guests from the census bureau and the institute for women's policy research. "washington journal" is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> looking live at the u.s. capitol. the house and senate out all week. coming up in just a moment we will bring you a conversation from columbia university on how the media covers mass shootings and terrorist attacks. left washington today headed -- left washington today and headed to mexico, the first of three days in his central american tour. he held a news conference earlier today with the mexican president. the trip will also food a visit to coaster rica as well. we will show you the news conference coming up in about one hour and 20 minutes. before he left today, the president made to more

nominations, nominating a political fund-raiser and philanthropist to be his next commerce secretary, selecting a new trade representative, then departing washington and headed to mexico. also, chuck hegel held a news conference with his british counterpart. he was asked to present -- question that the president was also asked about arming syrian rebels. as to your question regarding the rethinking options, are in the rebels, that is an option. that is an option. hammondthat secretary framed it rather clearly when he talked about what the objective is. certainly for the guided states, stopping the violence, stability in the region.

and then transitioning, helping to be a part of that transitioning of syria to a democracy. now, those are objectives. any country, any power, any coalition partnership is going to continue to look at options and how best to accomplish those. this is not a static situation. a lot of players are involved. we must continue to look at options and present them based of contingencies with the focus that we all have in the international community to achieve the objectives the best way we can. so, we are constantly evaluating. the president made no a couple of days ago in his press conference about rethinking options. of course we do. >> the administration is rethinking harming the rebels? >> yes. >> may i ask why?

what has changed in your mind? does this put to at odds with the u.s. military commanders who have called it not a good idea? options, you all look at it, that does not mean the will or the you do. these are options that must be considered with partners, the international community. what is possible. what can help to accomplish these objectives. we have a responsibility, and i think that general dempsey would say the same thing, to continue to evaluate options. that does not mean that the president decided on anything. >> are you in favor of supporting the rebels? >> i am in favor of a exploring the best option in coordination with international partners. >> any conclusion? >> no. >> even after all of these weeks, respectfully?

>> about the options that we would use? >> you said that the administration is rethinking arming the rebels. you said yes. you had no conclusion about whether you support that? >> we are at risk -- exploring all options to achieve the objectives i just talked about. these are not static situations. you must always look at different options based on reality on the ground. based on what you want to achieve, based on the future, based on international partners. >> chuck table, talking with reporters at the pentagon. we will show all of that to you in our schedule and you can of course see it any time on line c-span.org. last week at columbia university at the journalism school they held a discussion, a conference looking at how the news media

covers these mass casualty events. and sandy hook, or aurora, the event features so the writers to cover the events. it is one hour and 20 minutes. ofwe are at the last panel the day. where does the story go from here? we are going to sort of open the conversation to a new perspective, new directions. where does the story go from here locally? newtown, conn., where does the story go from here for the nation? go fromes the story here for reporters? how do we think about individuals in families and communities? where should we be looking as journalists? a wide open panel.

as has already come up a few times, overlaid on sandy hook is another crisis. boston. we will talk a little bit about that. so, to introduce everyone briefly -- i will not take much time on this, maximizing time for discussion. to my immediate right is david culllen. today. two cullens here columbine,"uthor of " reflecting a decade's worth of reporting into the background and aftermath of the columbine school shootings. it won more awards than i care to say. i will say that he is a fellow of whom there have been several.

and from the roanoke times, i in the aftermath of the virginia tech shootings, which she covered for that paper. she will bring some thoughts on what the long-term trajectory looks like from that. she is the family beat reporter at "the roanoke times." casey meadow, columbia metal, from- casey columbia university. now is working on a book that when it comes out you will all have to buy. candace king, next to her. imposing letters after her name. can this is the chief operating aficer of cure violence,

public health initiative in chicago that supports city-wide violence prevention. if you saw the film "of the interrupters," you saw the fruits of their labor on the streets of chicago, to reduce the incidence of gun violence and all the public health catastrophes that follow from that. next to her, my new haven s.ighbor, dr. stephen marin adult psychoanalyst who is the who is a professor of psychology -- psychiatry at the child professor -- child study at yale. he is the founder of the child development community policing program. which i first became aware of when it was the child witnessed the violence project. right? no? ah.

>> that is all right. >> founder of the child development community policing program, a collaboration between law enforcement professionals and mental health community helping children exposed to violence and trauma. next to steven is the other columnistevin cullen, for "the boston globe." he has been a reporter there cents in 1985 on pretty much every be that you can imagine. foreign correspondent, legal correspondent. he is really here for a couple of reasons. the proximate reason obviously is the events in boston in the last few days. in a sense it grieves us full circle. but we have spent a lot of time talking about another series of traumatic events.

he covered northern ireland and has a particular sense of how tragedy can play out over the long run. finally, last by no means least, bringing the story home in a sense, jaclyn r. smith, managing editor of the news -- "news times of danbury." she is the reporter of "register," "record journal," assistant and managing editor -- she also has a big pile of theds and has taught at university of harper in southern connecticut state. and, actually, jaclyn, i am going to begin with you. locals your story, your story in your paper from the first moments the words came out, making strategic choices about where to go from here.

what you have been asking every day since december 14. where do you see this story going in newtown and for your reporters? >> thanks for giving me a chance. remember this morning with the tenet was talking about the need for police to corral journalists. that is not our role. that is not how we do our job. i want to remind everyone that when you report that way we are in a situation where we wait every 90 minutes to get a feed from police. we will not get all the truth that -- all the truth of that way, we will just get the official statements. someone would go to the press conference, but i would direct them not to just wait for that information. you have to get out there and talk to people and piece

together the story. sure, and initially there were many items that were not correct, but i wanted to remind journalists here that you keep pursuing it anyway. even the police for giving details. we saw that if an affidavit -- we saw that when affidavits' came out two weeks ago. that didng run things not make a big difference, but as you report and as the story develops and you move along, you get closer and closer to the truth. elusive and always when you ask -- where are we going -- you keep reporting the story on any level. it comes down to two people with an unthinkable tragedy and we have to help community do that as well. not just on surface level store the thousands of

dollars, teddy bears, but how does the community redefine itself? we hear people in newtown saying that they do not want to be known as the sandy hook tragedy people. so, the role of the paper is to help, to keep informing, pushing, prodding. the investigative arm of the story as well as the human part. >> as you look at your calendar for the next six months or one year, what are you looking at as a kind of the major markers? where should we be paying attention when things like this come up? in june we expect that the investigative report will be coming out. investigators has -- have said that they think it will be june.

to the journals that adam lancet kept, there were seven of them. that would be one of the firstlings. there are always anniversary stories, but we do not really like that as a whole. >> let me turn to you. bath, the major responsibility for being the local voice, talk a little bit about where you saw the story going for the paper, for the staff as reporters. >> we felt that this was literally in our backyard.

probably better than what you all experienced, as i understand it was really just two rose. the families were all over virginia and elsewhere. there were lots of locales to go to. the experience seemed eerily similar. believe it or not i have never had to call a grieving family on the phone. people do not believe that. but i never had to. so, i had to the next day. they have just released the names. i actually thought that if i quit, i will not have to do that. [laughter] i said to my friend, who has done a lot of these kinds of things, i took him into the

corner and said -- john, what do i do? call them up, see if they are sorry, see if they want to talk. at that point everyone was calling. the families i got the most attached to were the is -- was this family in this community that we talked to in this very rural small town, the community after the press came in, they found tracy lane's house and were part in front of it like train cars. that community just embraced her and told the forced to go away. i found out later that one of the men in our church went over and said to a the "tribune" reporter, "i know you think you are from a tough town, but if her you will find

out what a tough town is like." oprah was calling her. that is how was. the bad thing about being in one place for a long time, you cannot go out in your pajamas in the morning, but when something like this happens, you know somebody who knows somebody. that is what we did. i triangulated. i had a friend who knew a principle and it turned out the family did not want to talk. he had been the valedictorian, lettered in four sports, the light of the town. he had just gotten a full scholarship for graduate school and testified that in his shirt that sunday the day before. -- church that sunday the day before. i got the story that i could get along the way. aree weeks later i wrote

story about the engineering department and how they were trying to do final grades when eight of the professors had been killed. eight professors and graduate students and numerous of the students and how were they going to do the grades and by then they were willing to talk to me. so i tried to go to every level to get them to talk when they were ready and not to hound them when they said not to how one that them. -- m -- ho andund hound them. remember, shet said, if we got the facts first, they will remember how we treated them. that was really a remarkable statement at the time. it meant a lot.

she brought massage therapists in. maybe one week later. we were encouraged to talk to counselors, which i think some people did. i was talking to a friend of mine -- friend of mine last night who was covering this all coveredand he has now sandy hook, super storms and the, he gets in very deep with his subjects. one of the things that he tells people when he tries to get them to be interviewed in the aftermath is that when they seek not the best case stories happening, like sticking a microphone into a family that does not want to talk, then they do not want to talk to anyone. he said to them that he is not the media enemy, i am a person. that seemed very direct.

i guess that my advice going story thatto get the you can -- i also wanted to talk a bit about self care, which came up a bit in the last session. i think it was helpful that had of the families, they to deal with the media coming in, but because we had assigned families it helped a lot that you only had to deal with one person from our news organization. that seemed to help. i think some folks from your paper called and just give us some advice looking ahead. we got support, care packages from people who have been to oklahoma city. people called in to say -- this is what you should do, this is what you should not do. but in terms of self care, my

friend at cnn, as he drove back to new town he arrived at 3:00 a.m. and he had a story to file the next day for clock. he said he had not slept in three days and he said that he got a ticket for the train to washington, d.c., so that he his story with his favorite person, his sister. he had to be somewhere with someone who understood him and where he was safe. i thought that that was rated vice. if i could talk to reporters covering this and looking forward, i would say take care of yourself and take care of each other. the editor that will take mail and00 a.m. e- respond to you by 11:30. what kinds of stories, when

you got past breaking news and wound up closer to six months, anniversaries, what kinds of stories resonated? what kinds of choices did the paper make? >> well, we had different teams. mike was covering mental health. someone in richmond was covering what was going on there. it was fairly well-organized. did six months later, i did a profile for the poet who became the spokesperson for the university. she did that great "we are virginia tech," which was such a moment.aling she was not willing to talk at the time, but six months later she said everything, including the controversial part of her story. that she had been the one that

wanted him kicked out of her classroom because the other students were really uncomfortable with what he was writing. going back later, maybe someone does not want to talk to you in the first four, five months, but maybe in six months she will recount to you what it is like when she is this radical poet. the administration was nervous that she would be speakingstudey uncomfortable and sitting next to president bush. she said she kept saying to herself -- do not polk the president. [laughter] those of the kinds of things that people do not feel free to share with you, but people change their minds. with respect. >> we can go back to that subject as well.

steven, you have been looking at years now at families and communities in the aftermath of violence. you were supportive behind-the- scenes in newtown as well. where do you think journalists -- what are the stories that will be important to be told in this next phase? i have a feeling about what has been missed and got wrong, but more importantly what's on the agenda? the perspective that i guess that i bring is working directly with families and communities, not just new town directly, but new haven and other locations or around the country post-9/11. our team has been involved with lots of awful events. thinking, when i first went to new town on friday

evening that i was having a bit of deja vu because it reminded me of jonesboro in the early 1990's, with the multiple satellites. as i have been listening i have been thinking about what it is that is so particular. why are we even having this meeting? there are obvious -- obvious reasons that are enormous -- enormously informative. one way thinking out -- one way to think about next steps going forward is why this is such a special topic for all of us. as journalists, but as human beings. not to overuse the word trauma, but we use it as an anchor point. we define that from a clinical point of view. that isumatic event

highly anticipated, overwhelming, and leaves a sense of danger and out of control. so much so that the event and the experience changes the way we think. it is one of the reasons why there are so many normal symptoms that follow. if we use that as an anchor, maybe we can think about the ways as a country, when we are hit by something that is so unanticipated, so uncontrollable, so unavoidable, and it leaves us feeling so terrified and helpless, why it is we have such a difficult time and how our response is a reflection of what we share. it seems to me that the challenge is something of a tension on two levels.

one, knowledge is a tool for mastering. but what happens when we do not have knowledge or information because it is not available? earlier panel,he when we were talking about red flags. by the way, it is not just of the questions from the media, it is the answers that professionals give when they do not have data and are willing to give diagnosis, which i actually find enormously dangerous. why are people doing that? cane have an answer, we undo the very nature of our helplessness and the very terror of being so out of control. but does it help us? i would suggest that the answer is no. it allows us to sidestep or try to sidestep what we are all dealing with, because we are

human beings before. -- human beings. if there is the awfulness of helplessness. i do think the media plays an enormously important role and will continue to. we do not talk. we have a policy at yale. we do not talk to journalists about the specific work that we do in the community that we are operating, the same way that i would never talk to a journalist who did not know what a journalist was. anticipating, taking care of themselves and how they support each other -- how does the community come together? this has been such an important has for all that the media

played. i think there is tension in that there is something of a live wire a fac we are drawn, we are compelled to search for answers that help us to feel better. they aim to keep us grounded in ways that cannot be achieved. people are glued to their televisions for days after a frigid day after day, we tell them to turn off the television. the stimulation is not filling the mastery function, it routes the circuitry in the brain that keeps us feeling agitated, vulnerable, and isolated. on one level there is a challenge about what it is we're looking for a while wanting to

provide as much information as possible. but here is the other tension. what about the community itself? the needs of the broader community? the country? is the impact of those needs being filled on the community that is the most direct victim? about theust talking family is that lost loved ones, but the families of children who witnessed the carnage. what is the impact, if we know for example that two of the most powerful predictors for recovery are identification, social support, and a return to normal routines. that the absence of those will actually increase the level of symptomatology and predict the failure of recovery. how is that squared with the media presence that was in newtown or anywhere else for a

length of time? and the level of destruction that occurred? i am suggesting that this poses a problem. to your wonderful vignette about the assignment to interview grieving families, is the easiest when we see reporters sticking cameras into people's faces, but that is a tougher one and i was delighted to hear your solution. aboute being able to talk what you knew about this extraordinary young man allowed you to sleep at night. the idea is -- why at that moment do we need to ask a to come and have their feelings? i do not think we need to be critical of ourselves. there are good reasons why we

why these to know and events stir up some much. these are the events that there but by the grace of god go me. lastly, the problem, the reason i raise the question earlier, would it not be a silver lining for potential growth curve of what could come why these out of a tragedy like this is if we really, really pay attention to the country? as journalists from all walks of life, individuals affected by violence in this country every single day, even if they do not look like us, live in the neighborhoods that we want to walk, etc., these are the real opportunities and also the opportunities to know logger just be helpless, but to turn our attention to solutions. as jim is pointing out, the

majority of the types of violence that affect the greatest number of people everyday. press youcle back and for specifics on imagining what stories like that might look like. what is a good bridge to you? violence believe in intervention? what have you been thinking? not only about the new town story, but the narrative momentum and individual journalists looking to seize on this moment and help to tell some stories that need to be told. what are they? actually, we do not work in the environment that has been

discussed today. i have been sitting here thinking that we are a bit of a fish out of water. neighborhoods as that were impacted every day. we had more than 500 killings last year in chicago. if a killing involved a child, it was big news. when we got into big numbers, we became big news, but i cannot tell you how many times someone is shot or killed and there is no news. violence as a learned behavior, something reinforced by fear expectations and not kept in check within the community where it is occurring. take a public health approach to it. try to identify, intervene with

the way they think, the way they behave. we want to change those norms and expectations in the community that make it ok for those things to happen. i is a bit different, but think we have had enough of these incidents. start looking, maybe there are some things where we can look for common elements as well where we can anticipate, intervene, where we could stop these things from happening. chicago, philadelphia, baltimore, new orleans, where we know that there are things that we can do, work with the people associated with the problem. ," you saw "the interrupters

which is available online, these are people for credible, right at the center of the storm, folks who no one else can reach. and then we apply conflict mediation. intensive training. accountability in place with data collection. we have been fortunate to have had multiple evaluations in new york, chicago, baltimore, showing that we have added value to the work of law enforcement is doing. accountable held for their behavior. when i look at the press and think -- what can the media do to help with programs like ours? tell our story. using not the only ones this approach. this is across the country now.

