Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150413 :

along our constitutional lines between the executive branch and outside of that. >> host: is there a spectrum crunch? >> guest: there's certainly a lot of demand for spectrum and we stopped making spectrum a long time ago. there isn't any more so we're having to come up with ways of accommodating all the various uses. certainly, the growth of cellular has been astronomical. we're continuing to look for ways to provide that portion of our community more spectrum. unlicensed use has grown tremendously. the advent, for instance of wi-fi was a huge expansion in the amount of consumer use and so on of unlicensed operations. but the federal government use is i growing also -- is growing also. the federal agencies have are lots of different kinds of operations so while in a cell phone band everything in that band is basically cell phones, maybe at some different point of their evolution and technology standpoint, but they're basically all cell phonesment they pack them together, it's very uniform. on the federal government side we've got a mixture of lots of different kinds of systems. many of them are airborne which you don't deal with too often in the private sector. but all kinds of fixed and mobile airborne communications, satellite communications often mixed in the same bands because they're the openings that the government has. so they pack as much as possible in those bands as they can. >> host: and just to be clear, we don't manufacture spectrum. spectrum is natural correct? >> guest: that's right. >> host: okay. you can't start and stop -- >> guest: no. we can't be making anymore. >> the spectrum depending on what part you're in, has different characteristics that support different types of communications. the higher you go in the spectrum, the shorter the distance that you can force that signal to go without generating a lot more power behind it, the lower in the spectrum the signal travels better and that's why people want certain portions of the spectrum to accommodate what they're trying to do. >> host: let's bring paul kirby into our discussion of "telecommunications report." >> you mentioned how the federal government needs spectrum for a lot of different things. when you started at ntia in 1983, there were two systems that started that year. when you retired, there were over 330 million wireless devices, more than the population of the u.s. what kind of pressure does that put on your agency? because there's always a tension between spectrum for commercial and spectrum for the federal government. >> guest: well certainly a lot of pressure there because every administration that i worked for during my time was seeking ways to try to accommodate the commercial users that were coming along, once again starting initially with those couple of cellular operations. as i recall, they were -- those licenses were provided by what we used to call beauty contests probably not a great word today. anyway, based on somebody saying we need this spectrum, we're the best people for it. we got into lotteries which, i think, opened the door to a more cellular growth but, ultimately turning it into an auction-type process that's been very significant. but certainly the pressure has been there the last two administrations have both written presidential memorandum on spectrum. when i first started in spectrum management back in 1979, i came out of the marine corps after being an artillery officer, i didn't know anything about spectrum. most people that i met and even those often times i worked with didn't understand much about spectrum. but nowadays everybody realizes it's a part of our daily lives our devices completely rely on it, our ability to communicate and often do our jobs or stay in touch with our family depend on it. so the fact that the white house for all those administrations had an eye on spectrum always created a certain level of pressure. however, when i started, the first task that i work worked on at ntia was a report covering 947 megahertz all the way to 40 gigahertz to see if we could come up with any spectrum for the commercial world, and our answer at that point was, no, there was none available. well obviously, that's changed over the years. we have found spectrum. we've found spectrum that's been very useful to the commercial world. so that effort continues today even as i'm gone from ntia. i know they're continuing to pursue that working together with the federal agencies. but certainly one of the things i've seen change during that time is i think, certainly, ntia and the federal agencies as a whole have gotten on board with trying to make this effort happen. the policymakers and those groups are trying to make it workable. and there's been certainly a new effort toward cooperation collaboration just in the last couple years leading up to the aws iii rulemaking, the auction getting the federal agencies, particularly the defense department, in the same room with industry to work through differences and to come up with analysis that's going to be meaningful. those things were big steps, and certainly like to see that continue. that's certainly my goal in my retirement, is to continue to play a part in getting government and industry talking together. >> how can that be improved upon? the last couple years that led to the auction the aws3 auction, government agencies particularly dod work together, but the sausage being made was not always a pretty process. or what are the ways you think that can be improved going forward? >> guest: well, i think certainly anytime you're breaking into a new process, there are going to be hurdles that you have to get over, things that you need to learn. in that particular case when we set up the discussion under n the ti -- ntia's commerce spectrum management add viewly committee, our goal is to keep it as open as possible. that, we think, was important to the discussion, it was certainly important to those first steps. the complication that had is a completely wide open discussion meant that on some cases on teleconferences there might be 100 people on the telephone, and the defense department people didn't particularly know who they were talking to. and, therefore they're much more cautious and concerned. but still, the ability to continue the discussion, to get to know one another, to get to know in those calls and in those face-to-face meetings who