cameras in there, everybody will start playing for the cameras. the actual thing that is so good about the institution will diminish. it is a fair point. i think i am still coming out with trust that we wou continue to do the same thing and that lawyers would continue to do the same thing. but i and stand the concern. >> in the spirit of greater understanding of h the court works, i wonder if you can take a minute to talk to us about how the court decides, rticularly from the perspective of the junior justice and the significance of oral argument. then describe the conference where, as the junior justice, you have to give your opinion before anybody else does. if you could just walk us through that. >> i wish it with that -- i wish it were that. [laughter] it is actually the opposite. i go night. -- nineth. i think it has changed over time. so i go ninth. let's start there. the chief justice starts in every case. he sort of introduces the case.

then he says what he thinks and how he would vote. it goes around the table in seniority order. i am the lt to speak. there is a rule that nobody can speak twice before everybody has had a chance to speak once. you think that that is a sort of artificial and formal role. -- rule. but let me tell you, when you are the ninth justice -- [laughter] it must've been the ninth justice who thought of this rule. [laughter] after i speak, it is not so bad. the ninth is actually better than the eighth or the seventh. there is some drama to going ninth. [laughter] rarely, but you can -- then the is more general discussion. the general discussion varies.

sometimes it can bvery quick and sometimes it can be very lengthy. it is not a tremendously -- it is not tremendously related to the case in the publ eye. i remember my first conference. it was a case that was kind of a front-page newspaper case. we voted and then we all went around. then we discussed it a little bit. then there was another case which no newspaper in the united states would write a sentence about. we discussed it for 40 minutes. i thought why is that? but the discussion is relative -- we discuss when we think there is something really to discuss and votes might change and consensus might be reached. there are some cases where, in the end, you go around once and it is pretty clear that

everybody thinks what they think and a rea can discuss it until the end of time and it will not change anything except make people mad at each other. but there are some cases were discussion goes really well. there we talk a lot of money to other to try to do that. so that is the way conference will. oral arguments come a few days before conference. so we have time to think about the oral arguments, to think about what we learned. i find that very valuable. there are some courts were the judges go straight from oral argument into conference. but i find it valuable to digest what happened in oral argument. that gives time to think about what the lawyers thought about questions and to think about what my colleagues have said.

the value and function of oral argument is to listen to each othe oral argument is the first time that the justices talk about a case together. when justice specific -- when justice scalia word justice ginsberg asked something, i know what bothers them about a case and where they are leaning. that can be extremely valuable to think about, both because it may be convincing to me and also because it may help me to try to figure oral argument is an important part. >> he said that it takes five years to go around the track once here. it takes a long time for a new

justice to find his influence. it is fair to say yet that quite a remarkable influence. you are really the winner of this in terms of this. convincing. he broke that e of the remarkable things about this year was the elegance and eloquence of your pros and how you have emerged as a convincing writer. it used it takes a very long time. it compared it to holmes and brandeis.

>> showing he has no credibility whatsoever. >> it will actually bringome context of what you said earlier. the other opinions are very forceful. u write in a way that is so understandable for anyone. let's talk about this term. the clean systems acwas one wherthey wrote the majority opinion. you have some very strong language. i wonder if you can describe what it is about and why hfelt so passionately. -- and why you felt so passionately.

one provision was the way the arizona one word. they had decided that if all candidates are privately financed that they will be too great a chance of production. they have all this private money. people are gillian's billions of dollars. people are bundling billions of this. they will have the ability to go to eight candidates and rep. public financing systems are immense for political corruption.

it worked by way of a matching funds. at a particular point, the amount of money that they would get depended on how much money there privately financed opponent would spin. if we get a certain amount of to a certain ceiling. the reason they had this system is to make it work. either you do not give them enough money to people say you're not giving enough money to run a competitive campaign or you say in order to prevent that they will give you a lot of

money. it turns up a lot of mixed waste some money. they tried to say you're going to guess them enough to run a competitive campaign. this will strengthen our public financing system. do you want me to keep on going? it burdens the candidates speech.

this counted as a burden on the publicly burden finance speech. my response was that this was not the case. the majority kept on thinking about this in terms of the language. if you looked at this system and do the debt the way it works, it was producing more speech and competition. this should not cot as a first amendment injury. it is subsidized. there is a long line of first amendment cases that say that when the government pays people to speak that is okay as long as the government does not discriminate.

anybody could have this money if the person decided to enter the system. they point of my dissents was to say that the same role should follow. we should not use this as a restraint. even if we did, it would reduce political corruption. that was a dispute. >> to any of you have a dell? >> against all this, they claim to have found three smoking guns but review the nefarious attention to level the playing field. this is the kind tt goes with mirrors.

[laughter] [applause] if you like -- >> i will not read any more. >> let's stay on that. have we lost power? i do not know if we can do anything about that speaker.

i want to the time for questions from the audience. there are a number of first amendment cases. it was a banner year. this was for purveyors of minors. theyere considered outrageous protesters. there were victories for rich people who defied funding and drug companies the wanted access to dr. prescriptions. is there something you can say about all of these first amendment opinion sex but obviously did not agree -- opinion that? you obviously did not agree with all of them. >> i think it is the case that justice kennedy and justice

scalia agreed th all four of them. and none of the other people to be most speech protected position. we did have some cases where they decided against the expense. there is one case which dealt the public employees. it was rejected. there is another very interesting case where we rejected the first amendment claim of an elected official who says barry's loss. -- use of various laws. you are right. we have to say is th this is a court that is extremely protectivef the first amendment's ban speech.

to the extent that they see something as restricting, it is likely not. that restriction is going to go down. there are disagreements about what counts as speech. there are disagreements about what counts as a restriction. there is no question that this court has a very expensive mmm. >> was one of those cases particularly difficult for you? >> i thought that the video game space was the toughest that i decided all year. there is the case where i struggled most and thought most often i am on the wrong side of this.

this came out of california. it involves extremely violent video games. there was a question about how big video games was defined and whether the definition was vague. the question was whether the states could prohibit the sale of video games to minors. you can see why why the government would want to do this. this is what they have on young people. in some ways, it was very easy to say i understand what the state was doing here. it seems kind of reasonable. i cannot figure out a way to square that with our first amendment precedents. it is very important to me. a shy to think about what they have said and what analysis is needed.

it seems to me that they required us to evaluate the legislation. it is to say that the state had to have the most compelling kinds of interest they are doing it in the most narrow way possible. i thought this that she cannot guarantee at. it was car thathe standard was the one that had to be applied according to our various precedents. i ended up coming out in that case.

i sweated over that. i told the president two things. i said ok. he said the first thing was that i did not want another circuit court judge. the other thing was that i did that what a person from harvard or yale. i said i hope one out of two is good enough. there are lots of great lawyers in the world that did not go to those two schools.

it is ridiculous that they have all nine justices between them. he said aided them had been circuit court judges. most of us have of us of our lives on the amtrak of this. most of us come from this picture in the problem is is that there are so many measures of what people think of as appropriate diversity. there is the ability to dominate them one by one over the coue of many years. it is hard.

it is hard to figure out how to do this. >> we cannot see this. we want to have question from the audience. we have microphones. if you can just give us your name? >> when is this country going to get tough on immigration, porn, and toughen criminals? [applause] >> they're likely to come before

the court next year. a do nothing she can answer that. we function as an initution in a very particular way. we decide cases. we do not decide bigssues. we decide controversies between two parties. we take seriously the idea that we really look carefully and closely at the controversy before us. this way, we function very differently from the legislatures. there's always the way i am going to go.

this is limited to cases or controversy. >> i'm going to london. we had the extraordinary experience. in your decision making, are you looking for the moscow justices? -- too bad.

it is to resolve ambiguities and fill gaps in the ways the u.k. congress -- ways you think congress intended to do so. you ardoing law. you're trying to figure out what the competition means for the constitution means. -- you are trying to figure out what the constitution means. >> we have a question somewhere. i have to rely on our runners.

what is given what you said the same thing is sure because of the more open and a provision. you're dealing with

constitutional law. you're trying to figure out what the constituon means, looking at the history, of the confidence. looking a legal sources to try to figure accepted -- out the meaning of a particular issue. >> we have a question somewhere. given what you said about what you had to do during the first term, i'm wondering what you are going to do when the health care legislation comes before you? >> i do not announce it prior to the case. there have been ses. if you make a study of this, you will see this before.

i never do this. no member of the accord does a. >> still have a question someone in the middle? >> i am a lawyer in washington, d.c. they have expressed their views. one is the domestic standard. there is the authority of multiple countries around the world's us to what should be considered in deciding a thin mints -- deciding opinions.

>> the standards to be applied. and may relate to the particular issue. >> there are some kind of cases whe you have to look there. if you're interpreting the treaty, you're looking to international law. the cases in which this has been controversy all are not those cases. there are particular provisions of the u.s. constitution. they have made reference to interpret this when you are interpreting the u.s. constitution, what matters is we have a very distinctive constitution with a distinctive set of provisions.

another thing a country does will settle that question. on the other hand, there are some people who say he can never say a foreign one. this seems wrong to me as well. they have a good idea in it. you may say a former president. in doi so, you have to be really super cognitive that it may be entertained a provision

with a very different history and tradition. neverothinghat we're going to look at what they do is appropriate. it is tremendously important that we realize that there's not some sort of transcendental body of law out there. we are looking at the american constitution. they have made choices that other countries have done. my name is ryan. if miners are allowed to buy videogames, why then not a lot

to see r-rated movies in the theater? not because of any legislation. that is a voluntary system. the video gamendustry has a rating system of its own. onof the questions they argued about was whether it was more are less affected than the system for movies. there is no law that says you cannot see and our movie. the reason you can is because the industry has said that you should not be able to. the video game industry has decided the same thing. the question and california is whether in addition to a voluntary rating system that the state can, but various restrictions on it.

>> no. time for a couple more questions. you were handed a position to argue. how did you handle this? what i had a job to do. there were a whole set of rules and traditions that enabled them the interest to the united states. as you say, sometimes it is not the position that i would have fared. they are saying that there was an inapproprte establishment. the solicitor general argued

against the standing of the parties. i said they did have the right to bring a claim. as a judge, i said they had no doubt that i would have taken this. this is consistent with a whole tradition that thehave with respect to cases involving this. this is consistent with what they have with respect tohis.

this is the job be take. if you cannot do that, you should not take the job. your job is to represent the long-term incentive. others have defined those interests. you better put it in a box and keep it there any other use the might have. >> one final question in the back. >> politic he can speak to how this has changed? >> she has been in a few

locations this year. she came in a couple of the arizona cases. there were three. they're seeing how this statement are ferrying. fairing.- the way it works is that justice sotomayor and i sit on the far right of the bench. justice ginsburg sits near the middle. justice o'connor said, "i was hearing women's voices coming from all over," that was a remarkable thing to her. i am sure she remembers those days when she was the only one.

i think it is kind of great that has happened. i think -- i am glad to be part of it. >> i think that is a great way to end. we would like to thank you very much. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captionininstitute] [ctions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up next, an update on iraq and afghanistan with general mattis, commander of the u.s. central command. after that google executive chairman eric schmidt and on launch of google tv. then bill gates talks about the work of the bill and melinda gates foundation.

i. "newsmakers", we will talk with emmanuel cleaver about the black caucus's view of federal spending and the debt and the cbc's relationship with president obama. "newsmakers" is on 10:00 a.m. on c-span. >> on sunday, a female will give an update -- fema will give an update on hurricane irene. janet napolitano will brief along with the fema administrator and the director of the national hurricane center. that is live, 11:30 a.m. eastern on sunday, here on c-span. >> on thursday night, general mattis, the commander of the u.s. central command spoke at the marines memorial association in san francisco. he described the turbulence in the middle east and said the u.s. is winning in afghanistan.

he also talked about the planned u.s. troop withdrawal from iraq by the end of the year and the current security situation in pakistan, iran, and other countries in the region. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> i remember when i took over as the director of the office of management and budget and bill heirs was secretary of defense. i said let us get one thing clear. what the commandant wants, the commandant gets, ok? thets, commandant debts, ok? -- gets, ok? we have a great privilege, and i am looking forward to it eagerly, to hear general mattis speak to us this evening. he has the central command.