los angeles, a lot of cities have embraced it. really very progressive police chiefs have really endorsed this approach as well. and i would say that you talk about going back and correcting? ininteresting, i am sitting a roomful of responsible journalists and we have been impacted by what i would consider to be responsible journalists. they put out the first facts, they do not do fact checking, when you're telling the story of a program like ours it is important to get right. if you do not get it right, take responsibility. a talk about how embracing public health understanding of gun violence has helped to shape the work that you do? what does that mean? it is easy to throw them around,

but what does it mean? >> we look at this as an epidemic, violence. something that behaves like an academic -- epidemic. it clusters. if you look at all of our data hot spots, clusters, just like epidemic's it spreads. it starts and becomes infectious. it is obvious and not something that i touch, violence becomes violent. but it is picked up. if this is the way the people behave in your neighborhood, if this is what you see, if you have been the victim in your neighborhood -- talk about trauma, it is not just the people we work with, it is our workers as well. talk about care. everyone has to be very vigilant to make sure there is a system of care. but only say it,

recently have we been paying attention to our workers. it is the history that bring them to the job. it spreads, it can be contained in the same way. this is why we talk a lot interrupting transmission, learning different ways of responding. most of the violence that we see the leads to shootings and killings in chicago, it is not about gangs, necessarily. it is about tour in paul's control and decision making. a lack of opportunities, the brain not have been fully developed. fight or flight, all of these things.

all of this stuff comes into play. we look at someone who thinks they are tough, they are not so tough and we need to help them. help them figure out other ways of coping. >> you reported out, as a breaking story. you have been watching this carry out for the last couple of months. what have you been thinking? you have watched the events from the last few months, what is under mind? like to always i start with an argument, i do not understand -- steve? i do not understand the idea that it does not help to understand why.

do you just mean the victims' it does not help? to answer the question why? number one,ing to, and the fact is i think it resaw this recently in newtown. as was pointed out earlier, the search was for a diagnosis and it was actually quite destructive to those people who had children with gaspers. continue tothat we seek a diagnostic reason, you know? withar set reason motivation in part. i am not saying we should not be intrigued. it is unusual. mass murder is unusual. it grabs the attention and we want to understand. what i am suggesting is that there is a difference between trying to understand and the

driving to understand as though it would fulfil our wish to predict. distinction i was trying to make. >> from the earlier panel, of the enough i get this mostly from psychiatrists and psychologists with a push back of not wanting to diagnose, or of trying to -- well, to label with these people. label them whenever they might be. psychopath's? one of the nbc news analysts is always railing against that. but it is useful. i think we have to be careful to slap a diagnosis on, especially

if we get it wrong, that is idiotic. but if we say the person is depressed and that is why he did it, that is what a good answer, but that is usually a part of the answer. it usually plays a big factor. the two people i followed, one of them was deeply suicidally depressive. but foley played a role, into the narrative that he was a psychopath, diabolical, ready to do this horrible thing. think that the susceptibility, dependability, the mindset of the person, to understand how we could have i do not think that a

person can understand what he did without understanding his mental state. i think that to understand these on moss -- en masse, that is the only way to go about it. talking to hostage negotiators and psychologists, most of the mass shooter's tend to be deeply depressed. suicidally depressed. the bigple ask me lesson of columbine, i feel that the big unlearned lesson is we have not addressed depression. we should be treating depression because it is a horrible thing. but there is a huge motivation and public drive after these events. if we can channel maps into

something useful that happens to be relevant, great. the last part is a spurious correlation. >> all i was suggesting is that it is intriguing. detailswanting to know about something that is so horrific is part of a live wire phenomenon. i do not have a problem with that. i am cautious and i wish more of my colleagues were more cautious. think you said two separate things. we have a problem in this country because we do not designate the level of resources across multiple areas of difficulties that are well identified, not identified and ignored, or identified and ignored, there are lots of problems ensue.

the problem that i have, and many of my colleagues have problems with the idea with suggesting that the dynamic that you were just subscribing to is the motivation, the idea that we should be afraid of this dynamic is going to lead to the next columbine. that is the concern i was trying to raise. >> another piece of this, we are now kind of i and phase 2, after the story is broken, before someone has written the 10-year break -- book. there is still a lot of we do not know. as you look back on the press coverage, are you not concerned about the coverage about the trenchcoat mafia, how much was wrong, the first few months of coverage -- what kinds of lessons do you think that there are that can be useful reapplied either to sandy hook or boston?

make a narrative that journalists are constructing right now more productive to serve society and news consumers and their need to understand, move forward in a useful way? what do you think the journalistic lessons are? >> the simplest lesson is simple, avoid jumping to conclusions. we know that we will always get a lot of it wrong. that is all is going to happen. those details, as they happen, we figure it out and then figure out something was wrong. was the staying power of the conclusion. how many people think here that it was widely reported that 25 people had been killed at

columbine? who thinks that? ok, there were 15 killed. one day after columbine everyone in the country thought it was 25 because every newspaper read it -- ran with the headline. that did not have staying power. how many people here -- we have an educated audience, it might be different, but how many people think that it was largely about guns, loners, outcasts in went onchcoat mafia who a spree to revenge jocks? how many believe that? ok, you read the book. at high schools, 90% of the hands went up. most of the people still think that is true. that is the staying power. narratives and explanations have staying power. once you figure out -- i get

what is going on here -- you remember that forever. oklahoma city happened because of timothy mcveigh. 9/11 happen because of osama bin laden. those kinds of things stay in our minds. fact details? the fact that the name was mistaken on the first day, that was horrible for that kid, a problem that really screwed up his life. of long-term impact, no one is going to miss remember it. of course try to get every fact right, but there is much less lasting danger than the fact that when you connect them and draw conclusions between the reasons too soon. keep is just one thing to an open mind about. getre talking about when we

the journal out, is there an estimate of when they will release those? the report will be released in june, they say. >> those take a long time. i do not remember. did we ever get everything? we got it the next day. >> it was not all released. >> we had a report from the governor's commission. took morelumbine it than seven years. it was a court bought -- court battle all the way to the supreme court seven plus years later. it could be a long way. i do not think that this point happen here, but we were shocked. even i was shocked years later. beingofile about depressed with these different things? i got my hands on this and got a

couple of pages. are full page parts like this. i could not believe my eyes. nothing really prepared me for understanding how much love as well as anger was in the boy's heart until i saw pages and pages of this with i love you on there. get him. i know i will not ever fully get him, but i do not think that i ever got him completely until i saw this seven years out. you have got to really be open. at some point we may hear more from their parents and they will understand and have to rewrite 10% of my book. but it is never a complete story. >> kevin? >> we are coming full circle, at the beginning of the day, before you got here, we had some reporters reflecting on the first phase of coverage, when

new town was really fresh. for you and your neighbors in your city, the wounds are still super fresh and the information is still coming out, get journalists have covered the long trajectory of suffering as well as breaking news. as have been listening here you talk about some of the issues coming out, talking about your column for tomorrow, what has happened over the last few days -- where do you see journalism, boston folks in what do yous now, think about yourself and where this story needs to go for you? spent the laste week or so kind of focusing on the victims and first responders.

think that first responders are victims. particularly some of the younger reporters were very upset in my newsroom. as dirt. as old in northern ireland when on born twins, were killed by a firebomb from the ira. i found these two women, they actually walked arm in arm down the street and were killed in the blast and i knew one of the commanders of the time and he told me that their bodies were fused together. first time i ever cried on the job. after, i went day down to give blood and had to

wait for five hours, there were so many people. but then i covered one -- i was in london within like eight hours of the bombing. i have lived in london for four years and felt it was one of my homes and cared about it deeply. that was hard and all of that. this was completely different. me,difference for professionally, was that i knew someone in the first responders. they were not just my sources, they were my friends. the first night after, what do you call that? perfect -- it was so nice out, the red sox for want to walk off, the race was going on, everyone walked down and they said the only thing

missing was the little [indiscernible] a perfect day. by the way, you look like [indiscernible] did anyone ever tell you that? [laughter] in an instant it was gone. i sawi filed my column the film and i recognized some of the firefighters. over shaun o'brien diving the barriers to get to people. the firefighters who run always go down there after marathons'. is myside on the sidewalk buddy, joe. i said joe, jesus, did you finish? half a mile away? -- halfs naming people

of a mile away, they stop us. he was naming people. when sean went the first person he got to was little martin. is looking at him, but not as a firefighter. martin sat next to a the in school and was very kind to her. school, he wasin harry kind to her. he did not want to do anything that night. the next night it is funny, i was in that media's from. all of these people were coming in and out. thats reverend allen, now i think about it.

he said he had to go. on the way i called edward kelley, from ladder 17. but he is also a union guy and i knew he would get in trouble. so, eddie brings me in. want their names in the paper. the bat that was not a big deal, that i did not need them, but he said that your point to know all of them. and i did. one guy did not know, i never met him before. but it was really different. i was going around. one of them had been three combat tours in iraq and afghanistan. he was just staring off into

space. i said -- do you think you need it again? he said probably. sean is still in a tough, tough place. the engine had a connection to the family. they call the driver of a chauffeur, so the chauffeur, his daughter babysat martin. the lieutenant, his kid goes to school with the older boy, who was not hurt. kelly, who brought me into the station, his daughter is in the same irish step dance class. jamie, the daughter, lost her leg. knowing that her brother is dead, the mother was out, he picked up jamie when -- i said

you could not make this up. thisdicated that boston is small big city. i mean, like that said, two days later i was walking down newbury street, a woman in district four, they were all along the finish line. they all ran with the crowd and ran right to the victims. i saw this young -- 20 boss, older brother still plays hockey -- 20's, older brother still plays hockey, i wanted to tell her how proud i was of her. she broke down. i broke down. i did not even put that stuff in the paper. that is the difference. it is my home, number one, but it is not like boston. only one struggling with it. because you try to do your job, but really you are reliving

everything. withday night i hung out all the cops. three of them that were there, they took this kid -- brendan walsh -- they took him right out of the bow. you should see how big he is. he would run through a wall for anybody. i got some comfort. brennan was pleased with saying that it was going to be he left the bar, and he did not even have a drink. i sovereign and whisper .omething to him and i talked to eddie, is that kiddo pay? he said, he is probably just as upset about the jumper. while they are trying to get the

guy, the same people who responded, there was a guy threatening to jump from the turnpike, and they saved his life, and all the cameras recorded it because they are waiting for the bomber. seen thewould have light of day. that is what happens when you go to our rooms. you get stories. keepe answer would be to this as a community of zandt, a community tragedy, and communities the -- community community tragedy. >> i think it is important for the community to know these stories of incredible selflessness and also to know what these people were going through on a personal level.

they were not just doing their job. the other thing i find remarkable is they did not give their neighbors special treatment. they responded to strangers the same way as they responded to their neighbors. i thought the town was focused, and i have said this in media appearances. they are going to prosecute. people do not care about that. we have to heal our wounded and take care of its first responders. everybody else will take care of that. they just saw charge. i am not even thinking about him, to be honest. >> let's go to questions like where do stories like this go from assaults go from here. like this gotories

from here? anyone online? >> just a quick question. this panel is extraordinary. there are so many different events you are all connected to. -- do you seelear one clear, common thread in the way these stories have been told and have become our history? one clear thread in the way they are told now? >> i would say it is goodness. good and decency to embarrass the people who do the original atrocities. whoever in flicks' trauma at the moment has incredible power,

whether it is appointed done and where the clowns to put those bombs on foils and street. they look so but that it when you see the forces of the response so selflessly. -- so pathetic when you see the forces who respond so selflessly. jackie was talking about virginia tech and london. because youtself, are amazed at what ordinary people do in extraordinary circumstances, so i talked with the very young, 23-year-old jan kid. her act of defiance was to move back into her car -- her apartment near the bombing site. a small gesture, but that is what she could do.

she said, i have already memorized the name of martin richard, lindsay, and christine campbell. this is before they caught them. they will catch these guys eventually. i will not remember their names in five years. thought that was an extraordinary thing to say. >> i would agree. i think each of the events we are talking about they do have common themes in terms of what it means to beyond not a human being and to feel pain and loss -- to be a human being and to feel pain and loss and sadness. mess, and but you know what? why wouldn't you be? reason sometimes at

the worst of times we are at our best is when we actually realize why we are so compelled by the that toont version is often when the events are tiny or personal, we do not acknowledge it to ourselves. we did not acknowledge it to anyone else. you said you were a mess, but everyone of us in the same situation would have been just like you, and what is so extraordinary about boston and about every place we have talked about is that people came together, and they came together and were able to be human together, suffered together, and cry together, but also to pull together and find strength in each other and to move forward. >> it changes your world view.

one everyone sang sweet caroline i said, there goes one of my it sticks. schticks. >> here is something we have not mastered, where it has not just been one awful thing but one awful thing after another. think of the wars we have pulled through together on. think about the social movements of required us to come together, but on the issue of multiple forms, whether it is unusual mass killing or the daily occurrence of street violence in our neighborhoods or domestic violence that occurs across the country every day, we have not yet been able to fully mobilize all the things we have been describing about what we share and not just to swings we -- to sing sweet caroline at the game but to continue and to turn a

corner and to apply and a search are combined strengths, to pay attention to where we can find solutions and interventions. i think that is the correction for some of the right thing i would like to see. >> i have a question may be related to that. this is a difficult one, because it is about a divide on this panel, which is about perpetrators, not only whether butpeak their names or not, whose story is this? if i remember rightly, at virginia tech, there was an interesting moment when the memorial of stones was created and somebody added a 33rd stone. your paper wrote about that. i guess my question for all of to theto what extent

lives of perpetrators, and where does accountability --oulie how much does that figure in today's stories, or is there a way it does not know? focus we do this where we on victims, yet how much do we talk about the perpetrators? about how your paper work it out over time. not personally work on these stories, of but who was this young man, and i am curious what has happened with his family. there has not been a lot of reporting on that. to yale. i was thinking about that as i

was trying to prepare for today, and there are so many victims we do not even know their stories yet. i was wondering when are those people ever going to be ready to talk, but i know you have done a lot more reporting. >> if you work a lot with perpetrators and victims as well. how do you understand that issue? >> we believe people can change, and they clearly should be held accountable for their behavior, but once someone has been released from the justice system, i do not think we have work with anyone who has been part of the mental health system, so we tend to deal west for minorities, and they tend to go to the criminal who -- to minorities, and

they tend to go to the criminal justice system. we looked at them returning to the community as people who have paid their debt to society and are trying to move on. our population tends to be between 16 and 25, people involved in the criminal justice system, people who committed acts of violence, people are actively involved in a gain associated with violence. associated with violence. if they are exhibiting these kinds of criteria, we will work them them and try to help som not cross the line, so we do look at it as a behavior and something that can be changed. >> i want to get a couple more questions in. >> i came to this discussion

wearing two hats. columbia, and i have been at both sides of the table. on the anniversary of 9-11, i wrote an op-ed about how upset i was there was so little coverage of about people healing after the of venice. of people after the avenge. coverage being good for people's healing, so what do we do when people need to heal? how do we put the lights back on when people need ongoing healing? >> you have been on columbine's for a long time. how do you think of that? it is hard to do because

they are so dispersed. the longer it gets harder it is to know. it is easy to keep track of the families of the 13 dead because there are 13 of them. the 2000 students in the school, i hear from students of the term. it is anecdotal reports from of people writing to me. even when i speak to the principle, and sometimes he is not so sure. they had a private ceremony for students before, and something like 500 students came, so about a quarter of the population seems to be doing surprisingly well.

kids doing well showed up, but it is hard to know when you have a diverse population. if you have got thousands of people, who is going to tackle those people down. you can do anecdotal stories, but to try to do the old picture seems impossible. picture seemshole impossible. people do this work. maybe it is academia. >> you sent to shine light on media attention. i think when we are less afraid of recognizing we can survive moreerturt, they will be focused on healing. i think they turn away and we do not follow up.

