are looking at reputation stuff and figuring out of a person -- figuring out if a information is correct. we want to make sure these people are real. there are so many aspects to that question of how and by whom and where stored and what

kind of tools would be built for everyone else to access that. >> somebody asked me on twitter if we should create a virtual command center or one place to all come together and have these conversations during the crisis while something is happening. >> it will happen whether we should or not. people will organize. that has happened and it will happen more. it is happening in pakistan right now. on the aggregation and filtering, another project is working on swift river which is a free and open source platform. it aggravates content across

mainstream media but also social media. it looks at the user-generated route -- resolution as a problem but a huge advantage. the more user-generated contents, you can try and delight that content. -- you can triangulate that content. this can be something that worked to our advantage. >> we have another question back here from a ka roberttz. >> i would like to complement and applaud everybody especially the speakers for their great work. i had the opportunity to be involved in the haiti response and received a text message on my blackberry from a bystander and the market hearing someone under the rubble. under the rubble.