that means afghanistan, iraq, and practically everything in between, including the pirates, i believe, that played a lot of our activities. a huge, huge, responsibility. -- a huge, huge responsibility. you have seen the responsibity he has had, one command after another. he was in the leadership in iraq and afghanistan, executed with a brilliance. he has had experiences, and he will talk to us about them. he is the originator in his insights into what it takes on the battlefield to win these days, in a battlefield that has

lots of civilians and it, and the goomarine saying -- no worse enemy, know better friend. that is a way of providing security, but also making friends, making things better for everybody. general, i have looked at your background and i understand that you are a general who likes the unorthodox. there is a quotation that says you like the guys in sloppy pants and muddy shoes, or something like that. i looked into your background and i do not think you ever went to marine corps boot camp, did you? let me educate you a little bit about what happens. [laughter] i can remember when the sergeant handed me my rifle. he said, "take care of this rifle. this is your best frnd. never point this rifle at anybody unless you are willing

to pull the trigger. no empty threats." i told that to president reagan once. he liked the idea. i said we have to be careful with oords. if we say something i unacceptable, it means we ar no going accept it. if we're going to accept it, let's not say it. let us be careful to mean what we say. never point that rifle at anybody unless you are willing to pull the trigger. back on this theme of wanting the unorthodox, muddy shoes and so forth, signed up for the marine corps at the start of world war two. i thought i was coined to become a marine. but you find out you become a boot. it is only if you can emerge from boot camp that you become a marine. i remember one day my group was waiting around and we were in this place, and some guys were

sitting down and other guys were standing around. in walks our drill sergeant. heooks at this motley scene. down until i't sit say said down." everybody stands right up. he says, "sit down." we all sat down. so no on orthodoxy. -- no unorthodoxy. there was a little island we managed to take. there were a few of us there, a platoon, my guys. there was a church with heavy walls. along come the japanese, coming back. we had nothing. we were just there. we went all over the place and secured it as bt we could. when it was over, we saw the japanese had placed a bomb in

the dead center of the chuh. afterwards, i said to our guys we learned two things. never underestimate your adversary. they are good marksman. do not do what they expect you to do. th is the muddy shoes, i guess. it is a great pleasure for me ana privilegfor me to introduce this wonderful man leading our forces in the central command, general james mattis. [applause] >> thank you very much, secretary shultz. certainly, the word can be overused, but you can understand

why it is a great honor to be introduced by a state's man and world war ii marine like secretary shultz. as far as muddy boots co, we are looking for people with discipline, which you have demonstrated, and a problem- solving ability, which you have also demonstrated, and a jazz ability to improvise, which you set the standard for. i am grateful to be here. the ceo of the marines memorial club was my division commander. he had certain reservations about me as we attacked kuwait. i remember we worked that out ok. i learned to say sir, and that made it all worked out after that. [laughter] i also acknowledge some other former bosses here. secretary perry -- serving as your executive officer taught me

to ask the right questions. you know what i mean. it was an honor to serve under your command in the secretary of defense office. i have grown to admire y tremendously. our centcom commander was my marine expeditionary unit commander. i could go on and on, but i am violating a cardinal rule, and that rule iso never talk to a group that knows more about a subject than i do. ihink i am going to be in trouble when we get to the questions and answers. i will also tell you it is adding years to my life to be on the west coast rather than in washington, d.c. it is refreshen to be out here. i love the pacific ocean, the vibrancy of the city. when you think of the technological, refreshening ideas that have come out of

california, i will tell you it is a godsend when you comout here and feel it in the air. i am also happy not to be giving this talk in washington because i understand8 hours ago washington buckled under the weight of its own bureaucracy. it will come as no surprise to a former secretary of defense that the pentagon got more work done after th evacuation than before it was evacuated. but we should have anticipated that when we have energy stored up in opposing memos and it is suddenly released, is cracking apart of the earth that can happen. i thought i would speak for a few minutes. i hope you will find some value, something to challenge me with any question and answer, which is always the best part. i have spent a lot of years

outside the united states. since i left the united states in september 2001,or obvious reasons -- we had been attacked. i have been gone a lot since then. i hope you will throw questions that are in your heart. i do have a thick skin. i did go to boot camp and developed the skin we all have to. the area in which i answer to secretary panetta is the central region. you all heard that. i have served in the region off and on since colonel ken jordan, my battalion commander, took me out there in 1979. i have been out there a fair amount. the region stretches from kazakhstan in central asia and siberia down to the southern tip

of the arabian peninsula, yemen. it stretches from egypt and lebanon on the mediterranean over to pakistan, on the indian ocean. it includes the persian gulf. in the northern part of the gulf, iraq and kuwait. obviously, afghanistan, saudi arabia, jordan, and i run. -- iran. in over 30 years of service in this region, i have never seen it so tumultuous -- full of promise, but also full of danger. as military commander, i am supposed to look for dangers while seizing opportunities for keeping the peace wherever possible, one more year, one more month, one more day. sometimes, you look to keep peace for one more hour. it is not peace everywhere. we are heavily committed in parts of the theater. there are other parts we try to

keep a lid on. i would like to speak first about the arab awakening. i would call it the arab awakening, not the arabs bring, and how we adapt to these changes right now, the changing times, keep hold of our american values with consistent policy that matches those values, but balanced with pragmatism. your military service our foreign policy, and foreign policy must deal with reality in a world at does not always comport to what we would like it to be. i am also charged with the readiness of our forces and crafting military options for the president. you understand that part of the job, i am sure. when i meet with foreign leaders inhe middle east, i cite four diplomatic pillars for our approach to the region in transition. that region will never go back to what it was a year ago, to

what we grew up seeing since the tunisian and egyptian revolutions broke out last january. everything that has happened since, including syria -- it is never going back to what it once was as a result of these changes and pressures that have been unleashed. the four pillars we used to fram our diplomatic approach within -- we support each country's political reform efforts to adapt at their own pace. the middle east is not one thing. every country is different. it is a very diverse area. each country will have to adapt to changing times with its own formula. it cannot be imported from the outside. there is not one size fits all in the middle east. the first thing is our country supports those reform efforts so people have more of a say in their government.

second, we support economic reforms to broaden the fruits of the economic boom many of the countries are having. more people have to feel hope as a result of the economic situation. it cannot be constrained to just a few. there are good things going on with that. there are also states in flux, where they are not close to doing this. we support a renewed middle east peace. the status quo right now is not sustainable. it is a flame that keeps the pot boiling to some degree in the middle east. i will tell you that have got to take its advantage of this time and try to move middle east peace forward. that is one of the pillars of the american foreign policy. we adapt to changing times. fourth, we support regional security. by that i mean we stand by our friends -- old friends, new friends. we stand by them and their territorial integrity. we stand against terrorism.

they work with us, quietly at times, publicly in other cases. the bottom line is we do this in league with the international community. this includes trying to rein in iran's bellicose impulses. we are working along the diplomatic lines, economic sanctions. but much of what we do in support of these pillars is done very quietly. the orchestration of military activities is done to support those pillars and the state department's efforts. our military to military efforts can and do play a very positive role when fully integted as a supporting role to our foreign policy. we reassure our friends and temper our adversaries. no matter how uncomfortable we get about the changes going on, we have no option of disengaging from the world, and for my area, no option of disengaging from

the middle east. but it will demand our best diplomatic instance. we have to build common cause with old friends and new, using americans pragmatic idealism as a guide. in egypt, we have seen the people gain a voice in how they are governed, and a military that shepherd its people -- shepherded its people through tax and circumstances. i think it was somewhat a reflection of our quiet, strong military relations over decades. we are proud today of their overwhelmingly ethical performance. they were not perfect. nobody is. when you compare the egyptian military to what is going on in libya with the gaddafi military, what is going on in syria right now, you can see a military that kept its ethical balance during very difficult conditions. i thought what i would do is tour the region, touch on a few

of the countries that would give a deeper understanding. i want to start with egypt, because it is the most critical country for setting the arab spring on a positive path. it has a traditional leadership role in cairohat goes back hundreds of thousands of years. it has perhaps 30% of the arab population that lives in egypt. we have very close military to military ties between the u.s. leadership and their military leadership. they will, i assure you, conduct the elections, coming up soon. the military is eager to turn over control of the country to civilians. it is going to be a very long road as they build the political partie and political framework designed to build a democracy. i think there will be se disappointments. an election will not suddenly give them the jobs they want, the reformed education system,

the things that are going to satisfy their deepest desires. i do anticipate that cairo will return to its historic leadership role in politics, education, commerce, religious thought, and the arts. it is not goi to come back soon. it will be internally focused for a year or two. i think it is optimistic that they get their internal act together and find their own path forward. there are several points. will egypt sustain its traditional, moderate soupy position -- sufi position as it looks toward the future? i believe they will. at the same time, the muslim brotherhood bears watching. furthermore, iran has tried its own mischief in cairo, trying to meddle in othereople's affairs. we have to keep an eye on that and see if it gains attraction. i do not anticipate it will.

moving up the mediterranean coast, i will talk about lebanon. they are putting together, as you are aware, a new government. that country is home to one of the most well-armed non-state organizations inhe wld. you know it as lebanese hezbollah. the military works with the lebanese armed forces. it ithe only multi- confessional organization that is trusted in the country. we do it to offset lebanese heollah's influence. we do that because the a runny and-backed "-- t i ron meehan -- the iranian backed hezbollah was implicated in the assassination of the former prime ministe's father. they arm and train -- they are armed and trained by ron --

iran's special forces. that is why we stay engaged with lebanon. it is not perfect. there are tensions between israel and lebanon. but we do not want to leave a cuum there. vacuums are not filled by a pleasant things in the middle east. let me speak to two countries where r military is heavily engaged, one where we are pulling down quickly, iraq. it has been instructive over the last three months to realize i read my intelligence reports, watched tv, and did not see, in the midst of the arab spring, mobs in baghdad demonstrating and demanding a voice in their own affairs. i do not have all the answers for you, but i found it fascinating that in that country they do not feel they have to demonstrate. they must feel they do have a voice. they may not be happy with the way things are going.

some of us in this room may not be happy with the way things are going in america some days, but we still have a voice. that is important. violence has been reduced to very low rates. al qaeda still exists in iraq, but it has been pummeled. it is still capable of spectacular attacks. on the 15th day of ramadan, last week, we saw al qaeda concentrate their killing on the shia parts of iraq. they killed and wounded over 300 people in one day. they are sti dangerous. they still go after the innocent. they go after women and children. they have no regard for any of the rules of warfare. the bottom line is they are a wounded, weekend, but still dangerous animal. iran is providing direct support to malicious in iraq -- militias in iraq, she a melissa's -- shia

militias. they are irani and proxies' becae its not in iran -- they are iranian prozies. -- proxies. the single largest threat in iraq is these proxy militias backed with money from iran, as well as training and weapons. iran is trying to influence the decision about u.s. troops remaing in iraq as a training ssion. we are still on plan to come down to zero by december. if the iraq government acts and president obama agrees, we could see a training capability remain in iraq. there has been no decision on that yet. afghantan. i want to spend a little time on this. on the securities side in

afghanistan, our strategy is working. we are winning. i am delighted to defend the strategy. if you want to get into detail, i am eager to do so. but what we have is a civilian military plan, an international plan under nato command. there are many nions that are not part of nato that have chosen to join. there are 49 nations fighting together, the largest wartime coalition in recent history. it is important we remember that. you can wander, reading the u.s. news, if we are in this by ourselves. believe me -- the afghan boys are dying at a higher rate than ours are. in canada, they have lost more troops per-capita than the united states, as a custodian -- as have estonia and the netherlands. i do not say this to lessen our

country's pain over the price of war, both physical and in the lives of our young people. but i do want to assure you we are not in this alone. this is a coalition and it has grown by six more nations in the last year. nations do not usually join coalitions that are losing. that is not their nature. why do i say it is working, that our strategy is working? first, the insurgents are losing territory, losing leadership, losing weapons and supplies. without these, the enemy is significantly weaker today than they were a year ago. most importantly, they are losing public support. what that is doing is causing our enemy to do spectacular attacks, often on innocent people, which erodes public confidence in the taliban. they are infuriated by it. as they lose that, their own

troupe will to fight starts dropping off. the enemy attacks are down 5%. how can that be? we have more troops than ever. they are in more areas. why isn't the enemy initiating more attacks? they have lost the initiative 25%. our groups aretarting the fight much more often. that is an indicator that the enemy is in trouble. there is a caution. that is your military is hard wired to see things in positive terms. i do not think it is unpatriotic to question the strategy and see if i can stand and deliver here this evening. i am not a marine. i am a u.s. marine. i belong to you. i am accountable to you. i believe in this strategy, or i would not be standing here tonight, saying this. one of the most difficult challenges, as you look at this

fight and try to understand it -- you would not be here tonight if you were not interested in world affairs. one of the most difficult things to grasp is that progress and violence can coexist. the violence is so heartbreaking, the number of innocence killed, this sort of thing, so tough on us that it becomes the headline. the news people are not being evil, not trying to cook the books. the violence grabs attention. we forget that violence and progress can coexist. that is what is going on right now. the enemy is only hope is that they can erode political will. they cannot stand against our troops. their ferocity is far beyond what the enemy is prepared to accept. as president obama has said, it is a war we did not seek. we did not ask for this war.

but in security terms, we are winning. our mission there is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda. that remains our goal. we will prevent al qaeda from returning. remember that. some people forget the last part of the mission statement -- prevent them from returning to pakistan or afghanistan. our job is to defeat the taliban and al qaeda, the caliban being the ones who took in al qaeda and embraced them, and defeat their hope for victory. iran is not helpful in this, of providing weapons systems. our job is to set conditions for reconciliation and reintegration. all wars come to an end. our job is to end it as soon as possible. reconciliation is top down. that is where we work with the leadership of the taliban.

we find which ones are not committed. that is afghan-lead. -- afghan-led. from bottom up, you have reintegration. you convince young fighters that are on the wrong side. we have propaganda operations. we have infiltration of our ideas into their midst. we get them to change their mind. for example, over 1700 of the enemy have come over to our side. people do not join the losing side. it is not their nature. they are coming over to our side. some of the headlines are not reading is afghan army platoon and goes over to the taliban. you never see afghan battalion went over to the enemy side. it has never happened. again, we are putting this enemy on the horns of a dilemma.

if you fight us, weill fight hard. if you come over, our as are open. secretary clinton has made a point about how much they have to do to come over. what is it they have to do? they have to renounce violence. they have to live by their constitution. they have to break with al qaeda. that is all. they can come back again. they can argue their political views. they can do whatever they want to do inside that system. we are trying to put it together on the fly, under great pressure. we started at a low point, because after the soviet invasion that society was turned upside down and inside out. it is a tough job. we believe we can break off the reconcilable from the irreconcilable. we protect the afghan people. we can open the door to getting this war spped. how're we going to do it?