>> let's do one more question. about have been talking newspapers as a healing fabric, and i am not getting the same sense of radio or television or other types of media are is pivotal in terms of healing, and many people are talking about the end of newspaper. what is interesting me is as a mechanism, some of the newspapers seems unique in today's panel has something that keeps people linked fed has multiple voices. --is talking with the new, within you, so i'm trying to relate this to journalism. it is not simply reporting. it is healing. it is understanding. the you have any comments on the uniqueness of newspaper versus other media? >> i think it has more function.

inkie could explain it more her town and talk about it when that you areanoke part of the community, not just coming in with people put in makeup on and attaching microphones. you live in the community, and people treat you differently, and you treat them differently. i always say i was never more accountable as a newspaper reporter than my first job at the telegram portfolio, because if i wrote something, i remember the secretary writing down, why did you write that about me? i had to deal with her. i could not just blow out of town. i think that is the difference. about localy, what television and radio? i think it comes down to

resources, and they do not have as many people. we have a terrific radio station in boston. i do not know how many reporters they have. i think it does come down to resources. when that bomb went off in boston i think we have 60 or 70 reporters on the street. that is a big difference. >> i want to write -- to invite my co-conspirator emily for any closing thoughts she may have. i promised we would land the plane on time. it has been a long trip through the first response, through victim experience, through social media, and very important questions about the impact and this in-depth look at where we may be going forward. first, thanks to everybody

who took part as a panelist. is important to examine stories and their impact and taking a part of what we do as journalists and the impact is not something we do automatically as a response to our work. something i would take away from this, to hear all sides of the story and to think about how we can make progress in terms of standards of report income on how journalists feel about the stories, is very important. icbc is the phrase several times a day about the next tragedy.

we have seen thee phrase several times about the next tragedy. we have seen several things about people being involved crops in parts of the stories we do not always examine when we are discussing them. particularly in how we deal with issues relating to mental health. i think it is important we produce standards of journalists to pay attention to. we are first responders as well. also we have responsibilities. to have everybody here at enough distance but we can get some perspective also

close enough that we can still feel wild and -- why these are important to a range of people. i thought it was interesting that 90% of the people carry these first impressions, these wrong impressions of the media gives. in journalism school where we want to learn how the kids tell stories, were those do not go away. archive thatnstant is continually published. it goes around the individual involved as well. as this unfolds, for us to carry on examining and learning from it is a valuable thing to do. have great resources for

journalists to look at and to use and hopefully will provide us with more material to compile the weekend actively helped -- we can actively help people with. thank you very much. thing, where i would close this. the events inout december, in thinking about the events in boston over the last week, thinking about columbine or shootings in chicago or new haven, thinking about virginia tech, in so many of these cases there is a legal process a goes forward, and we spend a lot of our time as reporters reporting on a legal process, and that is

for 26ut the truth is children and teachers who have been killed in an instant, or for one child or adult killed on a street or in a neighborhood, or any of these incidents, there is not really legal justice. there is not really justice for anyone losing a child, yet as journalists, we do have the opportunity and privilege of providing a kind of narrative all the journalists who are panelists today have been talking in a profound way about using techniques of storytelling and interviews, technology itself in pursuit of a kind of narrative just as fed

brings accountability to perpetrators of the honors and regents of the world understands -- that brings accountability to perpetrators and so people understand who did what and why. that helps us understand about the lives of those who were to a and it looks forward mission to make it less likely for an event like this to happen again, even though there will tragedies. it makes journalism a kind of answer to violence. have been here today. not just aitself is first response in rushing to the scene, but it is a non-violent

answer in the face of unspeakable horror. we tried to and tell stories. we did in newtown, and we will continue to do so going forward. kevin will continue to do so in in colorado and roanoke. a pushthe deeper issue, back against the horror, and i thank everyone for being a part of the conversation that eliminated five but will help our colleagues do a better job and held a conversation about this going forward, -- helped a conversation about this going

forward and also for the communities that have been built up in response. thank you all. staff and seese them and everyone at the school who helped out. let's call it a day. -- to the staff and c-span and everyone at the school who helped out. [applause] >> sees them covered all of that conference at the columbia school of journalism -- c-span covered all of that conference of the columbia school of journalism. i just want to update brian column was part of the discussion. boston globe reporting about the fbi and their investigation. here is the headline. boston marathon suspects plan fourth of july attack. dave writes that the surviving suspect told federal

investigators he and his brother in a chalet in -- they ride the surviving suspect told federal investigators if he and his brothers originally planned a fourth of july attack. the body of the suspect taemerlan has been claimed. spokesman harris says the funeral homes picked up the body today and had no more information. looking ahead to tomorrow night, and we kicked off our road to the white house 2016 coverage. we will be in south carolina covering that with vice- president joe biden. be the keynote speaker at the jefferson-jackson fund- raising dinner. also attending that will be the former south carolina governor and the minority leader in the house, jim cliburn. that gets under way at 7:30

eastern, tomorrow night, and also happening tomorrow night, a keynote address by texas senator tim crews. he will be speaking at the republican annual silver elephant fund-raising dinner. we will have all of that tomorrow night plus your phone call comments and reaction, and we have posted a link on facebook and a place for your comments. reaction. have some we are just taking a look at some of the early ones so far. karen says, i cannot even think about 2016. she says, clinton in 2016. also, we need someone not afraid to tell the truth. i will stand with chris christie. and rodet c-span.org

to the white house. president obama left the white house this afternoon after making a couple of cabinet appointments, and he headed to mexico for the first of three days of his latin american trip. he held a news conference with the mexican president. a number of topics were talked about including immigration and commerce as well. of three days. here is their news conference from earlier. it is about 50 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> his excellency, and barack obama.

we will hear from the president of the united mexican states. good afternoon, everyone. first and foremost, i would like to extend the warmest welcome to barack obama and his team. we would like to welcome them with open arms. we hope you feel at home. we appreciate your will. relationship built of mutual respect and collaboration for the benefit of our people.

before we cover the areas on behalf of the mexican people, i -- to repeat our unfortunately common and it took the lives of american citizens. me, i would like to share with audience and members areas we havehe addressed with president obama during the meeting we have just had. first of all, we have reached an agreement that the relationship between mexico and the united states should be broad in terms of what it covers.

purposed have a clear of mine to make the north american region and more productive and competitive region and now that will trigger the enormous potential that our people have and our nations have, and we are well aware of the fact that we can take stock of our bilateral relations. within the framework of the agreements, we have reached a new level of understanding. there are two u.s. administrations that began roughly at the same time in the second term of president obama and my administration. covered, items that we i can speak for how relevant trade and commerce is in the

mexico-u.s. relations. of all the agreements made about the free-trade , this represents one third, one out of each three products exported out of the u.s. and domain and no relation with mexico is higher than the one the u.s. has with countries like the u.k., france, the netherlands, all together or china and japan together. level thet reach the u.s. have with mexico. the integration of our economy is in the last years has shown

to be relative, and the content haveports sent from mexico 40% of u.s. in ". the more growth mexico shows and the more capacity to export, the more benefit the u.s. gets. jobs are created in mexico. jobs are created in the united states. one of the first agreements we have made was to create a high level dialogue that within its framework will foster trade and commerce with the united states. me wemeans for the first term

will have the mexican economic new cabinet with counterparts with various agencies from the united states as well as high ranking officials, and we have heard from the president's that in this group of vice president will participate to set a dialogue that will result in arrangements in terms of how the government and support to all the efforts made in the private sector to have a stronger economic cooperation. for this purpose, we have agreed during the fall of this year, and this high-level group will meet for the first time. to start working in the area of the economy.

agreed to endeavour joint actions to have a safer border. we will have the 21st century border that was about to be that ourn the agenda teams have already setup, and through this agenda, we will have safer borders but will enable and expedite the transit of people and goods that every day across our borders. day across our borders. we have agreed to create a binational growth to find a joint actions and joint imports into support

both our countries, and we believe this mechanism will serve as a and enable our, and it will see further development for small and -- will serve as an and a blur and will see further development, and we -- as an enabler, and we will see further development, and we will hope it will become a large enterprise, and this will favor young entrepreneurs in both our countries. agreed to boost our economy. we have agreed to create a bilateral forum on innovation and research. government who agencies will , and presidents

from mexico and u.s. universities will be part of this group. by this, more exchanges will happen between mexico and the u.s. and students coming from mexico. educationreed higher serves as a platform to compete specificallyd, when science and technology has been part of the investment. it is fundamental we have youngsters with the skills our economicgive development of greater strength and a greater capacity.

in a different arena, we have addressed security. theave both recognized level of cooperation the u.s. has shown toward the mexican government and the new strategy in the area of security in our country has a clear purpose, and is to fight organized crime. drug dealing, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, or any crime perpetrated. we are not going to renounce that possibility, and my administration is going to face crime in all of its forms, but in our new strategy, we have emphasized the side we will refuse to violence.

ere no clash between these goals. they fall within the framework of one strategy, and president obama's administration has expressed his will to cooperate on the basis of mutual respect, to be more efficient in our security strategy, that we are implementing in mexico. have shared with president obama as well. during the has done first month of my administration i have shared with president obama of mexico has reached maturity in terms of its democracy. all political forces in the country have reached political maturity, have shown to be civil, and have managed to show

respect to each other and also towards the government of mexico. together we have managed to get a working agenda that will advance the reforms that will transform the structures mexico needs to boost its development. i have shared with president obama but we recognize all political forces in mexico. i would like to share with all of you that we find it -- we fully agree that our nations and our people must move from being neighbors to being part of a community. already part of a trade integration process. we have reached high levels of development, but there is

potential for collaboration and integration of north america. we can make a more productive and more competitive region. i would like to conclude by quoting the words of former shared duringedy 51 years ago. we have shared this with president obama, but i would like to share it with all of you. president kennedy said who the president, geography has made us neighbors. now uson has made made us friends. let us not allow a gap to form.

thisis why we barraso climate we have setup-- we bow so this climate we set up will give us more growth and development and more opportunities. this goes for your delegation. you are welcome to mexico, and i hope your state is fruitful and that you enjoy your stay as well. [applause] >> thank you for your kind words and hospitality. as president-elect, you were the first leader and i welcome to the white house after the election. it was a sign of our close between our

countries. i noticed he spent time in one of our most beautiful states, maine. maine is very cold, so when i come here on a beautiful spring day, i understand why you came back home. i want to thank you for your hospitality. i look forward to joining you and the first lady this evening, and i want to thank all the people of mexico for such a warm welcome. it is always a pleasure to visit. between our, countries and now we are some 430 million people. tens of millions of mexican americans enrich our national life in the united states. well over 1 million mexican -- americans live in mexico. every year millions of tourists visit this wonderful country.

every day millions of workers in our country earn a living by trade, and more than 1 million cross our shared border. business people, students, educators, scientists, researchers, collaborating in every sphere of human endeavor. mexico and the united states have one of the most dynamic relationships of any country on earth. we do not always hear about all aspects of these extraordinary ties, because too often two issues get attention, security and immigration. these are serious challenges. discussed them in depth today. i have agreed to continue close cooperation on security, even as the nature will of balls. it is up to the mexican people

to determine their security structures and how it engages with other nations, including the united states. the main point i made to the president is we support of focus on reducing violence, and we look forward to promoting our cooperation in any way the mexican government deems appropriate. i have reaffirmed our commitment to make our -- to meet our responsibilities, to reduce the demand for illegal drugs and to combat the flow of cash and helped fuel violence. i want to commend the people of mexico who made extraordinary sacrifices and displayed great courage and resolve every day, but even as we continue to deal with these urgent challenges, we cannot lose sight of the relationship between our peoples, including the promise

of economic progress. i believe we have a historic opportunity to foster more trade and more jobs on both sides of the border, and that is the focus of my visit. the united states in mexico have one of the largest economic relationships in the world. our trade has cost $500 billion. customer,r largest buying the vast majority of mexican exports. mexico is the second-largest market for u.s. exports. every day our company and workers are building products together, and this is a strong foundation and we can build on. i want to commend the mexican people for the ambitious reforms you have now embarked on, to make your institutions more , and i know it is hard, but it is also necessary.

ultimately mexico can decide how they reform. as mexico works to become more affected you have a strong partner in the united states. -- more effective, you have a strong partner in the united states. we are creating a high level of dialogue. vice president biden will participate as well, and we will focus on increasing connections between our businesses and workers, and promoting innovation and making our economy is even more competitive. we also reaffirmed our goal of concluding negotiations on the partnership this year. this would be a major step in andgrating our economies integrating us to compete in the

asia-pacific region. we want to sell more goods from mexico and the united states, and if we are partnering, we can do better. we agreed to make our shared border even more efficient so it is faster and cheaper to trade and do business together. we reaffirm our commitment to clean energy that allows us to enhance energy security and combat climate change. i am pleased we have agreed to exchanges between our students and schools and universities. we want more mexicans studying in the united states, and we want more american student studying here in mexico, and we are going to focus on science and technology and engineering and math to help our young people, including our daughters, to succeed in this global economy. i affected -- i updated the

president to pass immigration reform that lives up to our reputation as a nation of immigrants. i think it is important to remember our shared border is more secure than it has been in years. illegal immigration is near the lowest in decades. legal immigration continues to make our country more competitive spirit of this makes economic progress and greater opportunities here in mexico. i am optimistic we are finally going to get comprehensive immigration reform passed. i will have more to say about this and other issues tomorrow, but for now i want to express my gratitude to the president for his hospitality and also for your leadership, and given the progress we are seeing in mexico, i see so many

opportunities to continue to deepen the extraordinary friendship and common bond we share between our nations and our great peoples. i know we will do that. thank you very much. >> we will have a round of four questions. the president of mexico, we that there is no speculation on the priority topics to be included in your agenda. have pointed out, the group will overcome the results of the fight these nations have on the issue of security.

a seems to be trade is now priority. given your expertise, what is your take on the new administration in terms of reforms. u.s. government seeing this reform as part of the administration or a path? thank you. -- a pact. much.nk you very we have relaunched our relationship, and we have agreed on a climate with which we are going to work on. redefined our priorities. want to grow and include different areas.

especially emphasized the trade relations potential between mexico and the u.s.. have shared our view on that topic to work towards reducing violence. -- combating , and there ise's a wide range of priorities we have identified now in the area of trade and commerce. market that a receives and exports. destination,cond and the united states ranks first. we need to identify the areas

where we can supplement production of goods and exports of goods from mexico to the --ld, because this house this has a high content of u.s. income. if mexico does well, creating more labor and its capability to export more products, the u.s. will benefit. that is why the high-level meeting foresees the participation of officials that our cabinet. the u.s. has not a tradition of a cavernous, but president obama has decided that high-level officials will participate, including the u.s. vice- president. they will be part of this group

but will define specific inions and have been done the private sector, and we have seen a good flow between trade between our countries. there is no doubt even when it has reached a certain level, we can push it forward. we can expand its capabilities if both of our governments identify the right mechanism, the right formula to boost economic integration, and that is the agreement we have reached today. think it is natural our new administration here in mexico is looking carefully at how it is going to approach what has been a serious problem, and we are very much looking forward to cooperating in any way we can to

battle organized crime as anticipate there is going to be strong cooperation, but on our side of the border we have continued work to do to reduce demand and try to stem the flow of guns and cash from north to south. that willpartnership continue. i faint non-residents -- i think pineto is anesto -- vote looking at a way to address those. we respect mexico has to deal with its problems internally, and we have to deal with ours as well. with respect to the president's we have a wonderful

relationship with the previous generation. if the republicans and not president replaces me there is still going to be great bond between mexico and the united states not just because of geography but friendship and our interactions, but what i have been impressed with is the president's boldness and his reform agenda. he is tackling big issues, and that is what the times demand. we live in the world that is changing rapidly, and in the united states and mexico, we cannot be caught flatfooted as the world advances. we have to make sure our young people are the best educated in the world, and that means some of the old ways of educating our kids might not work. we have to make sure we are on the forefront of science and technology.