we're going to feed the insurgent networks. we're going to build up security forces. you will see the enemy capabity going down as the security fces capability goes up. the firebreak, the windbreak behind this going on, is the international coalition that helps to stand up those afghan forces while treating the enemy very rough, protecting the people and going after the enemy leadership. we will suprt their governments and economic development. this is part of making afghanistan in hospitable to the enemies return. we are not in it alone. as part of the government and economic piece, the united nations, world bank, imf, and nato are all working together. it is not a u.s.ilitary plan. it is an integrated, international plan. the level of violence is not a

good indicator of success or defeat. let me show you an example. people say the level of violence has gone up, so something must beoing wrong. if i go back to march of 1945, i would show you that the level of violence was so high at that point we were clearly losing. we were only months away from winning. i am not saying we are months away from winning now. i am discounting what you often see touted as a way to measure the success, the level of violence in the country. that is not a good measure, especially when the enemy is seeing more and more times the violence is beginning as our forces against them as we catch them. there is a nation intimately tied to this, and that is pakian. it is a difficult relationship between the united states and pakistan, one of paramount importance.

there has been a disappointment on both sides, questions from both sides. if i am asked why do we continue to work with pakistan, i will only tell you that my counterpart in islamabad is probably being asked the same question when he talks to his people. would you talk to the americans? look what they have done to us. we have no choice but to maintain a relationship. a reminder on several issues that do not get much play in the press. pakistan has lost more troops fighting these terrorists then all of nato combined. it does not make our news. they have had 30,000 civilians killed or wounded in terrorist attacks. we have around 3000 on 9/11. they have had over 30,000 in their country. we will continue to work with pakistan to reduce the safe havens. in 40 years of wearing this uniform, i have never been in

more difficult terrain than the border region between afghanistan and pakistan. you know the problems the americans have maintaining border security along a flat and not very difficult terrain border south of here. you have to recognize that pakistan -- fear of india drives much of their behavior, yet they moved a quarter of their army, 140,000 troops, off of the indian border, and moved against al qaeda and the terrorists. that is a heck of a statement from the country that has lost several wars with india, and is very fearful of the indian power on their eastern border. to move those troops all the way across into the high country on the western border is quite a statement. countries have interests. that is why we work with them.

not all intests aligned perfectly. rough patches to develop between countries. i am reminded of winston churchill's statement that the only thing worse than fighting with our allies is fighting without allies. it is a difficult relationship between us. i will tell you in my personal background that i left california in september of 2001. in october, i went and talked with the pakistan leadership in islamabad. i had been ordered to take about 300 -- had been ordered to take marine's 350 nautical miles in helicopters at night, where fuel them in the air, and land behind kandahar. th pakistan general staff through my -- they knew my objective in plan three weeks in advance and never revealed it to the enemy. for all of the disarray in our

relationship at times, privately, behind closed doors, there is more now we are doing together than we are not. for example, over half the al qaeda senior leadership is now not in a position to collect their 4 01 ks -- 401k's, okay? [laughter] that is largely due to working together quietly against an organization we and the pakistanis have an intense dislike for. we're not one to solve all the problems, but we manage the problems and work against our enemies. let me close. i want to get to the questions and answers. but i want to talk about syria, because it is very important. when you look at where syria is, and look at their western border, the mediterranean, and lebanon, going a little further

south -- they about israel. they share a border with jordan, the single of sought -- the kingdom of saudi arabia. excuse me. right down close to saudi arabia. and of course iraq and turkey. when you look at that geopolitical center of the middle east that the occupied, you see a very bloody transition already going on. it is clearly time for assad to go, but if it goes, it will be the worst strategic blow iran has taken. iran is supporting the bloody repression of the syrian people by the assad regime. i saw yesterday the eu condemnation fort iran providing assistance inside damascus to keep assad in power. no outside power should help him murder his own people.

the syrian people should be allowed their own future. assad is standing in the way. iran's'help is the only reason he is able to. iran is problematic. you have heard me mention it time after time as i talk. you may have picked up the theme that from cro to baghdad, lebanon to yemen, afghanistan and beyond -- sudan, brain, latin america. iran's stabilizing influence can be seen. the centrifuges continue to spin. the policies havesolated their country. they have been ignoring the u.n. security council resolution to suspend its enrichment activities. if you look at the security council resolution, how often do you see china, russia, france, the united kingdom, japan,

austria, the united states, and more all vote together on an issue? how often do you see that? how often have we passed economic sanctions with that group of countries all voting the same way? it says something about how destabilizing iran's behavior has become. the gulf cooperation council, countries in the persian group -- to wait, a saudirabia, -- kuwait, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, and others -- have held together. it is iran which has stimulated this unity. iran has no significant strategic allleft. eir support of assad is costing them what little patience the surrounding countries have had. in closing, i will tell you the middle east is a wildly

turbulent place right now. not all of it. some countries are quiet and everything is going well. a lot are going through severe transitions. america has a positive role to play. the dangers are real, and must be considered as we look at our foreign policy, which must be guided by pragmatic idealism. let me close with a couple of words about your military. it is a national treasure. i have been wearing the uniform over 40 years. i have never seen it so strong in spirit and experience. it is filled with volunteers, high-quality young volunteers, all volunteers, young patriots who have looked beyond the political rhetoric swirling around some little-understood wars. they have answered their country's call. we have taken some heavy hits recently, but those losses have

only made us more determined to carry out the mission. it has not in any way dissuaded us. in this regard, and as a reminder as a talk about strategic decisions here this evening, we are joined by a gold star mother whose son, and marine infantryman, was killed under my command in 2004. are you here? i did not get to see you ahead of time. could you stand? if we could just show our respect. [applause] her son travis fell to try to keep this experiment we call america alive. i will tell you that young men have been my strongest inspiration. thank you for being here tonight. we will pass on this experiment to the next generation because of young men like your son.

thank you. i will be happy to take your questions. [applause] >> we have a stack of questions. let's begin with the horn of africa, a couple of questions about piracy and what is going on in djibouti and the ocean. >> piracy -- i am responsible for the waters off africa. africom handle somalia. it is a destitute area. young men go out to sea and take over ships. they climb on board. they take them into port. they hold them, sometimes for an excess of the year, until a hefty ransom -- $2 million -- is

dropped in by parachute. then they let the ship go. it is very lucrative for these fellows. i will tell you, there are military solutions, but this is a political problem. there is no international piracy court. each nation has to decide, if they grabs somebody for doing this, as our nation has -- we just put several people in jail who killed american sailors out there. but without an international criminal court that deals with this, and without some sort of effort to have a cohesive naval presence out there, we just have too many people doing their own thing. we do not have a good policy for how to deal with the ones we capture. until we get our political act together and say that is enough, we're probably going to

continue to have this problem. i will tell you that it is offensive to me, professionally, the we have innocent seamen held prisoner, sometimes abused, held as hostages for up to a year at a time. the world is not doing a lot about it. it is one of things you look at -- one of the things you look at and do not feel good about. but this has to be an international effort and i do not see it being coalesced. >> can you give your assessment of al qaeda, particularly the upheavals since last winter? >> al qaeda it is a franchise outfit. i mentioned in iraq they are really on the ropes right now. they have very little support. they are being hunted down, turning to bank robbery to finance theelves, this sort of thing. still dangerous. up in the high country in the

borderland between afghanistan and iraq, that is still the epicenter of the al qaeda senior leadership. it is not a safe haven anymore. it is under enormous pressure. they are not doing well. but that are able to maintain a certain degree of command and control. dropping down into the arabian peninsula, that are for the first time in the last 90 days holding to rein in yemen, where the political stalemate between president ala -- salah, who is not giving up power, and the opposition has distracted the military. al qaeda is gaining strength in yemen. for those of you w are history buffs, if you look at the queen of sheba's old area, if you go do the coast, what they are doing is trying to set up on the

peninsula, routes on the old smuggler routes that came into the heart of saudi arabia from the coast. you cannderstand the freedom of maneuver that gives them. i think they are gaining strength there, but will run into trouble with the tribes, who do not like the sword of islam al qaeda promotes. at the same time, date are gaining ground. al shabab in somalia has made some connection with al qaeda. that is not looking well for somalia. at the same time, there are a lot of competing interests down there, and whether they will maintain their primacy is subject to question. moving over, there is the al qaeda in the mob grabbed -- magreb, due st of sudan, the south of the sierra -- of the

sahara. there are a number of forces, both locals and european allies, working against them out there. they also have sleeper cells in europe. they are trying to do it here. the fbi have been very successful. they are definitely losing in a number of areas. they are gaining in some. the epicenter has been pressured more than ever before. >> there have been several qutions about the country's outside there. the couple are worth commenting on. specifically, the relationship of israel in the arab countries and w the unrest in the last year has affected their relationship. >> clearly, israel is watching what is going on very closely. when you have what is happening with lebanese hezbollah in southern lebanon, and you know what happened with the war there a few years ago, you have syria

, unrest upsetting everybody in the region, all around the borders. obviously, israel has to keep an eye on that. jordan is doing fine. they continue to be a quiet, stable relationship. egypt has maintained its military bigger ship, has maintained the peace treaty provisions. they have also maintained close working relationships with the israeli military as they try to reduce the threat out of the sinai. it is going ok. we just have to watch how that develops. the biggest concern, clearly, that israel has is not egypt. it is not jordan. it is not serious. it is iran, for obvious reasons. when you think of statements by the iranian leadership and what the u.n. structure is to stop

the enrichment, and it has not been stopped -- obviously, isel has a very focused interest in that issue. they're keeping an eye on that. there will be rough times going forward. this is an area where i am somewhat of an optimist. >> the emergence of turkey as a regional power -- how has that affected things? >> i think that turkey -- i have seen positive impacts, because in manyays turkey is seen as a way for a nation to mature toward a more democratic approach. i have spoken to several leaders who traveled to turkey to talk to them about how they create the kind of state they have created. they have also, i think, been very helpful in regard to tryi to restrain assad.

they have not been successful, but they have made clear that what he is doing is not going to receive any sort of solace or support out of ankara. the turks are the one nato nation that fights against an active terrorist group in their own southeast corner. th are also a nation that we work quietly with in a common cause. >> the next question relates to command relationships. could you talk a little bit about special operations command, and its relationship with cencom, and how that is coordinated for individual strikes? >> any special operations command troops come under my command when they are inside central command. special operations command provides me ny seals or army green berets, army rangers, air

force spial tactics, marines, and they come in under special forces. i have a navy commander, army commander, air force, marine, and special forces. they worked in an integrated way. we picked the force with the right skill set that will accomplish the mission. it is a close, warm, and respected relationship. we have been -- the combatant commander has used most of the special forces over the last 10 years. after 10 years of working together, we have grown up together. we know each other. there is a bond between us. it is a very smooth, integrated effort. sometimes, we put u.s. conventional forces under special forces command. sometimes, i will put special forces under conventional forces command. it is whatever works for the

unique situation on the ground. due to the initiatives you initiated when your secretary of defense, those have matured to the point where the young officers think this is completely natural, the way we always fight, because for 10 years we have. those 10 years we did in the 90's have paid off significantly. >> can you talk a little bit about the threats to see in a military sense from a run to its neighbors, specifically in the persian gulf? >> i think most of the threat will be unconventional, or ballistic missile. they know that if they take on their neighbors, our friends, in a conventional sense, they will be exposed immediately. that is not to say they would not do it. wars are often started by irrational impulses. but i think they're enormous and growingallistic missile

capability is the one thing that has received a lot of attention from our military friends out of the region as they realize how vulnerable their civilian populations are if the iranians start thring ballistic missiles around. they have special forces, unconventional, sleeper cells. they have paid terrorists, that sort of thing. there is mr. fay are up to all the time. -- there is mischief they are up to all the time. there is the ballistic missile threat that is more advanced, more accurate, and much more numerous in terms of missiles than it ever has been before. the nuclear piece -- nobody out there wants iran to have a nuke. at the same time, they are unconvinced the international

community will be able to stop it. that is not necessarily the american view, or the eu view. >> would you comment on the value of the all-volunteer force versus t draft, and how that has affected the country? >> it is an interesting question. an all-volunteer force is more expensive. we have to compete for the best men and women with colleges and business. but i will tell you that i have seen the military when it still had draftees, and i have seen it today. when you have everyone there who wants to be there, it does change the tone. because we do bring in very high-quality young men and women, we also have a highly capable force. it is truly a national treasure, and the envy of any country in the world, and it is not just

the technology. it is what these young people are able to do. one of the reasons that i am out here tonight is i believe we are growing as a military somewhat remote from the mainstream of american life. that, i think, is something we have to look for. is that good for the republican -- the republic in the long run, where the sense of commitment is not there when you turn 18, where it is just a choice? i am not saying i want to see it reversed, but it is something we need to consider, even if it is to come up with another way of serving your country. we do t need a lot of people in the military. we are meeting our recruiting and retention quotas. they are reenlisting. we were doing that before the economic downturn, so do not think it is just an economic

decision. these young folks believe in what they are doing. it is a great military. is it a society we want that has a military that is a little out there, outside the mainstream? >> one of the things this part of california at is noted for is our technological advancements. can you talking little bit about what has been done in recent years to make our job easier, and what remains to be done that would continue to improve our ability technologically to defeat our foes? >> we have to have good technology. we have to be at the top of our game in this. it is the sort of world. it is not a perfect world. the most radical thing i have seen over the last 15 years or so is the role of the remote- piloted vehicle, the unmanned

vehicle systems, whether it is a drone with the camera that allows you to look over the next hill, or an armed drone that can with your four hours, waiting until you spot the enemy you wan -- that can loite for hours, waiting until you spot the enemy want, as we try to avoid killing innocent people. they have given us the capability. that has been a wonderful asset to have. it has unleashed a lot of boldness by our commanders. they know what is over the next hill, or what is on our flanks. it allows movement with a higher degree of certainty. if there is one area we need some help, it is premature detonation of i edie's. -- ied's. this is a militarily incompetent enemy, but we are losing a l of lads to ied's.

if we had a way to prematurely detonate them, it would change the face of this fight. we have had great advances. our body armor is better than ever. but you can only do some things on defense to ied's, sold much armor. they will make a bigger if we could somehow find a way to prematurely detonate hthat ied, we will save a lot of folks live that is what i just put a pitch in for, general. >> can you give us your thoughts on the relationship of the lationship both in afghanistan and with iraq with the press? what has changed is the embedded nature of many of these men and women that are serving on the front lines. has that made a difference? do we get a better sry today than we did thyears passed?

>> got to be a little careful here. [laughter] cretaries shultz, it is a privilege to be invited. after some of my statements, it is a privilege to be invited to any play company amore. -- polite company any more. the press has done a fantastic job. they have had cutbacks, which means that we have your embedded folks out there. where they are out there and they see what we're doing, i am comfortable with it. 95% of them are great guys and gals out to tell the story and they want to do a good job. they are not all good. there are always a few jerks anywhere. but even jesus of nazareth have one out of 12 with mud on him.

you will not have everybody be perfect all the time. at the same time, i think the press tells the story very well. the challenge comes when a very complex war is looked at through a soda straw. and that can make for our problem, because you can then extrapolate from what was seen in one village. if you do that in world war ii, i can prove to you that normandy was the biggest defeat the u.s. armed forces had in world war ii if you saw what happened to our paratroopers. they were shot down. you have to make sure that you have people that are giving as good an overall picture as possible. it was probably, i would say, six months after the tribes in iraq turned in my area out in western iraq against ipad -- al qaeda. it was six months before grudgingly, in some cases comes some media folks basically --

some media folks basically a knowledge of they had come over. let me give you an example. in 2002, january, we're in kandahar. these grizzled afghans came in and they said they wanted to open the school. i said, of course. it is time to get the kids back to school. he said, we want to open a girls'chool. i said absolutely. have added. they were so proud of themselves. it took me downtown. and here on the day the open school, these little kids, little boys with long shirts, and girls th shawls over their heads and white blouses and long , plaid skirts and black shoes with white soc and book bags, it was like somebody took dehydrated students and poured water and it popped up. these older guys were so proud. i doubt if any had been to

school. they have learned to give the american comes up. as they walked down the street, because we heard some pele, the taliban were upset with that. they feareal education. they know what it is a free people's thinking. we had u.s. army special forces and marines, navy seals, along the streets with automatic weapons and grenades adhndand ammo. and these little girls and boys walked alongside the soldiers very proud. they knew the good buys it -- good guys anbad guys. we were an ethical force and they trusted us. there are some people, news people, frankly, and you know i do not mince words. there are some news people who are not yet at the intelligence level of those 8 year old girls in kandahar. [applause] but i will also tell you, i

remember pulling into one of my battalion positions in baghdad after a difficult night and have or 80 of our boys killed and wounded. as i pulled in, there were news men sitting there holding plasma bottles over woued marines. , believe me, there are some eople outs p there. i should not focus on the couple that l us down. any human organization has some of that. the press is doing per well embedded inside the military. i tell thewhat word i give them when they come in, go down there and admire my troops. that is so confint that the bare naked truth of what i am doing -- what we're doing will sell less ethically acrosshe world. >> we will wrap up with that one. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank

you, general mattis. that was terrific. thank you so much. secretary shultz, again, thank you for sponsoring this series. i do want to thank joel daniels for his performance and i forgot to mention the 23 marines that provide a color guard. what a great group of people we have in this area. thank you all, and i want to thank the audience. part of the success of any >> coming up, eric schmidt on launching of google tv. then bill gates talks about the work of the bill and melinda gates foundation. craig fugate explains his community approach to disaster response.

>> on sunday, fema gives an update on hurricane irene and the federer response to the storm. homeland security secretary janet napolitano will brief, along with fema administrator craig fugate and the director of the national hurricane center. that is why, 11:30 a.m. eastern on sunday, here on c-span. >> watch more video of the candidates, political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c- span is campaign website. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feed and facebook updates from the campaign. canada biographies and elated -- latest polling and data -- candidate biographies and the latest polling data. >> eric schmidt, executive

chairman of google, recently spoke at the annual edinburgh international television festival in edinburgh, scotland. he talked about how the growth of the internet is transforming how people watch television and the choices available for viewing. he also talks about the launch and addresses, some of the allegations against his company. this is about one hour and 15 minutes.

>> it has taken us 36 years, but i think that we can admit that the world has changed. which is why we have invited the executive chairman of the biggest internet company of the world to give tonight's lecture. when i came to think about finding a few words to say by way of introduction for eric schmidt, executive chairman of google, i did what most people these days do when they are in need of facts. i googled him. [laughter] it is very interesting what you could find on google. under the very many entries, i found a c.v. for eric schmidt dated 2011, which says he has a math degree from oakland university michigan and can successfully operate windows '95 and vista. [laughter] he is currently looking for a job as a contract programmer. under honors and awards, he listed the fact that in 2010 he was a football champion. and then i found that eric schmidt is a licensed acupuncturist. [laughter]

during the time he lived in china, he studied brush painting. he lives in the state of california and on sundays he can be found leading a local youth choir. he is a qualified cardiologist and specializes in preventing gout attacks. he can also rearrange your furniture because he runs an interior design company out of first avenue, new york. i also have a telephone number. in fact, i discovered 50 entries for eric schmidt registered in california alone. by googling these people, i can also access the public records, including birth and marriage certificates and court judgments. google -- it's an amazing thing. i did not deign to do any of that. -- need to do any of that. the vast majority of the 750 google entries belong to eric

schmidt, ceo of google for 10 years, and now its executive chairman. he was born in 1955 in washington, d.c. he went to yorktown high school and princeton where he got a degree in electrical engineering as well as a ph.d. in computer science at the university of california. he joined google in 2001 when it was a small internet start up. based on an ingenious search engine which used links to determine portions of international web pages. google now has offices in 60 countries. it maintains 180 internet domains and offers search in 130 languages. under eric schmidt's tenure the company launched google news, google maps, it acquired youtube, established g-mail, it launched google chrome and google plus.

what's to come? in barely a decade, it has become a brand bigger than general electric. it has created more wealth faster than any other company in history. it has become a verb. google is where we go for answers. tonight and tomorrow and this question and answer session, answers are what he will give us. answers about what their intentions are for its partnership with our industry and its plan for original content. eric schmidt once said, " i do not believe society understands when everything is available and recorded by everyone all the time." well, tonight's speech is also being stream flood on youtube. it will be read, listen to, and viewed by many more people that are in this theater. and it will be stored on servers and databases around the world for a long, long time to come.

i'm pleased to introduce tonight's lecturer -- the executive chairman of google, the one and only eric schmidt. [applause] >> thank you. is my mike on? let's see, can you all hear me? yes? hi. thank you very, very much, elaine. let's see, i am excited about the people in the circle. thank you all for coming. i wanted to start by saying it is great to be in scotland. many people do not know how strong the initiatives are in computer science in scottish universities in greater edinburgh. there are a number of companies

that i personally invest in. i think there is every reason to believe that there will be quite a renaissance here in a place you might not have thought. i also wanted to say that it is an honor to be here, especially because in my growing up, i have always assumed that there were people from the media and television world and people from the scientific world. there has been one person who managed to actually live in both worlds. and i wanted to take a minute to say that i think that we have just seen steve jobs step down. he was the only person i have ever known who has been able to merge the two worlds completely with an artist's eye as well as the definition of what a great engineer is. i'm sure that he and the company will do very well in the future.

from my perspective, that is the perfect example of the kind of union that we should see in the future and other companies and other collaborations. from my perspective, again, this is the first time that the lecture has been given by someone not employed by television broadcasting or production. i am not sure whether it means the bar has been raised or lowered, but i will do my best. it is an honor to be here as an outsider. james murdoch described himself as the crazy relative everyone is embarrassed about. i guess i wonder what he would say now. [laughter] [applause] if james is the family outcast, i am not sure what that makes me. am i did speak in the corner. am i the alien species? am i the android? don't worry.

charles allen called this the longest job application in the industry. is not it great to have google to look this stuff up? sorry. i am back. a plug there. i'm committed to google. all that's changed is that larry has the keys. i promise i will stop the doctor who clips. we have a private joke that larry is actually from the future. i am indebted to might friend mark thompson who gave last year's lecture for his tips on what makes a classic lecture. according to him, the recipe boils down to anger, arch

villains, impossible proposals, and insults. i am not sure about the anger, but i will do my best to come up with the rest. it is usually a choice between the bbc and murdoch for candidates to demonize. i must say how refreshing it is that google is not on this list. so thank goodness. i don't kid myself. i know some of you have suspicions. some of years -- some of you blame us for the havoc wreaked on your businesses by the internet. some people accuse us of being unresponsive, uncaring, or even worse. so today, i am going to try to set the record straight and demonstrate why we should be optimistic about television's future. and a little bit about my industry. one man said this lecture is

the closest most television people get going to church. hmm. that's what he said. in my case, i'm a tech evangelist from way back. i will take any excuse to preach about the internet. in less than 30 years, the internet has grown from almost nothing to more than 2 billion users. and we have a ways to go. it is available on mount everest, on the south pole, half of the adults in the european union use it every day. and our goal is to get the other half as well. as become such a profound part of life that four of five adults worldwide now regard internet access as a fundamental human right. hmm. today, it is hard to imagine life without the internet. we take for granted, but it is worth reminding ourselves just what an incredible force for

good the internet has been. without the internet, a child growing up in a remote village is unlikely to reach their potential with little access to books or learning. without the internet, people worldwide could not band together. we saw this in haiti and in other places, so quickly in a crisis helping to raise the alarm and never support. -- deliver support. without the internet, repressive regimes, of which there are far too many, can deny the people of voice making it far harder to expose corruption and wrongdoing without the internet, europe will lose of the biggest driver of much-needed econmic growth. in the uk alone the internet accounted for 7% of gdp in 2010 -- 100 billion pounds. that will grow to 10% by 2015. companies to use the internet are growing four times faster than those who are not. but for the rest --

what is wrong with that? so in short, the internet is not making inevitable change faster. has become an engine of change itself. it has recast the way that we communicate. it has transformed the way we learn and share knowledge. it is empowering people everywhere, making the world more open, fair or, and more prosperous. think about how far we have already come. i encountered my first computer and high school. it was enormous and very clunky. today, my smart phone is 100 times faster and it fits in my pocket. when i first became a programmer and to relay information to the first computer, you had to use punched cards. today, you can talk to your phone and do voice search. you can point the camera, and the phone understand. when i started working in computer science, the technology could not deliver the big dreams. i remember being blown away by the demo in 1968 of the

experimental prototype of a mouse. it was utter science fiction to imagine one day that a computer might be able to respond to your facial expressions or decipher the nuances of human behavior as we can today. it is literally magic. of course, while i'm optimistic that computer science and the internet our forces for good, i am not naive. john f. kennedy said, i am an idealist without illusions. there are many, many challenges that we are grappling to address. for example, how do you make the world more open while respecting privacy? it is an important balance, very important to get that right. how'd we empower people without provoking anarchy? are really important question. how do we ensure technology enriches rather than devalues

the relationships and the culture around us? these are hard and important questions. why does this have anything to do with television? in 2010, uk adults spent as much time watching television in four days as they did using the web in an entire month. so television is clearly winning the competition for attention. you all representing the television industry. and the other hand, all of us ignore and you ignore the internet at your peril. the internet is fundamental to the future of television for one reason. it is what people want. and ultimately, what people what they will get one way or the other. technologically, the internet is a form to -- a force for making television more personal, more participative, more pertinent. people are clamoring for, no were more so than here in the united kingdom. i will give you some examples.

the team behind the bbc's iplayer has my utmost respect. it is now used by more than 10% of the u.k. population every week. it is a great product with a vast range of content. it is much more advanced than anything else i have seen. it was just launched in a european version, soon to be global, and as an ipad subscription. another example of innovation. i am sure it will be a success. by the way, i have one more request of them. please get in android version going, too. separate discussion. ipad is not the only show in town. there are numerous services out there, including itunes. youtube has long form content thanks to partners like channel four who became the first broadcaster in the world to put their full catchup service online. long form is the fastest- growing youtube category in

terms of revenue with 80 content partners. pretty good. more choice can backfire if you are not careful. just remember how it felt when you would go to the video store and rent videos. renting videos -- face-to-face with thousands of movies. picking just one was probably a struggle. that is why recommending content is so vital. it is what channel schedulers have done since the beginning of television, but traditional television is one size fits all. sometimes the recommendations suit me or someone else, but

sometimes they do not. and on line, for those who wish and grant permission, things can be vastly different. online, through a combination of algorithms, suggestions could be individually crafted to suit your needs. the more you watch and share, the more chances the system has to learn and the better its predictions get. taken to the ultimate, it would be a perfect television channel, always exciting, always relevant, sometimes serendipitous, surprisingly good at new ideas but most importantly, always worth your time. we have already had a glimpse of this, if you take a look at netflix. take a look at the recommendations. around 60% of their rentals are as a result of algorithmically generated recommendations. there are others who bought this, others also bought -- you have seen this. they are compelling. in recent years, they have accounted for between 20%-30% of amazon sales. but delivering on the promise of personalization is tricky, both technologically and

culturally. personalization requires the data and the more data the better, the more we can compute a better personalize result for you. as i have learned firsthand, and the on-line service that involves personal data will be an absolute magnet for privacy fears. it will be vital to strike the right balance so that people feel comfortable and in control. not disconcerted by the eery accuracy of suggestions. this is a new territory for your industry. i do not want you to underestimate the challenge of this. now, i have talked about how the internet is transforming television choice, but there are changes in how we watch. i remember the excitement about interactive television a few years ago. all of that drama of over pushing a red button. remember that?

it was not that great. now we're riding a second wave of interactive. seems more real to me this time. it is a convergence of television and internet screens. this time, the interaction is not happening by a red button. it is on your web. three or laptop, your tablets, or mobile. but most important of all, this time, it is social.

white house with jon

huntsman, tomorrow night on c- span. microsoft founder bill gates recently promoted his foundation's health and the development efforts to members of the european parliament. the bill and melinda gates foundation has launched a living proof campaign, which presents success stories in the area of development and the need to change people's perception of foreign aid. he discussed strategies to combat description -- corruption, and how to use global technology to advance development in foreign countries. from france, this is just over one hour.