we have to make sure our economies are competitive and then when it comes to energy we are addressing things like climate change and that it is creating jobs and businesses on both sides of the border. the i appreciate is president's willingness to take on hard issues, because i think there is a tendency tuesday elected as opposed to trying to make sure we use our time as well as we can run to bring about the kinds of changes but will help move the country forward. >> thank you, mr. president reagan administration officials say the u.s. is more seriously considering sending weapons to

the syrian rebels. how has your thinking about the effectiveness of golf as the violence continued, and the uc lethal aid -- effectiveness of golf as the violence continued violencence evolved as continued. concerned an effort to bolster border security triggers may make a pop way to citizenship almost impossible to many people in the u.s. illegally? >> what secretary hegel said today is what i have been saying for months. we are continually working to and the best way to find

political transition that ends the killing and allows the syrian people to determine their own destiny. investments, not just in humanitarian aid, but in helping the opposition organize it felt. to make sure it has a consistent vision about how it is operating. as we have seen evidence of further bloodshed, the potential use of chemical weapons inside syria, what i have said is we will look at all options. we know that there are countries that are providing legal aid to the opposition. -- lethal aid to the opposition. we know the assad regime is getting legal aid from countries outside of syria. we want to make sure every step we take advances the day when assad is gone and you have people inside of syria who are able to determine their own destiny rather than engage in a long, bloody sectarian war. we will continue to evaluate that. as i mentioned in my press conference back in dc --d.c.,

we want to look before we leap. we'll continue to evaluate that. but as i mentioned at the press conference back in d.c., we want to make sure we look before we leap and what we're doing is helpful as opposed to making the situation more deadly or more complex. with respect to immigration reform, i expressed to president pena nieto that i'm optimistic about getting this done because it is the right thing to do. we've seen leaders for both parties that it is time to get comprehensive immigration done. part of what we discussed is the importance of getting it done precisely because we do so much

business between the two countries for us to constantly bog down on these border issues and debates instead of moving forward with a 21st century board their is maintaining security and that is making sure legal immigration and legal trade and commerce is facilitated. at the same time, ensures that we're not seeing a lot of illegal traffic and allows us to continue to be a nation of immigrants that has contributed so much to the wealth and prosperity of our nation. if we're going to get it done now is the time to do it. the bill that senator rubio and others put forward, i think is a great place to start. it doesn't contain everything i want. i suspect that the final

legislation will not contain everything i want. it won't contain everything that republican leaders want either. but if we can get a basic framework that secures our border, building on the extraordinary success we've lready had and the cooperation we've had with the mexican government and cracking down on the people who are not taking the law seriously and what streamlines and enhances the legal immigration system. the legal immigration system sometimes forces peel into the illegal immigration system. if it has those elements then we should be able to build on that. we can have arguments about other elements of this as we go further, but that is the core of what we need.

frankly, we put enormous resources into border security. don't take my word for it, you had senator mccain and senator graham come down to the border to see where progress has been made. there are still more areas that there is still work to be done. some of it is not securing the united states from illegal traffic, some of it is improving the infrastructure, which we talked about for commerce to come in smoothly, which creates jobs and helps our businesses both in the united states and in mexico. what i'm not going to do is go along with something where we're looking for an excuse not to do it as opposed to do it. i think if all sides operate on aith that can be accomplished.

>> on that matter, allow me to note that the mexican government acknowledges the efforts made by the leadership made by president barack obama and your congress to eventually pass the immigration bill. mexico understands this is a domestic affair for the u.s.. we wish you the best in this push you are giving to immigration. that is what i have to say for the reform. thank you. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, mr. president. i would like to ask you both specifically what would be the most important outcome of president obama's visit to exico?

i would like to ask as well if you have considered the possibilities to scale up the mexico-u.s. relationship and integrate the region further? it could lead to a national strategy in terms of fighting organized crime. hank you for your answers. >> mucho gracias. thank you. in order to conclude this meeting, i would like to say that we have revitalized our relations between two governments that have two new administrations. the second term for president obama and a new administration or mexico.

the climate in which we are strengthening our relations is based on a relation in space, respect, cooperation, collaboration, and all areas we share a common interest. we will not target the relation in one specific area. we want to address multiple ssues. define all the potential areas that could help us advance our agenda. we have emphasized trade and ommerce during this visit. we have made a thorough analysis and analyzed trade flows and how to complement each other.

it we truly want to become more protective and more competitive in the north american region, that is what we need to do forced to compete with others in the world. here are the highlights and specifically the agreements made to grade a high level dialogue of a bilateral forum to expand to academic exchanges and work toward science and innovation for both countries. lso, we will have a national dialogue to foster -- there are mechanisms that will help us protect further the economic and trade relations to mexico has ith the united states.

i must insist, let me say this learly -- in security, the channels will be very clear. we will use one single channel in order to attain better results and we have reached a very good understanding with the u.s. government. they know what we are emphasizing this strategy. president obama has expressed his respect to the strategy that the mexican government defines in the area of security and has shown his ability to cooperate

with us and have a peaceful mexico. >> i think president peña nieto summed it up well. let me give you an example, which is the work that our countries are doing. our largest trading partner is canada and our second largest trading partner is mexico. north america has become far more integrated economically than it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago. there are suppliers from mexico who sell to u.s. companies that in turn sell back into mexico or sell to canada or around the world. their jobs are created in mexico and in the united states. all the economies have grown as a consequence of the work that has taken place together.

as i said, the world is changing. the fastest-growing part of the world is a asian-pacific egion. by us working closely together to upgrade and revamp our trade relationship, we are also in a position to project outward and start selling more goods and services around the world. that means more jobs and more businesses that are successful in mexico and in the united states. some of that will be bilateral. finding ways that we can reduce trade frictions, improving transportation and infrastructure, how we can improve our clean energy cooperation, you have a situation in which energy that

is creating power plant in california sometimes is soldiering non-peak times into mexico -- is sold during on-peak times into mexico. it makes it more efficient on both sides of the border. that reduces costs for consumers on both sides. those are the kinds of areas that we continue to refine and improve upon. that is what this high level dialogue will accomplish. even as we are improving our bilateral conversations, we are aligned in projecting both to he pacific and atlantic in saying, let's make sure that we are taking advantage of all all of the economic opportunities around the world. when the u.s. does well, mexico does well. when mexico does all, the u.s. does well. that is what i want to make sure we are focused on.

when economy is is growing, when people have opportunities, then a lot of other problems are solved or least we have the resources to solve. that is something we want to make sure we are focused on during the rest of my term in office and the rest of president peña nieto's term in office. >> kathleen of the los angeles times. >> thank you. mr. president, i want to ask about a domestic issue. the fda rule on the morning after pill came out this week. it prohibits girls under 15 from under -- from buying the orning-after pill. i wonder if it resolves some of the concerns you expressed last year about your role as a father

and if you believe there is scientific evidence to justify the 15-year-old cut off. and for president peña nieto, i want to ask you about the president's most recent attempt to pass new legislation on gun control that did not pass in the senate. i'm wondering if you talked about this in your meeting and if you have urged him to try again. do you think there is more you could do without approval form congress? thank you. >> this is a decision that was made by the fda. not my decision to make. the first time around are there was no age restrictions, secretary sibelius expressed concerns and i supported those oncerns.

i gave voice to them back in a ress room back in d.c. i -- the role that has been put forward by the fda secretary sibelius has shown choose comfortable with it. i'm very comfortable with contraception. it is important that women have control over their healthcare choices and when they are starting a family. that is their decision to make. we want to make sure they have access to contraception. we have a little bit of a fuss around what we're doing with the affordable care act. but i think that is the right thing to do. the current ruling, you phrase it as prohibiting, but i phrase it as they are now allowing contraception to be sold over-the-counter for

15-year-olds and older. it does not resolve the question of girls younger than 15. there was a court case that came up that is being appealed by the justice department that is a justice department decision. my understanding is part of it has to do with the president and the way in which the judge handled that case. my suspicion is that the fda may now be called upon to make further decisions about whether there is sufficient scientific evidence for girls younger than 15. that is the fda's decision to make. that is secretary sibeliuss ecision to review. i know you do not direct the question to me, that i do want to editorialize this for second on guns.

i think all of your mexican counterpart understand and as i spoke with president peña nieto, we recognize we have obligations when it comes to guns that are often times being shifted down south and contribute into iolence in mexico. but frankly, what i am most moved by the victims of gun violence in mexico and back ome. i said the day the legislation that was proposed, the date it failed to get 60 votes, that was not the end, but the beginning. it took 6, 7, 8 tries to get that. things happen somewhat slowly in washington. this is only the first round.

when you have got 90% of the american people supporting the initiative that we put forward n background checks and making sure that they cannot just send someone with a clean record to buy a gun on their behalf, when have commonsense legislation like that but the overwhelming majority of americans, including gun owners, those of us who strongly support the second amendment, i believe we will eventually get that done. will keep trying. i do not mean to horn in on president peña nieto's response, but i want to be clear that we will keep at it. i am persistent.

>> i believe that we have an agreement with president obama's words. what mexico would like to see happening in the u.s. is better control of the sales of weapons. we cannot ignore the efforts made by president obama and his administration in order to approve better control of weapons. 90% are in favor of gun control. his is a domestic issue in the u.s. in terms of the areas that we are working in collaboration, areas that we can address, [no -- it addresses a spot in the u.s. could be brought to mexico.

many lives of mexicans have been lost to that. guns bought in the united states have reached mexican soil. we are working on our commitment to working together towards aking our borders safer. we will keep on supporting you to have better gun control in your country. we are not going to wait until hat happens. we are working to gather more intelligence information and we are taking action to have safer borders so that we do not have weapons of being smuggled into

mexico that end up hurting many mexicans. >> thank you, everyone. >> mucho gracias. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the presidential conference held here in mexico city earlier today. this is the president's first trip to latin america since winning his re-election. the president's trip for the remainder of the next couple of days looks like this. he'll be in mexico city tomorrow speaking with students then off to san jose to talk to central american leaders and they are upposed to focus on economic cooperation as well as other issues. you may have heard him reference

the immigration debate on capitol hill and the immigration legislation. the tioned senator rubio senator from florida. one of the things he writes about is the need to improve the border security pro visions in bill. provisions in the it will be published tomorrow. he writes for those who suggested that the border security is not stropping enough will have a chance to strengthen them. for those who express concern about giving the government too much power, we have a chance to make clear exactly how the executive branch enforces immigration law and what the consequences are if it doesn't. at is the writing of marco rubio, one of the supporters of

the immigration bill. cretary defense hagel held a press conference today as well. among the topics that was talked about was arming the syria rebels, which the president addressed in his news conference. the news conference from the entagon is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. secretary hammond and i just completed a productive session regarding our country's common interests. i would like to thank you secretary hammond for the u.k.'s strong partnership and his

friendship. in march, i met with the u.k. combined chief conference. at that meeting that was recreated as a gath aring of the military leadership during world war ii. revolved around our continued partnership. our history of being allied in common interest and common values continues to strength the rip of our two militaries. the discussion we've had today, which we'll continue this evening, reflect our shared sire to deepen our defense cooperation. i discussed with secretary hammond my travels to the middle ast, including iran and syria.

i expressed gratitude of british forces in afghanistan. i would also like to express my deepest condolences to the people of the united kingdoms for the three british soldiers killed this week. as the transition to afghan security control continues, the united kingdom will continue to play an important role to help field strong afghan forces. as we emerge from more than a decade of war and shared sacrifice, our discussions focused on preparing this alliance for the future. yesterday, secretary hammond had the opportunity to visit the naval air station to observe ongoing testing of the strike fighter. the united kingdom's commitment to this program and our growing

cooperation in new priority areas like cyber is helping to sure this alliance has the cutting-edge capabilities needed for the future. over the past few weeks, the u.s. and u.k. also comment rated the 50th anniversary of the agreement. it has been the cornerstone of the shared cooperation. i congratulate secretary hammond on the royal navy's steadfast of its maintenance of the nuclear forces and the continuing around the clock patrols. i strongly support the united kingdom's decision to maintain independent strategic deterrence. strong alliances are becoming more critical. more critical because both the united states and the united kingdom face the challenge of meeting global threats in a new

era of constraints resources. as our department under goes management review here. secretary ham demand and i discussed the united kingdom's strategy to rebalance its forces. the d.o.d. has gained useful insights from their experiences and our staff coordinates closely on defense planning and strategy. we will continue to work closely together to ensure the nato alliance has the capabilities needed for future, which will be a focus in the meeting in brussels where we will both attend. i look forward to seeing secretary hammond there and continue our discussion today and again tonight as how we continue to build an effective working partnership around the world. again, thank you, secretary hammond, and welcome. >> thank you very much.

i'm delighted to be here this afternoon. i would like to thank secretary hagel for his warm welcome. you know, i enjoyed a close relationship with his predecessor and i'm delighted that we can pick up with where we left off with secretary panetta. we have had discussions about the challenges we face, focused on afghanistan, syria, and iran. on afghanistan, despite the tragic news that three british fatalities occurred yesterday, we remain determined to see threw our task of preventing afghanistan once again from being a safe haven for international terrorists. the events of the last few days has shown us that both our militaries continue to take risks these carry out their dangerous tasks there. but the mission remains on track and the increasingly capability

afghan forces lead on providing security for nearly 90% of the 80%an population and nearly of all operations. their capability will continue to grow as our forces draw down toward the conclusion of the combat mission by the end of next year. on safe yarks we reaffirmed the shared view that the regime must stop the violence and the slaughter of its own people and ecognize it is no longer the legitimate -- of the syrian eople. assad and can have no future in the syria. we're stepping up our national coalition and reminding the regime that nothing has been taken off the table in light of the continued bloodshed.

we remain concerned of the use of chemical weapons an we demand to the syria allows u.n. investigate these conditions. we will hold assad to -- him and anyone else to account who is held responsible for the use of chemical weapons. as we face after these security challenges and those post by iran, we face significant budget constraints, both in london and washington. we have addressed reform on how we can get more bang for our buck on both sides of the atlantic. we also need to look at how we can encourage our partner countries within nato to reform their forces to take on more of the security challenge with more effective and dip employeeable forces.

the u.k. and the u.s. enjoy cooperation but we've agreed to explore on more what we can do in our armed forces. yesterday, as secretary hagel has commented already, i went to the naval station and saw one of the fruits of our collaboration. there was a british pilot flying i'm delighted about the progress we're making in this project and in others such as the common missile compartment for our next generation of nuclear armed ballistic submarines. the u.k. and the u.s. remain locked in step with these forces and as we go forward we'll continue those vital capabilities. the british/american relationship is strong and far

reaching. it will remain the bedrock of britain's defense policy and continue to be at the heart of our special relationship for decades to come. secretary hagel, i look forward to work with you to maintain and strengthen the relationship in the coming months and years. thank you. >> secretary hagel, if you could be as comprehensive as possible here. now that we know the white house is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels in syria, why are you in agreement with that fresh look at rearming the rebels since general dempsey, your top military advisor has said he's skeptical about that? my second question, why have you since the eher gent of the chemical weapons intelligence stepped up or put new intensity

of looking at what might be done in syria and the bottom line for both of you gentlemen, mr. hammond you said all options are on the table but there is excepttism about that. why should anyone believe any of this is political window dressing by both governments? it seems no indication that either government is going to exercise any option. >> well, first as to your question regarding rethinking options. >> rethinking arming the rebels, sir. >> that's an option. that's an option. i think secretary hammond framed it clearly when he talked about what is the objective for both our countries? stopping the violence, stability in the region, and transitioning

-- helping be part of transitioning syria to a democracy. any country, any power, any international coalition, partnership, is going to look at options, how best to accomplish those objectives. this is not a static situation. a lot of players are involved. so we must continue to look at options and present those contingencieson a with the focus we all have in the international community to achieve the objectives the best way we can. we're constantly evaluating. i think the president noted it a couple of days ago in his press conference talking about rethinking options. of course we do. >> but you are rethinking -- the administration is rethinking

arming the rebels? >> yes. >> why? what has changed in your mind d does this put at odds with the u.s. military dempsey when he says it is not a good idea in his view? >> you rethink all options, it doesn't mean you do or will. these are options that must be onsidered with partners. considered with the international community, what ask possible, what can help accomplish these objectives? we have a responsibility and germ dempsey will say the same thing to evaluate options. it doesn't mean that the president has decided on anything. >> are you in favor of arming the rebels now? >> i'm in favor of exploring options and seeing what is the best option with our international partnerships?