>> i am happy to introduce a bill gates. he and his wife have an open up a foundation to work with the united states in developing countries. he has a series of high-level offices in paris, berlin, and here. we thank you for that. in 1994, the foundation has provided millions of dollars for developing countries, most of which have gone to health. this exchange of views is a for an opportunity for us to examine the developing role of private and public and the relationship between the two. this is taking place in a time

where there are debates about the way in which we finance development aid. considering the importance of the subject, we invited members of the budget committee in and the special committee on political challenges. the european union 2013. we welcome many to this meeting. i am sure he would like to talk us about living proof, which is an effort to have development aid to transform a millions of human lives. mr. gates, you have the floor. >> thanks very much. the fantastic. good afternoon. it is great to be here. i thought i would make some

opening remarks. we will have most of our time together for the questions people have. i am on a tour called living proof. it is to spread the good news about how a particular part of a budget made a dramatic difference. it is really about success stories. to thank the voters in the places i am in, for their generosity and to encourage them to continue and grow that generosity. the majority of all aid that goes to support countries comes from europe. the european union has encouraged the date set at the national level and devoted a substantial part of its budget to these development activities. likewise, my wife and i have committed all of the resources

we have to our foundation to work in the same areas. i think our goals are the same. we want to lift these countries up and put them in a position where they will be self sustaining and in a situation where people are healthy, they have jobs, where the environment is affected, and where the investment in the future in education is very strong. i first got into this about 15 years ago when i was first setting up the foundation. what i saw then was the health issue was really the one that made the biggest difference. at the very beginning, the foundation was mostly focused on reproductive health and issues allowing mothers to decide if they wanted to have a family

size tool on a voluntary basis, that they could do that. once i got involved in that, if you improve the health of a family, contrary to what you may think, where you would increase population -- what happens is substantially the opposite. parents choose to have less children. they are trying to make sure they have two to survive to be able to support them as adults. what we find out is improvements in health, with every issue we care about -- stability, the environment, food, or jobs, these investments are dramatic in their fact. with canada's health area, with

their technology, the vaccine is often very inexpensive, particularly after it has been held for some time. one of the greatest achievements of mankind was done back in the 1970's, before i was involved in any of this. that was the elimination of small pox, which had been killing over 2 million people a year, and now kills no one, because it is the only disease that has been completely eradicated. that was done with foreign aid and a vaccine that was very effective. the second diseases that we hope the world can 11 -- eliminate is polio. that is achieved with the generosity of a foreign aid, almost $1 billion a year. that is for the eradication campaign and the use of a vaccine. the good news is we have gone from over 300,000 children being

paralyzed to only about 3000. we only have four countries left with the disease is often eliminated. with any sort of continued financing within the next three or four years, we will succeed in getting the number of cases down. that would be a very exciting thing. what is incredible is almost all of the things that killed children are? in preventable. -- are vaccine preventable. some diseases, the vaccines exist, but they are giving only to rich children in the world, which is somewhat ironic, given that these diseases are far more prevalent in the poor countries. a group -- europe has been

generous to this country on the government levels and other levels. some money coming from the union levels that have made a huge difference. they are giving new vaccines out to children and having incredible success. over 5 million lives have been saved by this work. one of the most important statistics that i track is the number of children under 5 that die every year. barbara 20 million back in 1960, now it is over 8 million. my belief is if donors do the right things within the next 15 years, we can cut it in half to be less than 4 million. vaccines will be a major part of that. another area of help that europe

plays a major role and the union has been very important in terms its donation is the global fund. it was created not only to help treat aids but also tuberculosis and malaria. it has been a very effective organization and has had an impact. we have put money into agriculture to help poor farmers help their productivity. not only are some farmers faced with the problem of feeding themselves, where their children do not get enough nutrition, the weather today is often challenging for them. the weather in the future will be even more of a challenge for

them. we can help them be more productive and solved their problems, and have enough money to send their kids to school and give them enough nutrition so they can develop fully. we also can deal with the challenge that the world needs more food. we see that very clearly once again with food prices continuing to go up. that is an issue in that only for the world, but also the urban poor as well. there are a lot of investments that individual farmers and countries cannot make improvements in agricultural technique, using a variety of techniques that can help these farmers more than doubled their output. in africa, the level of a farm productivity is about one-third of what it is in the united states and europe.

clearly that potential is there. that is a very important thing. as i said in the beginning, we have some goals in common. we are learning to be smarter about our aid spending. i am a big believer in measuring the outcome. in some cases, we do not get the outcome, we should shift to the resources. we should shift to what we work on together. there are a lot of great things being achieved. we need to get the word out about these successes. we are focused on the needs of the poorest countries, and it does make a huge difference. a lot of it are the people that vote and funded these things that do not understand the incredibly positive things that the their generosity is allowing for. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you very much. i will ask that people be brief in what they say. amax of two minutes. menino i am fairly strict. i will be asking you to respect speaking time so that everybody can have an opportunity to take the floor. i will start with passing the back for four -- microphone to mr. mitchell. >> thanks for your presentation. i will keep it in the time limits. it is important to stress what has been achieved. we will not continue to support this driving -- it is important

that we do that. where people are dying in africa from non-communicable diseases according to some statistics. what do you say about that? if it is a fact, are we concentrating on the wrong thing? [inaudible] >> it is important to concentrate on the right thing. communicable diseases, what do people buy from at different places? if you are a child, there are two kinds of of vulnerability. 30 days to five years and up to 30 days. during 30 days is about having a skilled birth attendant, having

the mother educated about keeping the baby warm in the starting to breast feed. a few antibiotics. that is about half of what occurs in the first 30 days. from 30 days to five years is almost all infectious diseases. malaria, acute respiratory infection. all of those are vaccine preventable. between those two areas, that covers -- not communicable diseases kill people when they get into their 60's and 70's. cancer, they become all significant. people should want to live to get a non communicable disease. there are no epidemics in the sense that you cannot catch a not a communicable disease from other people. the pharmaceutical people have been working on heart disease,

diabetes, and cancer. in terms of aids budgets, when you save a life in those countries, an entire life, that is 70 years of life, you are spending over $1 million in order to do that. in the poorest countries, if we cannot save a life for $10,000, we are miss spending the money. aysha spend the money on putting out more vaccines and drugs. you are only doing the things that are an expensive. those are the things that allow people to live into their 60's and '70's. once the rich countries soft non-commendable diseases, then those solutions should be made available universally. groups like the u.s. and are effective and aid is effective when it is a very low-cost intervention. vaccines can cover almost all of

that. >> we will take questions in groups of three. i think that would be easier. >> thanks. thanks for what you have been doing the last 16 years. private philanthropy is a very important aspects. you mentioned diseases. hand washing is very effective. getting young children to have their hands clean and to stop the spread of viral diseases. i wonder if there are in a hand washing programs that you are

undertaking as a preventive measure. the second is about clean water. it is a huge problem and water shortages are a problem. we need to think strategically about how we can address these problems in the near future. thank you. >> thanks very much. i would like to congratulate you before the philanthropic engagement. another are important meetings. we count on you -- [unintelligible] make sure that the members -- we are trying to get the

development funding to be maintained a for later. how do you view the corporation? it is very important to have this example. it is great for us to see this here. and a private foundation. thanks very much. >> thanks very much.

" what about unemployment amongst young people? that is a problem in africa. today, many young people have risen up partly because of the fact to say they are jobless. there are business people that want to create new jobs. the problem is that they will not go into these countries unless there is stability available for them. i would like to hear from mr. gates. is it possible to develop the possibility in these developing countries? >> those are all good questions. in terms of hand washing, we

have worked with some on that. we have made modest progress. we are not clear how substantial it can be. for viral diseases, there is a virus that will eliminate 40% of that. it is not so much the drinking water coming in being a mclean, but the lack of sanitation system. what happens is that some point, when a kid is out playing on the ground, somehow they get contaminated. that spreads the disease. in the current design for sanitation, is a flush toilet system that is in terms of expense and water usage is not feasible in poor countries. the amount of innovation in this area is very low. it reminds me of the time that we gave a malaria vaccine and

became the founder. we gave a 50 million for an innovative toilet the design. we became the largest funder. i do not know why it is not a popular area for people to get involved in. the good news is that designing something that will be low-cost, i think it is possible. water and sanitation is an important program. we need more partners involved in that. i meant to bring up the 0.7%. it is a phenomenal commitment that 15 european countries have made it to get to that level. the very generous countries, norway, sweden, netherlands -- they are already above that. we see some that are working hard to get to that level, which is to be commended. the increase, it would be 28

billion euros, additional to what has been given today. given what we know about how to spend that money well, would make a huge difference. i have outlined in my living proof paper exactly what you can get for that additional money. it is not by 2015, but within 10 years, and you could achieve these mpg. queen need more philanthropists. we need companies. the number of the drug companies have been great. we have a rating we do with the drug companies every year. it this access to medicine index.

the companies that do well call us up and say we want to do better. those that do poorly say they want to do better. it is a very good dialogue that we want to see with banks, mobile phone companies, municipals as well. in terms of employment, if you have an open economy into educate your labor force, there is a wage rate at which they will be employed. what happens is these countries do not open their economy up. egypt is a great example where the quality of the education system is not a very high. look at what would happen in turkey over 15 years and egypt. it is quite different where turkey did the right thing.

egypt, in terms of creating the economy, did not. it is not aids-related. -- 8-related. -- aid-related. there are policy things related to this. in africa, over a third of the children, by the time they are age 5, they have some disease episode, either malaria or malnutrition. their brain will never fully develop. some of the health issues can hold you back. that is part of the reason why things have been so tough in africa. >> thanks. the next speaker are these. >> thanks very much.

welcome, mr. gates. today you are visiting our community, because you are a major private donor. you also could have come for another couple of a very important reasons. the first is you descend meritocracy. when it comes to inheritance is common you prefer to socialize the inheritance that you have accumulated and to lead it -- rather than to leave it to your children as a form of privilege. there is the revolution in communications technology. there is a new one that has done more to develop the technological revolution. i would like to know whether you have concentrated all of your efforts on health, or at some point, you are trying to see if there is an education. and if you have any

communication or cooperation with a columbia researcher, who is trying to develop a vaccine that could combat hundreds of diseases. >> good afternoon, mr. gates. i am happy to have you here as well as the others. you mentioned egypt and turkey. the difference with these countries is that egypt was a dictatorship and turkey was not. we should make sure to develop the country in a more equal way. the european union should promote and enhance the role of law and democracy. in our country, we have a huge political pressure against involvement policies. -- there is a huge campaign

against government policy. i am glad he started a campaign, but what do you say to those people that advocate to diminish aid by half because it does not work? if it does not work, i say it is because of political reasons, foreign policy reasons that we did not allow it to work. it should, it kept things in place. we closed our eyes to corruption, etcetera. i would really like you to raise this argument in favor of a development with all of the conditions that we have to put on. you give a good example. we need a strong voices. >> thank you. i would like to ask you two

questions. the first is concerning the dollar in different developing countries. donors in -- and dono different developing countries. -- what are the driving forces with lives in technology? technology in -- [unintelligible] [inaudible] >> in terms of a meritocracy, it is interesting, some countries should try sending me the children and grandchildren of

their 1900 olympic team to the olympics and see how they do, see if they -- the inherited approach is to compete with the american -- america's attic approach. i think the results would be quite clear. i think giving children a large wealth is not a favor even to the recipients. although they may not feel that way immediately. in terms of the technology and education, i am very optimistic about that. it is the one part of our foundation that right now is focused on the united states, which is piloting the use of technology and education. if we are successful, which we are not yet, i would hope it have a worldwide benefit. if you want to get a glimpse of the future, there is a website

that i would encourage you to look at with great lecturer's -- lectures and chris is being put up so a student can take them directly. a teacher or parent can watch what they are doing and help them along. i think there is a lot of promise there. it is not yet known and how we mix classroom learning and technologically enabled out of classroom learning to get the right motivation for all of the students. there is a lot of investment and it has a lot of promise. in terms of the history of aid, i completely agree with what you have said. a lot of the eight historically was not given expecting it to improve human lives. unfortunately, now, where we are mostly justify our aid, vaccines save lives and allow kids to

grow up -- and we are getting compared to cold war spy policies that were about buying french ship. even today, a lot of aid -- when he made the grant, you do not say, this grant will do this, raise the number of the vaccines. will raise the income of the farmer. a lot of this very traditional type of it by giving any given through governments that do not, are not using it in the right way. a substantial portion, including a loss of the high impact count and agricultural aid is different. we have to improve, have clear goals, and communicate what has gone well. most of these people attack aids

and attack in a blanket way. we need people serious about which 80 you are criticizing. you cannot criticize vaccines. you cannot criticize -- you can criticize budgetary support aid. i agree with that. in terms of coordination of donors, the complexity of the aid system is higher than you would like. that is why things like global fund stand out, because they managed to use everything about those diseases and bring in real experts in a move very quickly. everyone realizes, we will work with them. there are a lot of different actors. if you go into a poor country and look at in number of people there, we can fine-tune that.

i do not think it is realistic that we get a perfect symbol system. someone may find a valuable approach. people can learn from them. as far as technology goes, if you invent a new seed, and use the internet and the new technology, it is technology to important people. if you invent a malaria vaccine, that is technology helping poor people. in terms of benefits, the idea that people will have a cell phones, overtime should mean that checking about vaccines and getting health advice and agriculture and vice, and organizing women's groups and making financial transactions at minimal cost, digital technologies will play a role there. we have to be very cautious,

because the cost, complexity, coverage, there has been a lot in that area. we fund a lot, but i would not say there has been a breakthrough yet. over the next five years, we will see some breakthrough. including digital money, that will allow these poor countries with terrible taxation systems, to allow them to have a very effective taxation system. when >> we ask people to be particularly brief. following questions.

you are at the biggest private donor in the world, which gives you a certain amount of prestige. what would your message be to institutional donors? they could -- they have committed themselves are ready to have a 0.7% of this going into development policy. the european union -- as part of the contentious for development in 2005. trying to do it in hopes -- the country that you come from is coming up with 2.2%. it is not bound -- isabel by a promise made in the 1970's? i would like to hear your views

on that. a message to public donors. i cannot think your actions can be explained by application of public donors toward their promises and commitment. i do think the public is doing less, because you are doing more. conditionality, with the european union, which has been linked to values. in other type of conditionality from china and is putting in infrastructure, which export duties, for and minerals. what do you prefer and what do you think you are about? i would like to conclude about

this. [unintelligible] what would you espouse? >> you have made a tremendous work for helping disadvantaged people. people are efficient. they can change the lives of many people. your example of private donor is -- [unintelligible] in the european union, in terms of changing the fiscal philosophy, or other things, to motivate the private donors, the country would work on different projects, education, charity we [unintelligible] tick in order that this project would not -- in order that this project would not be financed by a certain budget, but would also extend from private funds. thank you very much.