>> have you come to a conclusion? >> no. >> after all these weeks you have no conclusion -- >> about what we would use? >> you said you were rethinking arming the rebels you have no opinion about arming the rebels? >> these are not static situations. you must always look at different options based on the reality on the ground, based on what you want to achieve, based on the future, based on our international partners. we talked about this, secretary ham demand and i, we talked out options, with -- we talked about relationships. -- syria.ir

>> i want to repeat everything secretary hagel said. i agree with what he said. this is not a static situation, it is a rapidly changing situation. we kept our options open. we have not thus far provided arms to the remember bells. the word that has not come out so far is legality. both of our nations will only do what we legally can do, certainly in our case, for the u.k. we have been subject to an e.u. ban on supplying weapons to the rebels. we'll look at that situation when the ban expires in a few weeks time. we will continue to keep that situation under review. we will do what we are able to do within the bounds of legality and we regard that is very important. >> how confident are you that

the assad regime can control these chemical weapons? and how confident are you that the u.s. and the u.k. knows where the weapons are? if a red line has been crossed, what will the military's reaction be or is it going to be a brorder attempt to change the strategic equation in syria and overthrow the assad regime? >> thank you for that. i think the evidence we've seen is that he is largely in control of his chemical weapons. that is not the same as saying that we are able to acount for every last unit of chemical stocks. there is no evidence that the regime has lost control of significant chemical weapons sites yet. in terms of the location of

weapons, i think we have a great deal of knowledge of location of chemical weapons. that is not the same as saying i can put my hand on my heart and saying i know where every last item is. in terms of any possible response i wouldn't want to close off any options. it follows on from the answer to the previous question. we should keep our range of options open and under continuous consideration. we should look at the range of options that would be appropriate and legal in any given situation. >> if the regime has only used chemical weapons tacticically and on a small scale, would you onsider it legal and proportional to arm the rebels in her words to over --

order to overthrow the regime? >> i would expect to have legal advice from the attorney general o see if action is legal and proportionate and if legal action prevailed. we need to keep our options as oard as possible in the bounds of legality. >> another question on syria secretary hammond i welcome your comments as well. in order to establish chain of custody the international community will likely to wait for another attack to gain the right kind of evidence. is that correct? and evidence trails collected by both countries degraded over time? >> i think the point i made this morning was the fact that we ave set out our intention to

establish evidence of the nature and caliber that would be acceptable in a court of law. it sends a clear message to the regime that any use of chemical weapons to the future, which by definition generates the potential to collect that evidence has a price. i hope we're sending a message that will have a deterrent effect. i'm not a technical expert but i don't think you have to be to know that after any use of chemical agents there will be a degree investigation over time of the evidence that can be collected and from the point of view of constructing a chain of custody about evidence, clearly the longer period of the use of such an agent and the point you acquire the sample the less strong that chain of custody will be. >> so you will attack?

>> if there is future use of chemical agents that would generate new opportunities for us to accomplish a clear evidence of use to a legal standard of evidence. >> secretary hagel, are you confident that the evidence you have you will be able to work with that or do you need a new attack? >> so i think secretary hammond said it exactly right. i really would not add much to what he said. i will say again to what the secretary already noted. there is a legal issue here as well. that's why evidence is so critically important here. >> [unintelligible] >> you need the evidence if you're going to exercise certain

options, arrange of those options that evidence is particularly important. >> if i could add something from a u.k. perspective. u.k. public opinion remembers the evidence that we were presented with in 2003 around iraq, which turned out to not be valid. there is a strong view that we have to have very clear, very high quality evidence before we make plans and act on that evidence. >> two questions, if i may one of syria and one on afghanistan. on syria to both of you. when you are looking at these samples, are britain and america working with the same source material or separate samples? the white house said in a conference call that the britain is having its own investigation. are you looking at the same

material or different material? on afghanistan, mr. hammond, the prime minister said the other day that the british encourage afghan interpreters to stay in the country. are we sending mixed messages to working in le afghanistan? >> i can't comment on the evidence or the sources of intelligence that we're looking at for obvious reasons. ut we are working in close collaboration to establish a robust analysis. interpreters.n of we may be sending a mixed message through what is written in the media but that is not our intings. i think it is clear that we will not abandon those who have

served us in afghanistan. we're also clear to the extent that tease people have an important contribution to make to the future of afghanistan, educated people, by definition english-speaking people. it is our wish, if we can to construct an offer to them, which attracts them to stay in afghanistan and be part of afghanistan's future. it is clearly the wish of the afghan government to see as many of these people as possible make their future in afghanistan. we think that it sends an important message to the future of afghanistan that we're allowing these people to build a future in afghanistan rather than abandoning the country. >> as to your question regarding intelligence pursuits. each country, certainly the united states, uses its own

intelligence agencies and institutions and makes its own efforts. we also collaborate. in this case, with the united kingdom and other allies to share intelligence, so it is both. > thank you very much. >> just a reminder if you missed any of the news conference it is available to you any time in our video library at c-span.org. well, tomorrow morning on "washington journal" with the april jobs numbers coming out we'll talk a why americans are leaving the labor force in record numbers. our guest is "wall street journey" reporter. then el we'll hear from author of "who stole the american

dream?" that's washington journal live tomorrow morning and every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. live coverage on c-span2 we're back at the institute for company investments and their annual conference. first to hear from the new mary jo white. then the chairman of the finance committee. they will be speak to the group as well at 10:30. we'll have that live on c-span2. our road to the white house 2016 coverage gets way under way tomorrow. joe biden is speaking. he is the keynote speaker. other speakers there include a congressman and former south

carolina governor. also tomorrow night, ted cruz, the senator from texas will be speaking at the silver elephant fund-raising dinner. we'll have that tomorrow night as well. all of that starting at 7:30 eastern. they are already writing about 2014. here's an article from the ashington post" the headline ys biden ponders a 2016 bid, but a promotion -- this is what he writes. here's what you can expect to go down. bide will stoke speculation that he wants to run for president in 2016 by pressing the flesh in the first in the south primary state. he will show himself to be on a first-name basis with local politicians and county advocates. they will gush over his

attributes as the state chairman put it "we're tickled pink to have him." we'll open up our phone lines to get your thoughts. already thoughts will are being posted on our facebook page. just the posting alone gets different reaction. dustin says no, not already. howard says what does it matter? john saying no way. we'll have that tomorrow night 7:30, vice president joe biden and texas senator ted cruz. coming up next from earlier today in washington the commander of the raid that killed osama bin laden is now special operation commander for the army, air force, navy, and marines held a discussion about the future of special operations.

it included a pentagon reporter and from the state department the person who oversees their operations in pakistan and afghanistan. it was held at the wilson center rom earlier today. >> i would like to thank the wilson center. i don't have prepared remark. what i did want to do is talk a special operations and give you who we are and where we're going. >> this is 6,000 force so seals, rangers, special operators, and

the rest are kind of support personnel, they are essential to our mission. but the u.s. special operation command came into existance in 1987 as a failed raid to rescue our hostages. congress enacted law to bring special operation command. we're very unique. we have service-like responsibilities. i have the requirement to man, train, and equip a force. i also have other responsibilities. meaning i have a responsibility to build strategies and employ those forces with the support of the commanders. qualities. ique

i was asked how do i deal to get with money from my services? congress was smart when they set us up, they gave us a bumming. so with there force of about 66,000 recognizing half of those are tactical folks, we deploy about 11,000 folks around the world at any point of time. let's talk about the average operator. i think there is a belief that they are all young killers that have no respect for -- pick something. the reality of the matter is, the average officer is 34 years old. the average enlisted man are 28. they are married with two kids on average. that is important. you have a sense of your responsibility by 28, you have life experience by the time you're 28.

if you have kids you know how to run an organization and you know how to deal with problems. that is not a small point when you compare us to some of the ther forces. also, what we found, we took a survey of about 900 special operations folks. not surprisingly, just about all of them played some sort of sport. what was surprising was the intersection of a sport and the game of chess. the preponderant of the folks that we interviewed played chess, and this is exactly the kind of guy or gal we are looking for, somebody who is the athlete and a thinker. that has been consistent as we have built our sof community . one of the things that people think about with special operations, "zero dark thirty,"or the have seen another movie, the reality is, the counter-terrorism peace, the action piece of what we do, is a small part of our portfolio.

what is the more important part of what we do is building partner capacity, our day-to-day interaction with our allies or partners around the globe. that kind of leads me into where we are going. i talked about the fact that the law, in 1987, enacted u.s. socom, and told me and my predecessors to build a strategy to put that strategy in place, but you have to have a foundation from which to develop that foundation. for us that was the secretary of defense's strategic guidance that was given out by leon panetta in january 2012. that became the foundation for which i am trying to develop the special operations vision. in that strategy the secretary said, in addition to the pivot to asia, he talked about the fact family with the forces that are light, agile, responsive, that our network and partnered.

these are core competencies of our u.s. special operations command. in that light, what i'm trying to do is enhance the global operation network. we have had operatives around the world for decades. now we have the ability through technology to be able to knit this capability together. i am going to walk you through how this enhancement is going to work. within the military construct, the way we command and control forces is through the geographic combat commanders. all of you know we take central command has a point of departure. central demand currently commanded by lloyd austin, one of the great commanders in the military, has a responsibility for iraq, afghanistan, those areas in central command. every commander has a geographic responsibility. you have central command, pacific command, european, frican, etc.

each of those geographic commanders have theater special operations command. each has a subordinate command that is responsible for the pecial operations peace. historically, the u.s. special operations command has had no institutional relationship with those peter special operations command. while they were sof folks, we did not provide them much money, did not provide much guidance, did not equip them. at the end of the day, they were kind of on their own to be able to support the geographical commander. my predecessor twice removed, and general brown, began to put some money into the theater operations command. when i was the commander of the special operations forces in europe, i was a beneficiary of that money. it was great to have some money coming into the sof.

this really becomes a natural extension, which is now, as of several months ago, secretary panetta, before he departed, signed a document that puts those operation commands under my combat command, still reporting to the geographic combat commander. the reason i am giving you military 101 is because this framework is important to nderstand. i do not command and control anything from u.s. special operations command. my mission is to provide the right talent, the right capability to those dear special operation commands so that they, in fact, can support the geographic combat commanders. as special operations command, i have a functional responsibility hat is global. by having that, i can look into what has happened in central command and see the relationships between central command and african command, african command and southern command, southern command, pacific command.

i can begin to put these pieces together because now i have an institutional relationship with those beer special operations command. each one of those works for the geographic combat commander. they also have subordinate command. as you are thinking through this, you have to think of a network. you can think of it just like any other network. you have notes, and from that you have branches. the geographic and then commander has some support command. tsoc also has special liaison officers. case in point, special operations europe has a special forces army green beret colonel who is in turkey. he is married to a turkish woman, speaks the language fluently, and his ability to get our message across to the turks and vice versa, for them to engage with us, have built that trust factor, and that is crucial.

we were talking about the value therust. this vision is to chae vision about who we are as special operations forces. everybody has seen the movie -- and that is important -- but at the end of the day, it is about building capacity so that nations can do with their own problems so that we can help them deal with their own problems, but you cannot get there unless you begin to build the trust factor. as we put people out in his various countries, and we are in 78 countries around the world, we have people that speak the language, that are culturally attuned. it is a small footprint so you do not have a large force and forcing itself upon the country. we work hand in hand with the u.s. mission, embassy there. i will state this for the record as much as i can. we do nothing that does not have the approval of the chief of mission, the ambassador

there. these are two important concepts. buildgo forward to partner capacity, to build the trust and that work, it is all done in concert with the country team and embassy. you begin to see how the number of bills. peter special operations command, they have subordinate command, liaison officers that come out from that in various places. we also have a great relationship with our partners. i would like to give you one been yet -- vignette. the nato sof coordination center was built in 1996. we built on this early in 2007. at the time, there were 18 people in the nato sof coordination center. obviously, not very effective. there were 300 sof operators in

afghanistan at the time. aday, there are 220 folks in nato sof headquarters, 2200 nato sof operator downrange conducting one of the most important operations in afghanistan. it was a way of looking into our allies. we had a common standard for planning, training, operations. those allies went forward to afghanistan and did a mission, that we'd then did not have to do. part of our vision is helping them build the capabilities. it is about smart power, as president clinton once said. the ability to have smart power down range is the ability to leverage the work of your partners. as you begin to look at this,

the allies and our partners for us are the injured agencies. operationscial command, i have every agency from the cia, fbi, nsa, defense intelligence agency -- if there are three letters, sometimes four -- i have a person there. reciprocalad a agreement with us. myave somebody in headquarters at tampa. you have to be able to translate the language of a particular culture within the agency. you have to be able to have those liaison be representative of you and of the head of those organizations. when i have read issue, i am able to reach over to my liaison officer and they can help work out problems that might have occurred as a result of something we are trying to do around the world. that is incredibly important to

us. that network is vital to your success. but we also have liaison officers with industry, academia, colonel davidson was mentioned earlier. he is here at the wilson center. we put some of our brightest academic institutions so we know what the best and brightest are thinking about. we recognize not all the best ideas about the military come from within the military. we are trying to see what it undermines think about what you're doing and how we can incorporate that back into our business. to put all this together, we have a robust communications architecture. many years ago we recognized that, for us to do business, we have to be able to video teleconference. that sounds pretty routine today but i can tell you, -- jane was referring to stanley

mcchrystal. when he came to joint special operations forces command, we would conduct teleconferences, and maybe 50% of them would work. frankly, most people did not want to do video teleconferences. they did not want to be bothered by having to do face- to-face discussions. stan quickly said,, you are either going to be a zealot or a martyr, but we are going to do video teleconferences. but that allow us to do was then, from general mcchrystal down to the youngest operator, he could pass commanders in 10, and he could hear without operator was doing and thinking. thethen we pass across entire network. understanding that network, having communications across the network, having business rules in place so that everyone knew what their roles and

responsibilities were, that was crucial. that is how that organization that stan mcchrystal built was so effective. now what we're trying to do was enhance the special operation that provide you the same thing. how do i push communication's debt to every liaison officer i have at every embassy, every operator i have in the field. we are doing that. let me talk now about our challenges. probably the biggest challenge i have are supporting our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families. these servicemen and women have been in this fight for 12 years. in my organization, everybody who wears a special forces bad for a sealed bag, some sort of operator, has been in hard combat some time in the last 12 years. most of those young men and women will full-time ton range. that has taken a toll on them, it has taken a toll on their

families. i came in right after the vietnam war. candidly, as a nation we did not do a good job of taking care of our vietnam vets and their families. we are not going to make the mistake this time around. i will make sure that we take care of the mind, body, and spirit of the soldiers and their families. my predecessor put together what he called the pressure on the force task force. he sent chaplains and subject matter experts out, for 10 months, and interviewed about 7000 service members, 1000 lives, and 10 months later, they came back and that report landed on my desk the day i took command. he had appropriately characterized the force at the time and said the force is afraid. we were not falling apart at the seams, but we were frayed. since i've had command, the fray has accelerated. we are working to get ahead of

that. some of this is building up physical fitness capabilities so that the guys, before they go overseas, while they are there, and when they come back, are prepared to do the job for them and their families. the second challenge is the fiscal environment we are in. i can tell you, no one in my organization believes, as we go forward, the u.s. special operations command will not have to participate and potentially be taxed as a result of the sequestration and need to move forward on the budget. we are working with the secretary of defense and joint chiefs of staff what their return on investment is, and we can make a good argument, but make no mistake, the budget will affect us directly, or as it affects the services, it will affect us. we do not do anything that does not have a service component to it. this is something that is

frequently misunderstood. one of our principal principles within special operation is we do not do anything without service support. force have an air platform, or maybe it is a navy submarine watching the seals, or an army brigade providing route clearance packages. wedo not do anything where do not get support from the services and injured agencies. finally, let me address what i think are some misperceptions out there. what makes special operations forces could? you tend to read the books and see the movies, and i think there is a belief out there sometimes that we, as sof operators, are cavalier about the way we operate, that there is a certain swagger, and that extends into how we do business. that is about as far from the

truth as it comes. we follow rules. the reason we do is because those rules have been written in blood. if you want to be good, you better be disciplined. you better follow the rules and be trustworthy. the first time you violate that trust with one of your counterparts, whether an ally for partner or general-purpose force, the first time you violate that trust is the last time they will work with you. trust is vitally important to us. we are held to a high standard. we make mistakes. like anyone else we are human but we are trying to establish as high a standard for us as sof operators. if any of you things that you can be cavalier and unprofessional and get the job done, you are wrong. we are supporting the policy of the united states. with that, i will stop and turn it back over to you, jane. [applause]

>> introductions of our friends here? we will introduce linda robinson, an old friend. linda robinson is a senior policy analyst at rand, senior adjunct fellow, council of foreign relations, public policy scholar here at the wilton center. council of foreign relations just published a report, the future a special operations

forces, which is something we have heard about today. her part of special operations forces "100 victories, special operations forces" be published in the fall. formally of the print press, like me. we also have dan feldman, one of two deputies to be commander in afghanistan and pakistan, served as a partner at a law firm. previous government experience includes serving on the national security council with the clinton administration. also served on the u.s. senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. now we start the panel discussion. you how happy i am that i can actually start here.

word is that you want to create an empire. [laughter] withyou want to do more training and intelligence gathering in liaison work. that you want to get around the normal pentagon deployment cycles. and also from the state department. >> you start with an easy one, don't you? entire is more for the panel as well. i wonder if all of what you're trying to do, are we over militarizing foreign policy? the issues that came up, a forum like we have here. especially the aggressive intelligence special operations command is able to do this toause the state department

often sits inside the embassy and doesn't get out in the field to deal with locals. >> the state department is out and about all over the place. jane talked about the heroes summit that we had not too long ago, one of the points i raised, i said let me tell you andt the heroes, the guys gals that spend their life serving this nation as ambassadors. every day. people don't appreciate this. when you are an ambassador, as soon as he stepped let out of the embassy, your life as a little bit at risk. as you're moving from point a to point b in a helicopter, part of the convoy, or out reach to the

people, you are at rest. americans have been doing this their whole career. many believe that they are sheltered is not the case at all in my experience. withe been blessed to work magnificent state department folks down to the foot soldiers on the ground. as far as militarizing foreign policy, i would take some umbrage to that in what we do is support foreign policy. unfortunately, sometimes we're the only tool available, you reach for it and you will get a certain result. dothe end of the day, we with the u.s. ambassador and policy makers want us to do. in terms of building an empire, part of what i tried to do is provide capabilities. if somebody asks, why are you

doing this? what is the value? the value to u.s. special operations command is that i have the special operations forces and if they perform well, and they demand a signal, the requirement for special operations forces is better understood and easier to defend my budget. and they do great work for the american people. i amat is empire building, guilty as charged. >> what don't they understand? >> military services don't have a problem with us. we started hanting the goal of the sof network and there were some misunderstandings with the commanders. once they understood it was not my intent to move their forces around and they talked to other commanders that had the

advantage of special operations forces in their area, they very quickly said, this is a great deal and you ought to support it. we quickly got over that period the services, i don't think they have a problem metal. >> the state department and congress? >> this is part of what i have to do to be able to articulate appropriately to my state counterparts what we are attempting to provide them. and get over some of the misperceptions, the miss characterizations of who we are. do point i raise is that we nothing that doesn't have the approval of the chief commission. some people are informed by movies and books and believe that is the way we operate and it is just the opposite. for me to do anything requires us to go through the joint staff

and get approval. we moved down range, they have to approve that as well. this is a delineated process that puts us in position. >> what about your fellow colleagues and your former colleagues? do they misperceive this? there were reports that they thought it was moving too fast to get around normal deployment orders from the pentagon. what happened up there? ure who may exactly si have complained, but they echo something that you may have heard from the pentagon. turf a great motivator, protection. it may have more to do with that. have that at the wilson center, we're trying to break down the silos and the

horizontal structure, which is was referringal to in the 80's. he combined and leveraged all the services. that is what intelligence reform was intended to do as well. this works perfectly, but it is working better. in response to your question --ack as i see it, question, as i see it, we need to do a better job of explaining what we do. persuade the kid not to strap on a suicide best. he has to see better options and we have to project our values better. especially this rule of law. drone policy is still at work in progress.

i strongly favor. major roleon has a to play in a strategy that also diplomacy surge in and development. those are part of our power that can maybe when more hearts and bill mcrae and's teams in the middle of the night. -- mcraven's teams in the middle of the night. theou have more bands than foreign service and usaid has become a contract in agency. think people will even know what it is. it is long gone. onrather than focus potential differences, the real

story is the unprecedented workedin which diplomats side by side in the military. and in support of a common vision and our policies. and working collectively, we helped insure that we bring to so in.s. power and we do a very coordinated manner. to your initial question about itt we do in afghanistan, has meant quadrupling the number of civilians that we have in the field. we are starting to come down a trueat, but it was government effort where there were nine or 10 different agencies to quadruple the number of agriculture experts and a range of others. but they were often doing it not just from the safety of the embassy, but increasingly in the

field. havet the height, we diplomats and development individuals operating on platforms throughout afghanistan. from there directly , but we arevice very much out in the fray. in the course of doing so, we have truly impact for results. again, in partnership with the military on life expectancy and the capacity of the afghan government. on any number of issues, we worked together to make sure. afghanistan, i sat down a couple years ago with a marine colonel who told me, if this had been a civilian search, i would have seen it. there were not enough people

helping him and there were some early intrepid folks, but they were saying that there weren't enough. book, littlehis america, he talks about the bundles and afghanistan. outdatedk that is an story. diplomats and development workers operate on different time lines. standard operating procedures are different. but at the end of the day, we were there in complete partnership. i think you will hear that from people throughout the country. in are operating significant conflict territory. will you have recurring issues on capacity? corruption?

it means not every dollar is as well spent as you want it. we come before congress on a weekly basis to try to make sure it is utilized as best as possible. it does not mean we are not out there. in linda robinson out. -- now. a point of this broader topic, i think it is support -- important for congress to support the budget to that you have capable partners on the ground. i spent much of the last two years following this special operations initiative. i witnessed a very valiant young civilians and some not so young on the ground level. those areint out, very expeditionary minded and

fearless people. the regional security officer often restrict their movements. that is a force protection issue meant for their safety, but it can really impede this one team on the ground. and stovepipess between state aid and the military that people have to address. as far as the issue about whether special operations forces at large -- i think that the big change coming is a shift from the emphasis on counter- terrorism of the last decade, meaning strike and unilateral trade operations the building partner capacity. the question is getting better at it. for was the report i wrote the council and i think that is what the admiral is looking at doing. i would highlight that there are

very important personnel development initiatives. it is all about having sophisticated leaders that can bring together those interagency teams and craft the strategies. >> walk us through the bullet points. >> i don't believe it is on the an independent report. but a number of the interview subjects stressed that because they do not have control of its personnel, they belong to the services. it would be beneficial for congress to consider changing the legislature and granting management of personnel so that those individuals can be developed throughout their career in partnership with what the leadership thinks they need to do. that is the key recommendation there.

the other issue i would like to raise, there is tremendous growth at socom. but the policy shop has remained the same in terms of size and has been given responsibility is that have nothing to do with special operations. because everyone recognizes a special operations are a much bigger part of a national security issues, it needs to be looked at as well. >> i have talked to people that say that staff has grown enormously over the years and might be too bloated. activities that don't necessarily optimize the forces, especially since they not only give it to a new focus, but they also have to get much better at it. it includes addressing these concerns and the trust deficit issue.

they are not about coming in the middle of the night and killing a bunch of people. she has some great point here. first, the policy shop. the secretary of defense for special operations has been a fantastic partner in dealing with the end special u.s. operations command. focusing on the key issue has been invaluable to me. only a professional relationship, it is a great personal relationship. we are not growing it to the appropriate level where they are starting to come up. the other piece on the working of the talent management, having control of the personnel. the report is exactly right. i don't control the promotions

for the army and navy and marine corps officers. factored about the trust earlier and i will tell you with all of the service chiefs, and some of them that i have spent more time with and then my wife, we have a great relationship. he has been very supportive as has the chief of staff of the airport. these are great relationships that allow me some maneuver bringing the soft issues forward. will buildat how we the capability, we are working shoulder to shoulder with them. on, iing before we move want to set the record straight on capitol hill. we get fabulous support from capitol hill. there are elements of that the questions of the things we do and i am ok with that. it is their responsibility and they need to do that.

if i can't appropriately articulate what we're trying to do, maybe is not the right thing to do. i trust their experience and i trust them as lawmakers. in the senate armed services committee, we have had incredible sports. be element inays any organization that don't fully support us, and i think that is okay. my staff has an obligation to engage with them early, often, enter their questions. i am happy to do that. where weortable with are. we have had promotion rates higher than the average rate for the services. i don't disagree about making sure that is clear. prepared toe i am do that right now because as she

knows, it would require another large investment in staff to be able to manage and promote all of our officers in the special operations community. the services is probably a better approach to take. future. the >> would you recommend changes? really would not. and i have learned how hard it is to change structure. i think having a good leader builds trust relationships with other people without upsetting rice bowls. peace seems to me

a very good forward plan. congressman adam smith from washington state which is the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee came here a couple weeks ago talking about this. the worldn around with special operations folks, observing what we do. his point was that building partner capacity, maybe this is having a whole- government approach and featuring smart power over hard power. but building partner capacity with other governments. where we build trust with other governments, i would say is at least a question to how we are doing in afghanistan. trust, wewe build have a better chance of succeeding.

tremendous kudos to her because she has been raising this issue for many years. the special operations committee will listen to linda robinson. they listened to her, i listened to them and i listened to her. the focus on why security forces are important and why we have to build a special persons capability, all the work she has done is why i am moving this initiative forward. when you listen to what she has to say at the power of the arguments, it is hard argue. about specialalk operations forces in the 2020. one of the problems over the last number of years is how you train forces in countries that may be the leadership might be somewhat unsavory.

have prevented trading troops here because the government was overthrown. el salvador was one where you had a lot of criticism. walk me through how you move ahead on this issue. i know that you have civilian masters, but talk a little bit about that. the argument could be made that it is good for us to be with a country like that because you build those personal relationships. current general running the show might be an unsavory character. it is beneficial knowing that country for the united states as well. >> what we have found with the working the diplomatic tops, they are less likely do nefarious things or act

badly. that is a with a unit little bit questionable, we can talk about civilian control for the military. we can talk about human rights. we don't just to teach them to shoot, move, and communicate. we teach them about what we think are universal values. and that is a very important part of our engagement. we do this in full concert with the country came at the embassy. when we propose we will work with a particular unit, they will tell us whether or not it is a good unit to work with. again, there has been some mischaracterization.

the last thing we want to do is to be operating in and training with those that have committed gross human life -- human rights violations. staff and state department and others have to approve the process. sometimes the process is a little slow. i am perfectly comfortable with the law. that is determined to be appropriate, we move forward and we start the basics. relationships are very important. if the country starts to fall, we have insight into what happens. >> i think it is very important that people who don't misinterpret my argument that it is a panacea and can be used everywhere.

out there in el salvador working out there in the field. i think congress played an important role. of human rights concerns in that case, very serious problems. but the u.s. stuck with it and you wound up with a partner helping part of the coalition as part of an extraordinary evolution. to a specialked forces guys over the years that said it worked in our favor almost under the radar. , weid not have huge bases were in their training these guys and it worked out better in the end. >> i think there is an inverse relationship between the size of

our footprint and the size of our effectiveness. columbia is the other case where i have seen it and it was a decade long where it has worked. i think it would be a mistake and a lot of people skeptical about it. to deform orry is too severe, the partnership is the wave of the future. >> may be trading some unsavory characters or countries some argue we should not be involved with. is there attention about the approach? overm not trying to gloss differences but i come from a human rights background ended trading in indonesia and elsewhere. prophesies can be made better. exist, fact that they

there is a joint vision about what we can do, i think that is exactly what we are doing in there is very good agreement. always come to engagement with an restraint. within those constraints, that engagement is always going to pay dividends. you see with a sort of type of engagement that we have to keep expectations realistic. sometimes it is a hard case to make because if you look at the best examples, this was a decade-long process. going to happen overnight. andcan start that process

your greatest source of success. sense thanmake more what we have seen now? >> i think so. the strategy did not fit afghanistan well. i had an argument with my good friend about this. i thought afghanistan resembled vietnam more than a iraq. intelligent people tried to make the best decisions and surely the stuff they did there was impressive. what will we leave behind? it makes a point that is not really about our capability, but their capability. you have to have a willing partner, and there is a question whether our partner has always been willing to do the things that would lead afghanistan to become a stable and unified country.

we have had an uphill has made athe u.s. mighty effort in afghanistan. and all of those that have been involved should be given our robust thanks at the families of those that lost their lives. model be ather better fit in hindsight as opposed to what we have? or should we have gone and low- end long? >> i think time will tell. i am reluctant to make that assessment at this point in time and we will be a little while to determine whether or not the strategy put in place was successful but i think it is moving in the right direction. i am reluctant to make that assessment. >> he is my college classmate. dan for the whole

government role here. alecky to address what we have been talking about, the former defense secretary talking about fully funding the state department. we talked about the size of the military compared to the state department. if you don't fully fund the state department, by any more ammunition. ammunition.re >> i concur with that. i was struck in the opening remarks that house similarly we have tried on the diplomatic development front to mirror the things that we have way out. enhancing the civilian power, the number one thing as you go secretary clinton initiated.

and working very much under the authority. doething we have tried to from the outset of the office when mr. holbrooke first came was leading a diplomatic culture and the efforts. 50 other countries named similar ones and we have continued to convene them with the real emphasis not only on traditional partners, but a third of those from muslim-majority countries and have been very important in the communications messaging. something that the muslim world has joined us on and has also been very helpful in terms of continuing to build the

sustainability after 2014. and to use this network to for the annual support and the international for development assistance to afghanistan out through 2015. significant sums that came out of our effort to match and partner on the military effort with a diplomatic one. several significant conference is the last few years, the istanbul process. it was the neighbors taking ownership of what will happen over the long term. we were not sure it would be held again. it was twice more with the deputy secretary representatives.

and next year, china will host it. and obviously, what we have sought to do in terms of the integrated surges, trying to move forward on a reconciliation process is the best chance for a long-term sustainability. and all of this while we have been negotiating the partnership aboutent, so as you talk the partnership agency and on the international stage, how you tried the source that, it was seen as a template for this fluid and nimble approach to diplomacy. to have senior representatives representing the secretary and others sit in our office at the state department, reporting to the special representatives

along with academics was a very similar approach, and one that we have derived a great benefit from. benefits of this model, the obstacles we will face of the ingetary fraught, we are sync on this. it represents a new way of tonking about our approach twenty first century problems. have a challenge ahead of you because there is funding for foreign aid, assistance to afghanistan, it will be more of the challenge then what the admiral is facing. yourwould halfway take committee at some point over hours in terms of where they stand.

is ansly, there exhaustion with afghanistan and a concern with domestic priorities. it is a hard argument to make, and especially as we enter into this critical 18 months, the , we willt transition continue to bring them. >> john kerry has three decades of experience, most likely as the senior democrat on the foreign relations committee. he is enormously popular and respected on both sides of the aisle. the public has foreign-policy at 3% for what they care about. isy think foreign aid budget

but of our federal budget, it is not. , but is a built-in bias think john kerry has been a magnificent secretary of state so far. and we can get congress's attention in a way that will be helpful. >> i think it is time for questions now. fire away. and identify yourself and where you're from. >> i am from cnn and i have a question for all panelists in regards to syria. with the the new allegations of chemical weaponry used, how do you see the future of these operations and the potential intervention of the u.s. and its

allies? theou can go back to smaller footprint approach, is that a potential plan dealing with syria? footprint approach, would that have been a better plan dealing with afghanistan? and how will that be used with syria if at all. >> syria, again, is in the central command's area of operation. responsibility is to provide special operations forces as he builds a military plan. syria is a very complex problem. libya.not leav the staff and others have been

looking at this very closely. we have contingencies and plans to provide the president when they are required. i won't go into details today, but if asked, he will be able to provide more. >> the special representative for afghanistan, -- >> i think u.s. boots on the ground in any format, whether big or small, it is an unlikely outcome. i think the issue the government is wrestling with is whether to provide arms. president, my guess, is that he will make that decision in the near term.