>> thanks for coming here today and that the work your foundation does. when thinking about the budgets, it is the transparency issue and the evidence of how it is changing lives on the ground, which is living proof that they are collecting to show you the aid and the investment they have made. what from your experience can we do to improve the transparency when it comes to aid and how to you best communicate the message? and the importance of businessman and how we can give eight while encouraging trade at the same time and how it may help it better?

>> thank you for being here with us and thank you for your fantastic work. i would like to stick one problem. in poor countries, the lack of health professionals and terms of medical professionals and nurses, poor countries and not a train enough of these professionals. and tug of this, -- and on top of this, they can lose is professionals because they can be better paid and have freedom of movement. you have an idea of how to repair this state of professionals? what advice to you have for the policy makers in europe where we are also tracking some of these professionals from africa? thank you very much.

>> a key point that came up in multiple questions was the relative size of philanthropy to government aid could if you take international aid, private philanthropy, even with our foundation and others, is less than 2% of what is given to poor countries. i think we can grow it and i think it has a special role in terms of funding research, trying out new things. i think philanthropy contributes more than its proportional share. but in terms of the big things, really helping poor countries with health and agriculture, it is government foreign aid. unfortunately, even though we

want to maximize philanthropy, it will not offset anything done from the rich governments. it is absolutely fair to say that the united states is not exemplary in the scale of its foreign aid. there are some things it has done very well. it is substantially the largest aid donor, the largest malaria donor. it does find a lot of scientific work into these diseases more than other governments and there's lots of room for others to plan to that. but it is about a third of what it should spend. i certainly do everything i can to push for that to increase. there was a commitment to double it in the campaign. but it is clear today that not only will it not get double, but we're fighting for it not to be cut and fighting for it very

hard telling these stories. i wish i had better news for you on that front. but we will keep trying. in terms of encouraging philanthropy, nobody knows what magic mix of things let's plan to feed get dealt in the united states. there is something like an estate tax and foundations having a minimum level. but those things would not explain it. this it is an expectation that buildup or you would expect the will of the to do it. i expect it will catch on in many countries. i have carried on discussions with the new people who are wealthy in both china and india in the last six months. i think there are some real momentum. it is not that there are not philanthropists. it's just not as much as you

like them to have. in terms of transparency, yes, it is very hard to study these aid budgets. and understand where they go and what their goal was. in the age of the internet, where it is country budgets or something else, we need to help them understand these things. i find it difficult to understand these things. it means that it is very complicated how it is presented and laid out. in terms of health care workers, the fact that health care workers move from a poor country and go to a rich country for a better job, the remittances that come back from those health care workers on average is double the salary they were receiving in the poor country. what we need to do is increase the amount -- we need to do two things. we need to increase the amount of training in the poor countries. if more of them go to rich countries, that is ok.

we need to up that capacity, which we do invest in. we need to make sure that the health interventions that we do in these poor countries, if they can be done with less trained personnel, then that is better. vaccination's does not require a doctor. the delivery of a child, you do want to have a doctor around. you do what a sterile location where, if you had to, you could do a see section. you can avoid it. you need somebody trained. if you want less maternal deaths, you do need more doctors and more facilities. as you say, it is very difficult. but we will have to invest in more training. >> we still have 10 people wanting the floor. i will give one minute each to

two groups of five. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. gates. i want to ask you about the problem that still exists here in europe. this is the poverty amongst the room a population. can you tell us more about your experience with this. do you believe that business is a possible partner in creating jobs for these people instead of spending money for social problems? thank you. >> thank you.

mr. gates, we are coming up towards the next international food crisis. you have said that there are a lot of small farmers in developing countries who cannot produce enough food. 60% to 80% in the sahara. for mayor, it is not a question of the amount of budget for me, it is not a question of the amount -- for me, it is not a question of the amount of investment, but the form. do you not think it is more effective in investing and the environment that would bring about more effective change?

you agree with financial tax that would go into combating famine and poverty? favor ofould not be in favorit it, can you say why? >> thank you. >> you were referring to the earth policy and democratic change. this is a big change in terms of development. what about the migratory flows from the more poor countries to the richer countries? can you comment on that? >> thank you very much in all your turn to do. in your opening remarks, you referred to the potentially largest disaster for the world, climate change. it could potentially overwhelm all the work you're trying to

do. does your foundation and work include two fill the kind of controversy or do you try to stay out of it? >> thank you. thank you very much for coming and all your work. last year, there was some confusion about your taste mintz -- about your statements on vaccination. this health care improved in children for parents with your children? vaccination can be seen as both a life-saving measure and a tool to reduce the increase of population. we have also seen a vaccination program by unesco that has been

currently used to sterilize women. knowing that one of your main goals is also to reduce population, i would also like to ask you if you could assure that the vaccination supported by your organization would not have any negative aspects on the sterilization of women? >> our foundation is not working specifically on the issue of the roma population. almost all of our work is in the forest -- the poorest countries. one of our programs is putting computers and libraries in middling countries, like romania and latvia, a number of countries where we are doing those library programs. but that is not aimed at any

particular group. in terms of the food crisis, we invest in any technique that avoids starvation. most of our funding is actually what we call conventional breeding. but there are some traits of crops, the ability to deal with the drought, for example, techniques in the united states have shown pretty substantial gains. in those cases where we funded asked if they should take for free without royalties, take that and look into it, we said yes if it can prevent starvation. you should. we also funded regulatory groups in africa that, five years from now when those crops mayor may not be available to examine, -- may or may not be able to examine, may have extraordinary capacity.

we may find techniques to feed the world. higher productivity is very pro- environment in the sense that, if you do not have the productivity, you put land into use that you should not put in. that is a terrible thing locally and in terms of environment change. in terms of migration, yes, migration is a great thing. it allows very energetic and talented people to come into rich countries and learn things. many of those people go back. i wish there was more. the main limiting factor is the tolerance of the people in rich countries. they seem to have a limit on this, including in the united states. it is too bad because that kind of circulation is very helpful, particularly if you have countries whose populations are not only not growing, but actually are going down. in terms of climate, i am

personally very involved with climate issues. there are in number of speeches i have given about these topics. when i think of climate, there are two things we need to do. we need to be met less co2. that has to do -- we have to less co2. that is something that by foundation is not involved in. i do invest in biofuel companies and nuclear companies. i ended in all sorts of innovations. the role of the foundation is much more in the adaptation. i wish there were more people investing in crops that sequestered more co2. i wish there were more people pushing for no-show farming techniques. i wish there were more crops that could withstand extreme

whetheweather. in terms of population issues, we do work with reproductive supplies. in plants and injectable that women can use on a voluntary basis. my wife is catholic. we are not involved in abortion. we are not involved in sterilization. we believe that women should be healthy and be able to have as many children as they want to. some of their anti-aids programs, for example, our sex worker per gram in india, it does promote the use of condoms so the woman will protect yourself and not die of aids. >> thank you very much.

>> mr. gates, you come here to talk to us in your capacity as a philanthropist. in hearing your questions, you know don't realize that we are talking to you or listening to you in terms of policies. considering the crisis we have today, i have a very direct question to put to you. as an entrepreneur, a very successful entrepreneur, and given that you have said that you are always in touch with your accountant and so on, perhaps you can have an opportunity to think about how we can get out of this economic crisis and what the solution might be. 2011 is the year for voluntary action. perhaps we can link that will

enter action to philanthropy. >> next, quickly as you can, please. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. mr. gates and the european parliament, why question is very simple and very short perio. you spend a lot of money for the nation and everybody knows that a very big amount of money should have a very strict control. how can we sure that the control of the money that goes to africa goes to the right people? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. welcome to you, mr. gates, to the european parliament.

mr. gates, alongside the humanitarian aid that you offer and given the success you have talked about today, there are none the less a number of cases where we have seen a radical change in people's lives because of violent action. we have seen this in indonesia and haiti and the japanese disaster we have seen recently. the european union offers the prospect of humanitarian aid. does your foundation also offer aid to these foundations? >> mr. gates, you're very welcome. when the irony that we perhaps see in front of us of you -- of the lilt nations who are willing to except the vaccination of children where measles are on the rise and you're taking your

campaign vaccinations across the third world, my question is simple. we think what you're doing is wonderful. does everybody thinks that -- does everybody think that what you're doing is wonderful in the receiving countries? if not, how you deal with them? >> in terms of the euro crisis, i wish i had some great advice. it is a very tricky problem in terms of instilling confidence while knowing that some bills are so large that you do not want to be responsible for them. i do not have the answer. in terms of grants, you always know that some of your money will be misused.

what you want to do is make sure that that is less than 5%. and you want to have a very quick detection system so you can see that, if i send money for vaccines, then i conservancy can see if the kids get them or not. if they do not, and then something is wrong. such as the aids drugs, if somebody does not get them, then the money is cut off. you do not want the measure meant to be so expensive that it hurts their lot. i think there are some fairly innovative ways that are quick and low-cost measurements in getting what we want. the world bank has gotten very good on these issues. probably because they have some new problems. they have learned the lessons of how you find infrastructure of the hard way. and they have now gotten quite

good at. they are very good at tracking. they were good at catching some of the problems that they had and i was very impressed. although, it is her thick -- although, it is terrific, any fraud. we like to give before the disaster takes place so that you have people trained and you have the food packs ready, the doctors ready, the transport critic, the tracking system is ready. we give before. there are six organizations that are really good at this stuff. then we also give some during because they need to buy some supplies.

even in the japan case, we gave, even though in some cases it is more of a statement of solidarity because they do not have some huge money shortage. but we chose to give because of our feelings about what a tragic situation it was. in terms of anti-vaccine people, these people exist everywhere in the world. that is a big challenge. they exist in the united states where people say, no, my children should not have vaccines. and then people start getting rubella and measles and hundreds of kids have died because of the anti-vaccine movement. and then there was an article that attempted to show the effect of optimism from a vaccine preservative. that article was a complete fraud. only in the last year was that article withdrawn because it was doctored evidence that cast a shadow over vaccines.

we do need to be careful with vaccines and only licensed vaccines that work very well because we're giving them to help the kids. we have to track that very well to maintain the reputation of the vaccination system. there is a problem with existing -- resisting new vaccines in india. they're very reluctant to take on new vaccines. we have made some progress. they are ruling out some new vaccines. i was there two weeks ago and i feel good about that. it is not this movement combined in any single country. >> thank you very much. i will conclude now. but i will also put my name on the questions, but they have barred been asked. i think all too often we see different forms of structures that are not being used or

finished. we saw that in haiti. i was there eight days ago. there were projects that were funded by the un and the eu and they have not been exploited. that is a shame. i think this is absolutely indispensable. you said earlier on that, yes, water is good, but waste management is very important, too. we do not have more time. on behalf of all of my colleagues, i would like to thank you for this very useful and very important exchange of views. i would above all like to thank you for the work that you do. this is a great honor to have you here. thank you, mr. gates. [applause] >> thank you.

there were getting the usual powers outcome of trees down, but from about 122nd street south, there were no calls coming in, so the assumption was in the absence of calls for help, it is not that bad. instead, the reason you're not getting calls was because just about everything had been erased. we heard that in hurricane katrina. remember the initial report was

that it looks like we dodged a bullet, and that is because the water has not reached your ankles yet. we thought we learned in hurricane andrew that the key to learning how ben something is is to do a quick assessment, so we came up with a rapid impact assessment team. when we were going to do is get subject matter experts that could go in, and do it quick snapshot of how communities have been impacted. we were going to get experts from utilities, health, transportation, and will want to put them in helicopters, fly them over the areas. they're going to meet with counterparts, write the stuff up, and send back to the states. the only thing that i ever found was rapid about this was the amount of time that it took us to say we were going to do it, because from that point forward, it lost all essence of been rapid.