>> the gentleman back here with the military bearing. >> major bailey from the marine corps. where do you see the biggest growth opportunities before force integration and cooperation? and what obstacles do you see? obstacles,see any but i see a lot of opportunities. we have great relationships with all the service chiefs. as they begin to look hard at how they will shape the force in the future and support the president, we are talking almost daily. i had a lengthy discussion of the marinesout special operations forces and moving forward. we were having a great dialogue about how we will partner with

the army. these are natural linkages for us. our support has always been out there. there are a lot of opportunities. now that we are drawing down, we will have the capacity to be able to support them in greater numbers. have a fast ball? >> i heard a lot of special about howfume counterinsurgency has been taken over by one definition of the term. could you explain the difference between the two as you would apply to afghanistan and how it might play out? >> it sounds like a thesis and i

am not sure i can answer that in the time we have allotted. but there are always differences among the folks. i am not sure the term is as important as the application of the strategy. i will defer to the expert on this, linda robinson. >> i know you know a lot of this, but the doctrine is a very complicated what and people don't know the term about for an internal defense because i think it makes a good counterpoint as it has been used and understood. timers usedthe old- to call counterinsurgency, but it is all about supporting the counterinsurgency effort of that country. that is the model that is coming

to the foreign out and people should take a look at. whatever name you want to put on that. others say security force assistance. but the point is that you are not in the league, you are supporting them. they are the ones pulling the trigger and shooting in an ideal situation. >> i am from yemen and my question is to admiral mcraven. allies being able to take care of their problems, do you mean governments by partners and allies? of you deal with the dilemma seen overnments are notas legitimate by their own local population?

what are your alternatives? local social fabric is so delicate that engaging might do more harm than good. fastat was the kind of pitch i am looking for. >> you did a good job of characterizing the complex world that we live in. that is why requires someone that has had years of experience to understand how to engage. let me walk you through the process. we won't engage with any government that the state department doesn't begin to say this is an appropriate thing to do for u.s. policy. any thought that we are out there and gaging with governments that have not been approved by the state department does not happen. policymakers make a decision on whether or not to engage. i don't make a judgment on the

value of the various governments. our job is to carry out policy. once the decision has been made, that is where we come in. a straightere, it is military plan. if the decision is made for us to engage, then we build the plant and presented to the state department and we move forward. but it is not my place to decide whether or not we are going to engage. that is the decision of the policy-makers. >> we have a state department official that can help address that. unsavoryve an government, some people say, why are we dealing with a certain country? with the samet premise that the decision is obviously a very complex one and

comes out of agencies and a number of things that will go into it. become quite successful with is a range of different ways to build capacity. example,cular obviously there has been a huge effort to combat corruption. we hope to create the major crimes task force which was initially with our support and with law enforcement personnel from the fbi and other agencies to mentor professionals and create a resident law enforcement community in afghanistan. ministries weh can work with most effectively. we have a series of oversight mechanisms that have greatly increased to ensure that we try to do that effectively.

that weed to make sure are meeting our goals. once we have the actual decision, there is a variety of models at our disposal in terms of how we can implement that. the decision first has to be made in terms of where we see value. >> how was the anti-corruption effort working for you at afghanistan? >> nobody is going to be pollyannas about what we can actually achieve. but it doesn't mean that we can't try and we have to make an effort to do it. be solely on will the arms of the afghans to continue to carry. thank you for a wonderful discussion today. given president obama stripped

to mexico, thinking about the last six years where we have had such tremendous security cooperation, including the u.s. military and special operations forces between the united states and mexico, we have been seeing articles about how the current administration in mexico might be drawing back from some of that cooperation, the willingness to cooperate with the united states. i am wondering if you could comment on that or talk a bit about your expectations and how you see that affecting special operations forces for the military or in general, efforts with mexico. a nuns will sound like satisfying answer, but i wait to see what the policy makers want us to do. primarily on issue the stateside.

the western hemisphere, they are the folks that engage with the mexican government. and that will have to decide what the engagement looks like with mexico. once that is decided, i will move forward to support it. again, there is a misperception that we are off on our own, developing policy, working with countries, and that is as far from the truth as it can be. there is a strict and disciplined process before forces get put down range anywhere. it is a very careful vetting. >> we have extremely well- regarded de mexico institute and wellness center.

here and in mexico and latin i choose contribution, to see this change as positive and not as nrhsyibr. i-- as negative. part of that change for us in this country a couple of states .ave decriminalizing marijuana that it could be pressed the demand for drugs and different strategies could work better. i don't choose to see it as being thrown out, i think the change in strategy might work better.

the economy is thriving and growing faster than ours. to start theing is dialogue about change to change mexico and the had advantages of close collaboration. i see a course correction in the approach to the drug issue. >> thank you. in tandem with the developments you outlined above the growth and future of special operations, there are those the darker in the and intelligence community where since 9-11 there has been a rambling of of paramilitary capabilities, and to steal thoseg down.

some of them may be transferred into your purview. can you talk about the interface between your command and operations and parallel functions and have been going on that cannot be discussed? >> i am not going to talk about the future of the cia. the special relationship with the intel communities since 9-11 is remarkable. i think the american people would be pleased to see the relationship with all of these agencies, but in particular the intel community. when you look at the average anything, we do not do without the support of the agency.

they will provide geo support. all of those come together. they are all with us in this incredible organization that leverage as the power over every one of those elements. we are not part of the intel community, but we live off the work they do, and it is amazing. , if i didoned earlier not realize this was the anniversary, but now she has raised this point, i have said it before, but it is always worth repeating, if you look of the mind of this and work the cia did and others to find bin laden, it will go down as one of the great operations in the

history of intelligence organizations, and rightfully so. the work that they do every day for the good of our country is just incredible, so my hat's off to them. getting back to the question, it is a great relationship, and i look forward to strengthening that as we go forward. am a foreign service officer. i am very glad to hear of your great respect for the team. we have been talking about a foot print. the foot print looks huge. you have more people in command and we do. oversightivilian presumes we have been of

civilians to oversee the military. that is a comment i would like to make. the other. point is wee other have surged civilians. we beggared our other agencies where we have 10% staff deficit during those surges, and this raises serious problems for me as a foreign service officer and for our profession. i would like to make that comment. >> the comment is a good one. i do have tremendous respect for those deployed downrange. in terms of oversight, one team can provide oversight for a small platoon of seals or special forces. it does not require one for one oversight. now in some cases it is one or two people.

in afghanistan is 9000. when i talk about the fact we have 11,000 people at any given time, they are mostly in afghanistan, but when you look at other parts of the country, they are very small numbers. i do not think we have ever had a problem of civilian oversight of the assault force in the country. i am all about growing the foreign service. for all about more money the state department for all the reasons tom raised. this is an incredible enablers for the country. anytime we can have those diplomatic relationships, that is money for us in the bank as a nation. anne is now in egypt, having

served before that in pakistan and before that in a couple of latin countries, and she is in harm's way, with small women adding value. tough women. >> thank you for the interesting panel. i want to ask about the relationship between direct action and a broader counter- terrorism strategy. congressmanormer raised about earlier. on the day of the second anniversary in which osama bin laden was killed, i think we are in a different environment. everybody agrees. i am not privy to intelligence information, but what i have seen is they are on the verge of strategic defeat, not capable of catastrophic attacks like 9-

11. askle are starting to questions about what the next phase of counter-terrorism strategy looks like. there were comments made this last fall where j. johnson described that we are approaching a tipping. tipping point in which our military assets must be preserved as a last resort and that our diplomatic intelligence and law enforcement must be front and center along with our partner nations in combating terrorism. i want to ask whether you agree with those remarks and how we can make sure our activities, which are operational activities, do not become a substitute for a broader strategic approach. >> i absolutely agree with dave

johnson. i think he did a great job of framing thend -- way ahead for us. now combating terrorism means how we partner, how we build a partner capacity. how do we help countries? we can buy down extremism, and they can deal with terrorism at almost the law enforcement level so it does not become global. it is about getting a head of the threat so i do not have to use direct action. inought to be proceeding terms of the future of special operations and combating terrorism, but i agree wholeheartedly with j. johnson. >> i know time is running out, but it is time to review the authorization, which has been

the underpinning of most of the actions president bush and president obama have taken across the world in response to post-911 threats. it was passed by congress. i was there. i voted for it. to respond to those who attacked us, no one thought this would happen 12 years later. there are members of congress who want to review this. the republican ranking member of the foreign relations committee, and i think it is time to know whether it needs to be modified, repealed, replaced, or whatever, to frame a new narrative going forward. >> let's try to get a couple of questions. >> in response to that and one or two questions as well.

we are recognizing the robustness of this process of when to engage in the types of deliberations that go into that, and it all comes down to what you would expect and what our interests are. afghanistan itke is the clearest case in trying to dismantle outside of. quaeda. it is during much in our interest. when we were able to put it in firm ground and restart some of these groups, the first one we had was law enforcement and counter-terrorism to talk about specifics in proposals of legislation and some of these things, and in terms of the capacity, as we have a drawdown, we have to be moving from isbilization efforts to what

more sustainable over term. >> one more, sir. >> there is a robust debate about the small footprint. there are inherent risks of a small footprint. in benghazi we saw a terrible e.ss of lif we were not in this situation, with a small footprint be a debate? i want to know if it is driven economically. if you could address out, i would appreciate it. >> it is not driven by economics. a small footprint is where it is appropriate. special operations are not a panacea for everyone, and there

are times when a small footprint would not be able to do the job. as we move forward, the time for a small krugman and as a better strategic choice are probably growing, but it is not a function of economics. the cost of a small footprint is pretty small. within the department of defense my budget is pretty small, and even if we take some cuts, and i think we will be doubled to provide this capability. >> we are out of time. i thank the panel. admiral, and not do not be a stranger. -- adderall, and do not be a stranger. admiral, do not be a

stranger. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> up next, and lloyd blankfein, ceo of goldman sachs, talks about the u.s. economy, federal reserve monetary policy, and the european financial crisis. ofn an event on casualties sense. later a conference with president obama and the next -- the mexican presidents kenyan

o. >>. -- pena niet the number of people applying for unemployment is lower. we talk with the wall street journal reporter, been councilman. now and smith joins us. his most recent book is "who stole the american dream? we will also take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. >> mrs. grant was also interesting. they had an extraordinary roller-coaster existence. for most of their lives, he was

regarded as an abject failure, unable to provide for its family common and an end in almost no time, suddenly he was the most popular man in the country, the man who would save the union on the battlefield, and then president of the united states. >> to leo loved her time in the white house. she said it was like a bright and beautiful dream, the most wonderful time in my life government -- in my life, so i think that gives you an idea of how much she enjoyed being first lady and how her husband had finally received the recognition he deserved. >> on c-span and c-span 3, also on c-span radio and 6. next, remarks on financial

regulations and the state of the economy. by the sponsored investment institute. ♪ [applause] >> thanks very much. as we get started, i would first like to start by vacating very much george and his team from jpmorgan for a wonderful lunch. can you please join me in a round of applause. thank you very much, jpmorgan. i would also like to recognize all members of the committee. they did a fabulous job of helping to put this together. i would like to ask him to stand, but i would like the .taff to to stand as well

can we please join them in a ?ound of applause outstanding work. thank you very much. before i bring paul to engage in a wide range discussion about the financial market and all things with lloyd blankfein, i would like to spend a moment recognizing stevens. his inspiring leadership, all the things he has done to further our duty to shareholders is nothing short of breathtaking. nobody writes a better collector. nobody gives a better interview. we are going to be funding the news cast program in the future, and we will be taking orders later, but i want to have you guys give an especially warm

welcome to paul stevenson and thank him for all the things he has done for our industry. come on out. [applause] >> we have to get a chairman who stays on script. thank you 3 much, ted, and thank you to one and all. i guess i am going to have to keep doing these interviews until i get them right. we were really delighted when we are accepted the invitation to attend this meeting. now he has held the top job since june of 2006, and that means he has led a storied financial firm through perhaps the most difficult period in its history. gives aal presence

unique window to markets all around the world, and loyd looks out of that through the prism of his own remarkable career. he hails from brooklyn. he won a scholarship from harvard at the tender age of 16. he continued his studies at harvard law school, followed by a stint practicing law in new york city. in 1981 he applied for a position in goldman sachs, and like so many able and talented people before him, he was turned down. luck was on his side. he took a job at a trading firm, which almost immediately was acquired by goldman sachs. at lunch he said, as far as goldman is concerned, i am an acquired taste. now she obviously rose through

the ranks. in 2004 he was named president held on anpost he when his predecessor hank paulson was named secretary of the treasury. there are no doubt many factors in his success, but his experience of the trading desk in his ability to maintain risk must be among those. one of his colleagues said, he is a risk taker but a very disciplined one. please join me in a particularly warm welcome for lloyd blankfein. [applause] >> thank you for that. >> it was reflecting on the

luncheon and remarking at his expression of gratitude to jpmorgan for sponsoring the lunch. gentlercts a kinder, wall street as they would sponsor a lunch for the head of goldman sachs. but know it is a big group, nobody tell jamie i am eating his lunch. .e gets very upset we will rely on the honors system. >> let's talk about the u.s. economy. it is a good place to start, because the picture is pretty makes. on the one hand we have seen some improvements. that is reflected in the equity market's recent performance. in addition, unemployment is high. the housing market shows some

sign of recovery. durable goods orders have been increasing. has weakened.wth lots of people have stopped looking for jobs, and consumer confidence numbers have been shaky. what is your sense of where the market is today and what are your expectations for tomorrow? >> i do not think i am going to break new ground. think the recovery is established, and not without risk. i think they have been doing sensible things to take the risks of the table, but i think we are going the right direction. i can explain anything that has happened, but if you gave me these circumstances the u.s. is living with now, so housing the energyom,

position, the deleveraging that would take place, the amount of cash on the sidelines, i would say this would be a terrific environment, and i would project a much higher growth rates. i can say we get some hindsight. i would say, it was such a big trauma. there is a lot of uncertainty, but it is hard to explain. if you laid out the circumstances, i would say trajectory growth would be higher, and i think people are nervous about taking risks. there is huge sellout about getting things wrong. nobody is boring to invest in their own business. does that mean people think they cannot get a return out of their own business?

it seems unlikely, but about is where we are today. markets are not science. they are social science. these things can change, but there are a lot of problems that are dogging us. the u.s. does better than models through. >> i do not know if you saw the piece in the wall street journal. he is the chairman, and he talked about uncertainty, many of the uncertainties of policy. the subscribe to that point of view? >> yes, but i do not remember a time when i could not say that. i would say we came through a traumatic time, but a lot of that has receded. i think we are in a place where

a few steps the circumstances i would say, this looks like none other times when things were stronger. other times did not have the history and the reticence or the fear and desire is the of making a mistake, which seems to bee more vindictive of anyone who makes a mistake. i think there is much more reticence, and we see that across the board. look at private equity markets. some funding markets that have been rising. not a lot of stuff is getting done. optimistic, using the price should be higher, and the other person does not want to pay for those risks. i think there is uncertainty, but i do not think more than

others i have grown into, but the recent history is what is getting everyone nervous. >> there are a lot of aftershocks. >> that is one way to look at it. >> let's talk about monetary policy. unprecedented chapter, supplying the markets with an unprecedented amount of liquidity through an extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy. as you know, not only are short- term rates hovering above zero, but the fed in the third or fourth, depending on how you count it, a program of howtitative easing, affective do you think the fed policy has been? are there other alternatives we ought to be looking at? a dual mandate.

you pledge you are going to accomplish both of those mandates in the proportion you think the economy has its needs. >> it is kind of zen exercises a. >> there is real activity that gets done. did you go and look at its, and you say, what are you most afraid of? if i were in charge of the economy, what would i be most afraid of? i would be worried about the economy sliding back. we are in a bit of a deflationary mind-set. i just talked about the lack of activity and not withstanding. this means you get up every day, and you have something you might want to do. i will look for it to get cheaper. somehow it will get better tomorrow, and you say, i will wait for tomorrow, and you strain it together if you are

japan. inflation is insidious, but you wake up every day. i will get something done before it gets more expensive. think end of today, i there is a risk of inflation. there is a risk of inflation, and i would say maybe the balance is shifting where there is a higher risk of inflation in the long term, but the consequences are so much more severe and the playbook for inflation, so if i were in charge of the tools the state were in charge of, i would be doing it, too. i would also say, when are the other guy's going to kick in? however affective they were yesterday, the return to those policies are diminishing as you do the same thing more and more. what is the value of taking

mortgage is down another three basis points? what you really need is fiscal policy to kick in, and the chances of getting that kind of consensus to legislate are slight. >> i know you are a student of history. do you look at as comparable that are actually involved that kind of deflation that you think is inappropriate fear today? >> thinking about it, we are looking at inflation everywhere, because we grew up in an inflationary time. >> we never saw true inflation. >> when you started working in inflation.and a big double digit inflation with double-digit unemployment, so you can imagine, but the lesson

passed on from my parents, and who grew up in the depression, they would not spend a dime ever because they grew up with the deflation of the discussion. the depression. theirs was the opposite. from aossible, we come time when you cannot contemplate it is anything other than the fed's job to shield us from inevitable inflation that will result from self indulgent policies. my parents were always preparing themselves. they were not going out and buying assets items whenever they could. they were holding onto their money and savings accounts. sentiment changes, and sometimes you do not remember what you used to think. it took world war ii to get us out of the cycle.

>> it took a big can see in spain -- keynsian spin. the otherd of parallels. the late 1970's is a parallel. the 1994 time when we got accustomed to low interest rates for a long time and a shocking and very large over a intereste hike in rates even though you think it might be expected really was stunning and had a major affect on portfolios at that time, and you want to think about what to worry about if you did not have enough. >> as if we did not have enough to worry about. a large portion of this meeting has been focused on international issues, and i know you and your firm followed developments closely.

i would like to turn your attention away from the united states. you had the opportunity to meet with policy makers across both countries. what is your sense of developments in europe? have they turned a corner in the eurozone crisis, or are we in another rule for another storm and seven -- another lull before the storm? >> i think the eurozone situation is going to be problematic. it is very difficult, and that might be their biggest problem, the governance model, not necessarily the policies but the inability to adapt to change. the big problem in europe is growth. how do you achieve a growth rate by having an interest rate policy appropriate for germany and spain?

who would have thought spain and germany could have the same exchange rate for 15 years, but they do. situation, onelt thing i can impart, the willingness of europeans, including germans, who have to pay a lot of bills, who actually continue to pay those bills to the experiment, which is politically motivated, the that isal will to do abou absolute. we say the germans will never go along with this. they are not going to pay for that.

other than the fact you try to keep moral hazard out seven are not going to the brink, i am convinced the support for making europe work, i think it is very strong in these places where people talk to you. people can be cynical about a lot of things, but they talk in terms of nobody wanted to repeat the 20th-century in europe. it is a real political requirement, and people should suspend their faculty about whether they will keep going along with the sacrifices that are necessary. think the question, at what point do they lose the capacity to do it? itwhat point did you get that even if germany is willing to write the text, they cannot, or even if they can, and the world can tolerate a situation

where unemployment in spain is .o high there is social unrest it is not removed from people's thought processes can happen. how much tax can you put on the who 50% or 40% of people work in spain? as you raise taxes you get less revenue. it is revenue-destructive, so i would say we focus on capacity issues and not a willingness. they have capacity for a long time and are focused on it. capacity is governance. awkward ands very very hard to get results. you can get in a situation --

think about what the fed was doing during a financial crisis when there would be a crisis and everybody would go to the fed for a long weekend, and before sunday night everyone is killing themselves and coming up with a lot of proposals. that did not work. a couple weeks later, capital injections and all those things. can the system to be nimble enough to meet the requirements of expectations and fears? that is the big issue. right now it feels relatively safe because of the work done by but it is notnk, resolved. if you have to of growth, and you have to have a growth model and works of the periphery in germany. >> it seems like the united states has a great deal at stake in seeing and now the european union succeed.

do you think our government does enough to support the europeans in coping with the eurozone situation? i use the term crisis. after the third year of the mortgage crisis, i stopped calling it a crisis and started calling it life. i think they are going to be living with this for a long term. doing enough to? i think the politics and sociology is we want them to succeed we have a lot of suggestions. they have their context, and we compete in a lot of ways, and we have different views about how regulations should be done or the power of the central government.

history of thet europeans have been the belief their problems are in the united states. >> there is that narrative's. >> certainly a catalyst, but i thank the leveraging of their system and the fact of revenues and costs were diverging and the lines would never cross again is a function of european policy, not the united states policy. there were certain catalysts that held that he realized and other wares the relationship. it is complicated. a lot of it was european. i do not know how receptive the europeans would be to take instruction while working out their system, so i believe our folks are being supportive and

very concrete ways. do not forget most trade is financed through dollars. europe can only print euros. they cannot print dollars. when they were going through problems, our government was taking a lot of problems by giving them dollars and trading them for euros so their banking system could function. we are doing a lot, but everybody is generous with his own advice and figures out how lucky the other person is to get it. the recipient does not always feel so lucky. >> we used to say free advice is worth every penny you pay for. let's move to china.

it is the section i think everyone here greatly enjoys. we can probably devote a significant amount in the future. on the one hand economic of growth continued to amaze. it is pretty impressive. the challenges are striking as well. i think the population increasing. remains an issue. formately, the potential

social unrest among a citizenry yearning for political accountability. you traveled to china, and you have done so recently are insured and must be a close observer of evolution in that nation and its economy. ?hat is your outlook >> the 20th-century is america's century. there were a couple of bad moments. year, and was a bad if you were shut down than you would have missed the last 93 years. i cannot tell if this is china's year, but i believe this could be their century. i feel very positive. those are the two places i feel best about for different reasons, but i would rather be a chinaerm investor for

than short-term. i would rather predict five years and 10 years. i would rather be investing for my kids than investing short- term for myself. problem youy mentioned is also an opportunity. they are going to left to create social services, which means pools of capital. they are going to have to have something to buy. they are going to have to build up equity markets, bigger equity markets inside of china who the pools of capital will have. the pools of capital while fund chinese growth. every chinese can put money in a savings bank with no interest. the only people that can invest in china are goldman sachs. lot of problems you mention are flip side of opportunity.

that willroblems become opportunities. see conflict if it does not go well, but look how many people are coming in, and they are going to be a fabulous labor force. to bethere are going problems, and it is hard to know. we find out about problems because the market tells us. i think they built something like 80 airports' right away. if you build navy airports, maybe 40 of them are going to be in the nile region in the wrong place. maybe 50. -- maybe 40 of them are going to be in the wrong place. people and kill the people who made the wrong decision, and you move on. there you do not know. why do i have such a good idea of how that works?

i knew every part of that except moving on. in china you do not have the mechanism of writing off mistakes. you have mistakes and you are forced to face of they are bigger than they would would getbe, but i along with china that it works out. new government. this government had a couple years to figure out what they wanted to do. i bet they had reform on their capital markets should be early in their agenda so you can achieve those by having capital markets that will allow people to fund things. the risk manager, the next year kind of confuses me. there is no visibility.

the market does not tell you things like it does here. we stay invested, but we watch how much we have in. we do not want to have so much in if there is a problem we have to pull out, and once you get out or start to get out or look like you are going backwards, it is hard to get bad reputation back, so we are being very careful about how much we have in. we are constantly investing, but we also sell other things and try to keep a level of risk we think we can support under dire circumstances. >> let's come back closer to home again. this is not news to you or anybody here, but in recent years, we seem to have hit several high water marks in toward thetipathy

financial service sector. [laughter] >> that is among policy makers -- this is important note, on the right and the left. a 2010 dow jones described u.s. "the focus of anger about wall street's skyhigh bonus culture" and reported that you were grilled, drilled by a senate subcommittee looking -- grilled by a senate subcommittee looking into goldman and the financial crisis. i do not want to dwell on the past, but where do you see the temperature levels now in terms of our industry, what the report we have with policymakers is, is the grill still hot? >> somebody once said how much better does it feel to be boiled in 450 degree oil rather than 600 degree oil. things have moved.

you cannot ignore the legacy. in the present we are carrying a legacy and working through these issues, and that is a resentment and distrust we have to grapple with in the present. it was a very big trauma. the narrative that got written will be expanding over time to include regrettable behavior, a lot of people, including things we regret financing in hindsight. it was a bubble that captured everybody, and there were no brilliant actors when everybody got caught up in the same credit bubble. but we have to work through it. thatould not be a shock the trauma will have repercussions for a long time and we will live with the legacy issues for a while. there -- no surprise there. we are on the front foot going forward.

people are more interested in how we get this economy going than they are with again rehashing. you are not abandoning the legacy management, there is no abandonment, but in terms of share people want better growth and want a better life and they want firms like ourselves and yourself to accomplish the purpose we are here for, to alternately finance risk-taking and growth in the system. you accumulate capital, you make decisions, you yea this investment and nay that investment and allocate capital. we make decisions among who are the best sources of the need for capital. that is something we have to do in earnest. other things we have to do with a not to the legacy -- nod to

the legacy issues, i think we have a lot of regret for not having that dialogue with the public. we have to do a better job explaining what it means to be able to have and what a blessing it is for the united states to have good big pools of capital with professional management and long track records and a disciplined financial system that is regulated very well. what does that mean to the real person? how am i better off because we have great capital markets? look at the innovation, entrepreneurs. everybody wants to come here and make their fortune here because we have the infrastructure for that.

and we have to do a better job of explaining our role in that and what a boon to society that is. >> i grant you, from the point of view of the rank-and-file american it is a very abstract concept. a lot of complexity to it. i think it is even more complicated by the fact that financial services industry is different. i think of goldman as being in many different spaces. as you know, the investment company institute occupies one, the registered investment company mutual fund he is -- space. how do you accommodate within your firm businesses as diverse as you have? asset management business on the one hand, investment what are the challenges involved there and how do you manage it? >> let me say we are not that diverse. for a big financial institution we are relatively focused. we among all others that were dedicated investment banks, we

did not merge with big commercial banks or form financial supermarkets. we do not have a retail business like one of our nearest competitors, morgan stanley. we stayed in a wholesale institutional businesses -- advice, market making, financing, and asset management. we are engaged with the same kind of people and infrastructure and intellectual capital. technology. we find, by the way, the same culture throughout the firm. all those people who tend to fund those kinds of businesses tend to be similar kinds of people with similar skill sets. so i think it was very important to us to maintain that culture and to recruit at the schools we recruit at,

to stay in those relatively narrow -- we think all those activities give us a frankly advantage in terms of investments we make in our technology and the culture of risk management, the way we can attract people, even if people do not intend for 30 years they do not mind getting trained for three years ago and. some stay for three and stay 30 just the same way that people come for 30 and stay for three. we have great recruiters as a result of that synergy. i think those businesses fit together very well. within our own organization asset management has the advantage of being a business where we can still grow without just crossing our fingers and hoping the market itself gets

bigger. we tried to grow our market share in investment banking, but how much will we grow our market share when we are the number one player? but in asset management, there is an asset manager that is four times our size. thethings i told you about pool of capital and wealth creation, i think it is the market that will grow and a big opportunity for us and one that gets a very high percentage of mine and our boards share in terms of growing the business and making sure we do it in a sensible way and are careful about risks and returns. >> you talked about trying to explain to people that are the benefits of great capital markets that we have. benefits in their own personal lives and those of their family. the recent experience reinforces the old expression that confidence is a plan for slow growth. what is goldman doing, thinking about the industry at large, to increase public confidence and customer and client confidence in the firm and the business that it is engaged in? >> the first thing that we obviously focused on and the industry has to focus on is it

is a good thing when you are trying to repair a relationship not to do anything that inflames the relationship. it would be a very good thing for the industry to stop having problems. then, obviously the market had a big trauma and the social system in the country had a big -- trauma. we are determined to use that, we talked about that before in our partnership culture that forces us to be very introspective and dig deep and figure out what we were doing and what we could do better and spend a lot of time on this. we published a lot about changes we have made. again, be very public. i think people are living their lives and worrying about their performance, not obsessed with what we are doing. but it is there for people to

see. we are going out and doing the best we can in demonstrating through the things we do for a living how important that is. in the past couple days, $17 billion of debt for apple, we helped jcpenney, who needed obviously an infusion of capital. when i think of the ipo's and the things we do, what i would like to be able to do is tell people, and i will get to this for a second, apart from the special programs and philanthropy we do as a firm, i would like people to understand that the things that we do in the course of our business activity is supportive of the country, the economic system, and growth, job creation. rights a big enough gap there. beyond it we are also trying to do things that operate on a

human scale. the disadvantage to us being a wholesale institutional business is a little bit, who are these the ball? we do not have a dialogue -- who are these people? we do not have a dialogue the way consumer firms did. we did not participate in the narrative about our self. so i think we are doing some programs, small business programs, taking the themes and work we do and providing advice and education and financing and support in the small business context. we put a lot of money and energy and infrastructure around that program, operating in several cities. if any of you have crossed it you know it very well. that has been a great program. to do what we do on a level that is more comprehensible to people. dorecognize the need to

that. >> you started out your career as a lawyer, then became a trader. as head of the firm most of your focus is on clients. when you became head of the firm there were a couple of really good years, perhaps looking back you would mistrust some of that because it was in the midst of the bubble. then some tough ones. maybe we are coming out of that now. it has no doubt tested you as a leader personally. what lessons in leadership has lloyd blankfein learned since becoming chairman of goldman sachs? >> i will tell you, in those good years we were having i did not necessarily feel good. i was looking around every corner nervous as can be. so wind -- so only in hindsight do i see how easy it was. the tough years i did not exercise a lot of critical faculty about how tough things were.

every day you came in and tried to sort things out and the next day you sort things out and one day you go out and there is nothing left to sort through and that is how you know it is over. but there's always stuff. i think when things are going well you love the hell out of it and when things are difficult you have a sense of duty that really takes over. in terms of leadership i think, and this is a virtue but also a vice, have a thick skin. if it is too thick and you are oblivious to what is going on that is a bad thing, but it has to be thick enough not to take all the well intended device that would have you banned to every breeze -- bend to every breeze. in november 2008 we had our research conference, september 2008 we had the crisis, november 2000 eight i am getting questioned on whether there will be any investment banking. i said our strategy is to be a financier and market maker and

asset manager and co-investor. they said, don't you know? you cannot do it. november, our year started december 1 in those days. the next year was the all-time record year for goldman sachs and our businesses because of the needs of market making. we were able to accommodate other people's business. so you cannot, as a leader you have to listen and you cannot cross the line into stubborn but you had better stay a little bit thick-skinned and a little bit focused on facts and information. they say, how can a lawyer be this business? in a funny way, a lot of different people do well in the business but lawyers do not do so badly and engineers to not do

you know why? all of those groups have a real respect for facts as opposed to sentiment and impression. lawyers are trained with facts, engineers for sure live with facts, and accountants. that cannot be all you are but that is not a bad place to start. as opposed to nerves and advice and short-termism. >> we are running out of time but i did one sort of a lightning round. really quickly. the volcker rule? >> i think misplaced and well intended but out of place and potentially harmful to the