it seems had grown because everybody wanted to have somebody on the scene. you had about eight experts, but you have to get somewhere. by the time they land, and linked up with people better busy dealing with the disaster, and ask them about the system, it was about 72 hours. the problem was that in about 72 hours, you are now trying to make decisions about when he will send. that builds in another 24-48 hours. we are getting their at about the same time frame we got there in hurricane andrew in the first place, about five days to late. i said maybe if we make the team smaller, may be focusing on a much quicker response -- what was interesting was that i kept finding ourselves, no matter what we did, we were getting things on the ground effective, no earlier than about 72 hours

from the time an event happened. this was with a hurricane you could see coming. it took a 72 hours before we're able to see stabilization. i asked a different question. instead of trying to figure out how bad it is, let's define what the outcome is that we want to change. i started looking at things and disasters a little differently. we often talk about responding, but nobody ever says what are we doing, and how much time will it take to get that done. as i did that, i started dissecting these disasters. i looked at international, a variety of things, earthquake response, and those type of event. i said there is a standard amount of process that we have to get to. first, you have to reestablish communication. most people think that as electronic. i was thinking more logistically. if you cannot get to the location, you cannot bring

anything into change the outcome. he needs to get in there. you would think in most cases, you could drive in, but as we saw in hurricane eisen, when you lose the bridge, you have to be able to get to the area. the other thing i found was safety and security. there is a tendency to wait, or a reluctance to use national guard in law-enforcement until you have a security issue, writing, a sense of lawlessness. i found talking to social scientists that you are doing more good getting people there more quickly by reassuring them they're not by themselves, and showing them people can get in from the outside this is one of the things the major to debt claimed -- presence is a mission. you need to make sure you are safe and secure. i never. a gun in my career of public safety. one-shots' get fired, where they going to do with their not carrying guns? they stopped. it does not take an actual

situation. it just takes the perception that it might be dangerous, and you either shut down almost all of your non-law enforcement disaster. the third thing was search and rescue. the injured do not has timed. a lot of our teams would get their 24 or 48 hours, or 72 hours later. the reality is when you look most earthquakes, and other types of events, of large scale damage, what does a survivor numbers look like after 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours. is it a stable population, or is it decreasing rapidly. for the injured, the sweet spot is the first 24 hours. if you change the outcome for the injured, you will have to get there to intervene. after about 24 hours, you are dealing with a population that is trapped, where they will make it without you.

the ones that you couldn't make a difference for, that decision is done. that is a time factor. he will not get that back. then, getting the supply and commodities in there. that's 72 hours it took us to figure out how bad it was, was- with a time frame needed all of that stuff there. so, it was kind of like i need to do the assessments to see how bad it is to respond. the time it takes to do that could eat up the time to change the outcome. i proposed something that a lot of people thought was radical. let's do away with the assessment. how'd you know how bad it is? we will not if i have a major hurricane impacting a major area, why don't i just respond against what the potential impact will be, and adjust downward? well, they say there will be a lot of risk for waste and everything else. i've never seen a disaster go

well when you do not enough stuff there fast enough. if you get there, and overwhelm it, and stabilized, you buy time, and you might not need as much, but you did not order as much stuff. getting to the point of stabilization, to where a community -- i'm not saying it is better, but you stop the loss. that is a key element. that is how we were approaching. in 2004, we have a tropical storm hit before charlie did. it hit august 13. 22 days later, hurricane francis had. a 11 days later, hurricane irene hit. in each one of those situations, we were able to get that response stabilized and free resources to go to the next disaster. if we were using the traditional model of doing the assessments and ordering resources, we would have had overlaps where we could not have

moved to the emergency phase for the next disaster while we were basically maintaining a steady state to get into recovery. i thought i had figured this out. i am going this is good? we could make this work. then, the next year, you have a series of hurricanes. most people forget that we started out with hurricane dennis. that should have been indicator will going to have an interesting year. it was one of the earliest major landfall hurricanes in florida's history, but it was relatively low cost. we thought we had figured this out, and here comes the trend. as much as you read about katrina, what you do not realize is that you basically stopped all of the resources out of the system. at the point where the hurricane setting off the yucatan peninsula, which then

got to a barometric pressure even lower than katrina starts moving toward florida. we are in a situation where the country is focused on the katrina response. we had a lot of resources committed. i am looking at a substantial hurricane coming to florida which did not weaken enough. we go into our response. we have a category two hitting the west coast, exiting to the east coast. you would assume the worst damage would be on the west coast, and the least on the east, but it did not read that book. we had greater impact on our east coast because hurricane wilma took power out to about 16 million people. we responded based upon the potential and tax. we sent supplies, said the distributions, and got things on the ground within 24 hours.

we have distribution all the way into the florida keys. the problem was we did not have all of the distribution hot up in the first 24 hours. again, we had waited more heavily on the west coast than the east coast, which was the greater demand, and we were slammed because of our poor response in not having enough supplies out to everyone in the first 24 hours after the tropical wind had exited the coast. this is where i learned another part. after hurricane andrew, we learned that the volunteers and the organizations have to be part of the team. we cannot run with different organizations doing their response, and we do in ours. we have to work as a team. those were lessons we learned

pretty good after andrew, and we built a good team to do that. where we have not built a team was with the private sector. based on previous history, particularly early 2004, the presumption was if the power was out, retail was down. this is what i found to be the trap. we were being government- centric, looking at a problem as how the government would solve it. we had been responding to these hurricanes that have been bad enough that a government- centered approach was getting the job done, but when hurricane wilma hits, it is a much bigger area. we put out as much product in three weeks as we did in the three hurricanes in 2004. as we were setting up and

putting out distribution, again with the assumption the private sector is not up and running, we started getting reports that did not jibe with that. they started saying there are stores open. they had generators. when did they start doing that? they started doing it about halfway through the 2004 season. from miami, to come beach county, we started calling big box stores, where we new power was out, and only five were not open. governor bush, who i was working for at the time, he likes to remind me of this because he was out meeting with constituents who were complaining about the long lines that we have located in areas that were central to the communities we were serving was

good road access, and networks, and had good parking. we were in the parking lot handing out free food and ice. they were eating fast food and they had just bought groceries. this threw me for a loop. up until this point, we had been so focused on what government was going to do, the assumption with disasters was that government was going to have to do everything, and take care of everybody. most of the goods and services is done by the private sector, not government before the hurricane, so why do we assume

we can deal with that one minute after? our first question, and you may have heard this a circus -- katrina, why don't we contract with those that know how to deal with this? it turned out that for a small fee, that was more and then my annual budget, to have that much slack and capacity, they would be interested, but they operate in a system that does not have a lot of slack or the capacity to absorb demand beyond what they're doing for their own stores, and i-we're going to invest in that, they could move some stuff in small disasters, but they could not do the things we were doing. i said i was asking the wrong question. what can i do to get you open?

it dawned on me. i am competing with the private sector at something they have perfected. then, i am trying to come in after disasters, set up, and operate in that environment, and actually compete with them. maybe i need to change the question, and stop the competition to what can i do to get you open, and where are you not going to be open? first, you look at what their footprint is like. they are actually in the same places that most local governments say are the point of distribution. when you get where they're not bad, you look at inner-city is, and areas that did not have big box stores. if you worked as a team, those places are where we would have sent supplies to. they do not have walmart, home depot.

we stepped back and said perhaps this is all model we need to look at. how we work as a partner. you hear the public/private partnership. i want to be so operational that i know where your stores are, and their status, where i am distributing supplies. i want to know where stores are shutting down, no so i can do my distribution. when i came to fema, i brought that philosophy, bringing in the retail sector. if you are in government, there are 1000 reasons why people say you cannot do something, and i am sure you are cheerfully ignorant of that. we bring in folks that actually have a position dedicated to the fema center on a regular

basis. looking at the private sector, not competing with them, but asking them how to get them open, and with fema i do not have the support -- as local officials, if i can work issues back to the state, opening up lines of communication and getting things done. my team started getting that it was not going to be government- centric. we would embrace the volunteer organizations. the fourth piece had started out that we tend to call them victims, and i kept talking to social scientists and here is

the problem. in helping people deal with trauma, you have to empower them and give them control. loss of control, the ability to make decisions, oftentimes makes the recovery more difficult. they said sometimes words do have power. so, i had adopted in florida the term "survivor" not "dictum." one of the things i realized when we were doing catastrophic planning in florida, and i like to use historical events because a lot of people will say you are becoming a novelist. i like to take historical events, and say what it said happened today? we took the great miami hurricane of 1926, and we overlaid debt, and say what does this look like? some overlaid that, and said what does this look like?

we looked at the numbers, and said this is about a $120 billion hurricane, or $150 billion hurricane. the population impact is up to 8 million people. housing losses are almost five times what hurricane andrew took out, much bigger than katrina in terms of total impact and dollars. we were doing our catastrophic planning, looking at the government resources of the way up to the department of defense, and even the private sector. we were running it against these time lines of getting these areas stabilized in the first 72 hours, and the answer was it cannot be done. you can not redefine success to

what you are capable of doing. as we are going through this, i said what about the people living there and the answer was they are all victims. i've been to a lot of disasters. this tendency for people to portray that everyone is shellshocked, sitting around, and not doing anything, that does not happen. people start trying to help each other. people will start doing things. there is this bias that we look at the public as a liability. we tend to the public as a liability that will do bad things. i can remember after hurricane andrew there was a concern about people that were starting to cut, small groups setting up community kitchens, and the big

fear was they were not licensed. [laughter] >> the fear was you would get food-borne illness, outbreaks. i have read the mortality reports, and i did not see anyone that died of food poisoning. i understand we are concerned about sanitation, and those kind of breaks, which could be devastating, but what did not make more sense to give them some quick instructions about sanitation as opposed to saying to not do this? i figure if it is not that bad, and to you have the luxury of telling the public to stay on the sidelines and not help? there is a real challenge. the first thing that came up was the liability. the other issue was there are not trained. we have developed this idea that we will all be credentialed, and everyone will have chips on them they could

waive and everyone knows who you are. again, if that is true, i'm still waiting for that to get sold to somebody. the reality is every disaster is come-as-you-are. if it is really bad, you will not get the luxury of choosing what to use. we do not really say this, but we tend to take a parental approach to the public. we tend to think we will have to tell them what to do, and make decisions for them, and get in see that anything this suggests the public will take matters in their own hands. we have to get past that. most recently, these tornadoes, as much as we give credit to the first responder communities,

who was due in the first rescues? the neighbors crawling out of the debris, going over to the next rubble pile, searching for their neighbors. that happens time and time again. it is not a unique thing. it is pretty much what people do. i thought maybe we should change messaging from being prepared, to add one little thing, once you and your family are safe, check on your neighbor. during the heat waves, we, again, you saw this message going out from red cross and other officials -- check on your neighbors. you might say a life. if you go back three or four years ago, you might not see or hear that, but we are starting to see more and more recognizing that we have to engage the public. my evolution has gone full circle from government-centric,

having to do everything, to recognizing that is a finite capability. volunteers, those that organized and trained, those that emerged, you have to be able to bring them in. the private sector, in particular. that is an evolving process because you start getting into different sectors. if you are the subject matter experts on this, and it's always funny because we regulate a lot of folks. they will talk to us. how do we go through and really look at getting critical lifeline, services, delivery, online, that are essentially non-governmental, up and running, and do that in no way that speeds the recovery process? the private sector is starting

to realize something else. they cannot plan autonomously from government. they are starting to realize that no matter how good business continuity plans are, if the community's plan fails, they might not be successful either. is your community going to be able to deal with housing and schools open, a basic public services up and running? if they fail, i do not know if your plan will cover that. how many will keep employees in schools -- it schools will not open for months. if i have marketable skills, and i going to stay here that long? what if there is law enforcement not up and running? this is an evolution that we have gone through to get what we call the whole community. we are not saying government is

telling you the government is saying you are on your own. you just need to move away from a government-hundred approach and realize there are other solutions out there, particularly when they're doing it every day in the community. they oftentimes know as little about us. this has been part of our efforts to bring them together. on the flip side, which goes back to being prepared, this is where we need to get feedback because we sound parental. the reason we are telling it to be prepared is because we are all on our own, it is all smoke and mirrors. well, that would be the cynic's approach. let me be more pragmatic. if everyone in this room who

lives in the d.c. area -- have something happens here, and it is powerful, and it's the area, and power is not out, and you lose everything in your refrigerator, and you did not have water pressure, and we start setting up supplies in commodities, have you ever asked yourself we were competing with when you go get them? this is what i focus on there is a shared responsibility. it is not above being on your own. everybody needs to understand you prepared to the best of your abilities because when you do not, those that should and head of the financial means and resources, when we show up to get our supplies, who do we cut in line in front of? those are most vulnerable have the least amount of resources and are at the greatest risk.

for a lot of people, they're not comfortable hearing this because they pay their taxes, why do they not get their supplies? part of this is trying to get everyone to understand that in a disaster the more we have individually prepared ourselves and families, the less resources we have to ship in, and we can get essential services up and start moving back toward recovery. when we talk about preparedness, too often it sounds like this -- you need to have a plan, your supplies for 72 hours, and thank you, you're done. it never tells people why that is so critical. why there will be members of the committee that will not have the resources or ability to get ready, that we do bring supplies and should that have to

compete with the rest of us. the faster the response in almost any crisis is a neighbor helping neighbor. we have gone away from that. with talk about what government is going to do, but part of this is being honest with people. the fastest response was not the fire department. it was neighbors helping neighbors. within 24 hours they got the primary areas done, but still fun people several days later. the bulk of the rescues were done in the first 24 hours, but the credit goes to neighbors helping neighbors, people literally applying skills sets that they have. so, that is that. one last piece. in our planning, we have overly-identified what we were going to do based upon planning for what i call eight generic

population. now, if we were doing a good job for that generic population, why is it every time we have a big disaster we identify a group that was march allies, we did not meet their needs, and we read and an ax? in my time frame, we have written an annex for the elderly, people with disabilities, people that have pets, and were about to for people that have children. [laughter] >> i started asking myself how much of the population is that? you are up to half of the population has pets, up 2 1/4 have children at home, depending on your community. it was like, with a minute,

wait a minute, we are planning for easy, and the people that should have been prepared and not need everything we are bringing. it really hit me. mark shriver on the commission of children and disasters said we have to address children's issues, we have to write an amex because you're not getting these needs met. innocent children should not have to suffer these indignities. i looked at mark, and i said that sounds like our typical response. i said what did not make sense to make the people who need the most out of the core of our plan? he said i'm not sure you're going to have the focus on children.

children are not small adults. their needs and dietary issues are different. if we put them in and an ax, everybody will think it is done, and trust me, it will not be part of the court process. it will be an afterthought you have to think about. i gave him the example. here is the problem -- if i get a request for meals for 1 million people, what will i ship them? i am going to ship them 1 million meals, or if i'm really desperate, mre's. as a grandfather, my two-year- old can not knock through an mre. i will do what is easy.

i will be source the stuff that we have always done, shelf- stable meals, ready-to-eat. we do not put the formula in there. we do not have infant formula. if i write and an axe, is that going to fix it? we have to change the culture. if we are feeding the general population, you have to go from the consent of the way through the insurer. what goes in and comes out, you need bottles and disposable items. if you're shopping people, they might show up in a wheelchair, right? our solution was to have a special needs shelter, but they could not go to a general

population shelter because they were special. the disability community said we do not like the term special needs, and the americans with disabilities act frowns upon what you are doing. i said why can we just not be part of the community and the integrated in and you look at our functional needs. this, for emergency managers is tough. we were basically writing for people metro forehead access to mass transit, high school or better education, english as a primary language, financial resources, have insurance -- not exactly the most vulnerable folks in the room, but that is who we were planning for.

then we put everyone that was too hard to do in an annex. we'll take our planning guide and said that approach fails every time. we will start planning for the communities that we live in, not those that fit our plan. we know we are going to have to address these issues and their response, so let's address them in our prepared this, our exercises, how we train, how we staff and equipped. if we maintained infant baby supplies, we are going to look at instead of just special needs shelters, we have functional access shelters so people are not turned away. we are looking at how to incorporate all of these issues in the planning phase, and bring the folks together that day-to-day work with these

various communities as a part of our team. i've got and pushed back that says this is too hard to do, it is on funded, and not realistic to expect. how many people really heard of joplin before the tornado hit it. not really disaster central. i went there pretty quick. i got there the night after it hit. i am there my second day, i get to the red cross shelter, there was no special needs shelter. there was a red cross shelter. people were there on oxygen, wheelchair's, medical attention was being given, and they were not turned away. nurses provided counseling and screening.

they had infants and children with supplies that were being cared for. you have the wireless companies who figured out not only did they need to set up more cell sights. they brought in chargers. one of the local casinos went to their chargers and donated them. when people showed up with their pets, they were not turned away. your pet could be housed there or they had areas where you could stay with your pet. how did this happen? they took of the challenges that people said to hard to do, and is said to does this every day? we're going to meet, and we're

going to plan if we ever have to open up a shelter how to work as a team and bring the resources together. a couple of weeks after that meeting, they got to practice at it. when people tell me it is too hard to do, i say they did it. the tornado gave barely any warning, took out and destroyed one of the major medical facilities for the region, and yet in spite of all of that, they operated a shelter that was a textbook of how we plan for the communities that we live in, not what is easy to make them fit our plans. so, fema, we are trying to embrace the whole of community, try to build speed in our response, tried to before- leaning and thinking. -- be forward thinking. i tell my guys when something big happens, go big, go fast, the smart about it. by the time you know, you lose

the ability to change the outcome. people say it is wasteful, you will spend this money, and i say trust me, if you did not plan, do not respond the way and get behind, he will be far more costly. we did not do this on every disaster. we are going to change the outcome, but we are not unwind to do with just as the law. we have to bring the full seem to the table. that as a thumbnail of whole of community. people say this is all brand new, but i should this is pretty much emergency management. this is forcing ourselves to recognize emergency management is not just what government does. it is how do you bring in the whole team because the real goal here is we lose fewer lives, we get to the injured quickly, we stabilize, recover, rebuild, and restore communities in a rapid manner. that all tends to be set in the

first couple of days of response. failure there can prolong, protect, and increase suffering, loss of life, total cost to the committee and the taxpayer. our goal is to speed up the response, but not limited to what government can do, but how we will build a team. look at things like the tsunami in japan, and those things could happen here. events of that scale are definitely in the realm of possibility, not hypothetical. we have had historical events that say not only have they happen, but are going to happen again. so, with that, that is whole of community, and my thoughts. question? [applause]

>> sir? >> can i ask how you would use the mass media as and enabling, and supporting function, instead of having them in the react mode? i have read books where the media would come into fema or emergency management and learn what it really took. >> if you try to call what the media to be part of your mouthpiece, they will rebel and you will never get there. if you look to what the media has -- their primary responsibility is to report the good, bad and the ugly. the other part is they can be a great communicator to provide information about what to do. what you have to understand is there is a balance there. you need to educate and provide

that information ahead of time. you build relationships. you make yourself available. you understand the media's role. tomorrow, i will be doing a check with the weather channel about hurricane preparedness. we will do a live chat thing, and i will be tight in my answers. you have to build on the front end. you have to understand that if you try to call what the media so that they are part of the team, they say wait, we need to maintain separation and independence because we will report the good, and the bad. we have to seemed impartial. you have to understand what their job is, but they can also educate the viewer. the provide for mess that are

useful. -- formats that are useful to them? this is classic. how many people see they do the press conference a 5:00 p.m.? for the television guy, it's like "you are killing me." can we move it earlier? can we both did during our show instead of deleted when we are not in show? -- doing it when we are not in show? that this stuff that a lot of times savvy people get and go to the media and say what works for you? i'm trying to make my information user-friendly. the more user-friendly i was, the greater likelihood the use this information and get it out. there is a new peace to this. if the public are survivors, and we have to look them as part

of the team, maybe they are not a liability, they are a resource. this is something everybody is dipping into, but the best information i have gotten a lot of recent disasters has either come from weather channel folks are other folks on the ground, or from the public itself. i ran a 911 center. do you know how many bad calls you got? there are many times i went to an unknown illness where guns were drawn. you have to build relationships set of time. you also have to remember that if they even think you are trying to control them, or show them the good news, you will lose whatever relationship you have, and if it is bad news, you might as well get it out there because they will find

out anyway. sir? >> what kind of relationship does fema have with foreign governments, particularly with recent incidents in japan, to ensure that lessons learned from there are applied to our country and a similar scenario? >> we have a lot. i just signed mou's as a part of our bilateral agreements with australia. we have had staff go there in the aftermath of that. the other part is not everything that happens might be applicable to us, so we go through the process of what happened, how did you deal with it, what applies to us? what was interesting about the earthquake, tsunami, and the nuclear power plant, which was most of our attention in the united states, because -- which was kind of tragic, was looking

at this from the standpoint of are we planning for things this bad? we did not know the tsunami what happened, obviously, but if you look at the numbers of what we need to be planning against, the tsunami in japan actually sits underneath where our realistic thresholds are. in some cases, we find a start invalidating some of the things it we have been talking about because a lot of people say we will never have anything that big. i am not in the business of things we can handle. we look at the lessons learned, and we also validate. one of the interesting things from our conversations with australia and new zealand, australia has a similar programs to the u.s. in that their territories and local

governments and provincial governments actually have more authority, like a state does. we found ourselves, one we're talking to australia about big floods, then many of the similar issues are things that we face. it is something we do invest time in. again, sometimes it is validating. sometimes it is not relevant. sometimes there are nuggets of stuff that we go this is something we will have to prepare for. >> he mentioned the role of the state national guard. what key areas do you think the department of defense could support index >> ruble-status commanders. -- dual-status commanders. this is probably one of the breakthroughs.

congress passed a law that formed the council of governors, which appointed 10 governors, have republican, have democrat, to look at ongoing issues of the national guard, with a particular focus on one of the challenges we have always said. when we brought in forces into a state, having to have dual command structures, this had been troublesome because many have served overseas and had been titled 10 commanders. when it came back states said, they're told you can not be in a legal chain of command. we introduced a concept of gould-status command that has moved through the process of allowing governors to nominate

officers to bedual certified to both home and state active duty. this is been a significant breakthrough. it is part 1 of part two. that is being able to bring in title 10 forces into a state and integrate them in gives us unity of effort, and the other pieces something that we still face as a nation. i am sure most of you know this. we cannot reach out and touch our reserve forces in a disaster without a presidential mobilization, which has a time commitment, and basically takes away from being able to do any other duty for the timeframe of that activation, yet many of our combat support forces could be faster and more responsive if we had congress giving the authority to provide that presidential call-up could be

less than a call up under the current reserve act. right now, secretary janet napolitano can be reserved call-ups of the coast guard, but the secretary of defense does not. the next big goal for the department of defense, and this will require congressional action, is to provide for the ability to bring up reserves for short-term durations in support of disaster response. that will be one of the key issues of bringing the rest of the team on board. although there are out there, they're difficult to bring in to respond to the situation we face. longer-term, we have been looking and a tendency for us to over-think problems. we were talking to folks about search and rescue. when we look at earthquakes,

the tendency is we have the specialized teams that are really designed for the collapsed, complex structures, but if we have relaxed structures, a lot of suburbia will be impacted. we need for small compliers. the tendency we get into is we try to tell you what to do, instead of telling you what is the outcome, what do you think would work? we came in and said we want engineering units. they would be perfect to do search and rescue. we actually came back with our urban search and rescue guys, and they said that is not what you need. you get to go house-by-house and do a quick search. you do not need those engineers. you need 11 bravos. it was like do not tell me how to solve the problem, tell me

what the problem is, and let me apply a solution. for katrina, we wrote so many mission assignments. instead of trying to tell you how to do it, we told you what is the outcome, and give greater flexibility to meeting those needs. with the department of defense, it is always just as you are, you do not always available when the next disaster strikes, so the ability to not be so focused on a particular type of unit gives greater flexibility, and also writing mission statements and assignments that are broad in scope and give commanders more flexibility in applying the tools they have. these are some of the things we are working on, but the biggest thing is speeding up the process. mission assignments, and getting a pass, and getting people in, and deployed, it still takes us a long time. i was really pleased we were working on that with one of the joint chiefs. he shares my passion. there is a lot of process that

we need to speed up to get things going faster because if we're going to change outcomes in 72 hours, we need to speed that process up. part of that is making mission assignments more flexible, and more based upon outcomes. >> my question is about the whole of community concept. can you speak to the future of the private sector prepared this program, and how it integrates into your vision? >> dhs , or the private sector in general? >> both, if you want. >> i am finding that if i really want to get the private sector engaged, i have to do something differently and talk about return on investment. i am taking a little bit different tack. if people are focused in on credentials and excess, and that is great, but what i'm really finding it is if you want

to get to the heart of businesses, it is all about finding a bottom line. unless they are in non-profit, what is the return on investment? if they cannot answer the question, did not do some stuff come off as for good will, but it will not be a sustained investment. i am pushing for this -- a lot of companies would be better off scrapping contingency plans, and just have enough insurance to pay off everything, making a profit, and close. if the community is not ready, they're better off not reopening. i'm trying to get across that their interest is as great. when i started this, most everyone i ran into where business continuity managers focused on data and financials. we now see titles more and more called emergency managers.

i think the credential piece to all of that was an early attempt. how do you integrate the private sector? it is worse than church and state. it is a separation. we are finding it is useful to share data across open data systems to give them visibility and what we are doing, and what they're doing. we're pretty close for several major retailers will give us live data feeds, where we can map and see store status in real time in a disaster. so, there are some good starts there, but we're going way test bed to look at how we work, respond, and support each other in a situation where you are not going have clear lines of knowing who is government and was the private sector.

>> there are a lot of us in this room that are involved in the study of homeland security or federal emergency management. what are those areas which we can focus on, whether it be as think tanks or in academia that would help you do your job better? >> i think we could see a much emphasis on the hazards and less on the societal impacts and the sociology of how people deal with things. in my profession there are a lot of people -- the hard science, the engineering, the forecasting, the meteorology -- if this is one the things i have often questioned. we have spent more money coming up with a perfect forecast, but we never change a -- asked the outcome if we will change the outcome and are we using the right methods? we issue a warning. people still die, what happened?

this is a big question with joplin and the southeast tornado. we often time spend so much time on the science, we forget about the people, and this is for me the societal aspects of how populations react. how do you change behavior? there are two successful campaigns. when i was growing up, not wearing your seat belt and smoking were the norms. if you or your seat belt or did not smoke you were an outsider. today, it is the other way around. when we talk about preparedness, most people come if they have a flashlight and very basic steps, it is about as good as it gets pretty you are and how liar if she really got ready. how the change that? you start diluting yourself.

in both situations there were punitive impact, bad things happened and have consequences. since the disasters are such a low-frequency event, fortunately, there is a hole in that. what i think we need it is more scientists, social scientists, and more research which is not high-science, and most of the think it is not that relevant, but with the signs we're trying to work in, we end up talking at them, and they do not hear us. we do things, and except certain things to happen, and we cannot figure out why he. i think it is because we do not look at markets and research involving social science. we do not understand the demographics of the community.

that is why it is easy for us to plan for a community and forget we do not live in pakistan government structures. people do not live in a city, they live in a neighborhood. people did not identify with government structures, yet everything we do is based on government response try to overlay that. to me, that is a big area that 10 cents to get the funding, it is not glamorous, but that is if where you're going to change outcomes, or have the ability to provide information that will get people to behave differently. if we do not, it does not matter how good the forecast as. it to the people that could change the outcome did not, we do not know why. it is because we do not get it. >> i got the hook.