were the people that they were actually going to need to continue that dialogue with actually after the csmac work was done and some direction was provided, additional meetings went on between do the and the commercial -- dod and the commercial operators to talk about, well how can we improve the analysis that was done on that group? how can we get past some of these things? what can we do to coordinate the use? so a lot of progress was made. so i think in the next round we're going to see -- and ntia's already put proposals on the table for increased collaboration in terms of public events, in terms of more limited discussions, more face-to-face between the agencies and the specific service providers, technology providers and so on. so i think we're really moving in the right direction. >> host: mr. nebbia, does dod control much of the federal spectrum? >> guest: yeah. actual dod doesn't control any of the spectrum. dod has access to a lot of spectrum, but ntia remains the regulator on the government side. they have access to a lot of spectrum where their use would make it difficult given current technology and given current processes would make it difficult for nonfederal users to access that spectrum? yes. there are bands, radar bands that actually have nonfederal radars in them you don't hear much about, but the defense department works with those people regularly. if you were to put a mass commercial wireless system in the same bandwidth with federal radars you're going to have to come up with some new capabilities whether it's new technologies or new spectrum management methods to make that work. so certainly the defense department is open to that and in fact, if you look at their spectrum strategying that they put -- strategy that they put out i think it was the end of 2013 but it's still there, they are driving document right now. part of what they're arguing is that their battlefield names are such that they need to be more flexible. that if you, in fact, continue to narrow their spectrum and say this is the box that we need to keep forcing dod into a more, you know, efficient type environment, that, in fact that only makes it easier for the adversaries to know exactly where they are and how they operate. so dod from a technology and spectrum standpoint themselves know that they need to spread out, they need to blend in, they can't just hold onto pieces of spectrum and say well, this is where we're going to be we're going to stay. so that requires some new discussion about other ways that they can shower in the commercial -- they can share in the commercial bands as they're giving up space in the bands that they're currently sitting in. so there's still a lot ahead of us to talk about, you know down that path. >> one of the key issues in the negotiations leading up to the auction was how much information dod and other agencies would share with industry. and that's always been an issue because it's very sensitive and often very classified. so one of the issues that -- one of the solutions was having people in industry basically sign nondisclosure agreement sort of a trusted agent type of thing. give us a sense how you think that worked and how that can be expanded in the future. >> guest: i think it worked very well. once again i think it was set up by the fact that they had had fairly long discussions already and come to a point of really knowing each other became known entities. >> yeah. >> guest: i should say, on the other hand, that as we were looking to work out the five gigahertz wi-fi sharing arrangement back five, between five and ten years ago that, in fact, we pulled in wi-fi community technology people into the same types of agreements so that they were, well, the aws-3 discussions never really got into classified discussions, and the wi-fi work, they were actually witnesses to the operation, specific dod radar systems in order to, you know, prepare those outcomes. so i think we've done it before. i think it works. i think it works well, and we're going to continue to, i think -- >> host: has wi-fi alleviated a little bit of pressure on the spectrum shortage? >> guest: well wi-fi certainly is being heavily used by the wireless industry. a lot of us use it just in our normal home activities. but, in fact, many, many devices are looking for wi-fi first. some of the carriers are certainly move anything that direction, and i've heard statistics that it's over 50% of the traffic is heading on wi-fi. and that means it's connecting into the wired network off that wi-fi and, therefore relieving the burden on the wireless networks. so that, i think plays a huge role. it's also one of the reasons why the federal agencies, ntia and the fcc, are looking at two additional bands in the five gigahertz range for expanded wi-fi, to get more bandwidth, there are throughput -- more throughput. each of those has its own warts so we're working through those issues, and we'll see how that comes out. >> were you surprised at the revenues of the aw, s-3 auction? almost $45 billion. >> guest: yeah. well i hadn't done any -- i'm not familiar how they do all their calculations. certainly, it was way beyond what anybody was estimating, and often times as people ask me, well, what are you going to do once you leave the government, i say is well, obviously one of the things i'm going to do is advise the private sector. because when we brought up the aws-3 band we actually brought up 1755-1850. we offered it for about $18 billion. everybody said that's too much, sorry, we want that smaller piece of spectrum. and in the end they paid $45 billion for a much smaller piece of spectrum, and sooner or later we'll get back to the other piece. anyway it seemed like they could have used my advice at that point. >> now there's legislation pending in congress again and it would create basically an incentive auction that would allow federal agencies to get about 1% of the proceeds of auction as their spectrum as an incentive to give up spectrum. do you think the proceeds from this sale -- which was not based on that type of a system -- would further encourage agencies to -- >> guest: well, i mean i certainly think i mean, that's -- my experience with the federal agencies is that the people that work there are all about getting the mission done. and they see into the future as to how their responsibilities, the types of things they have to deal with particularly dod looking at changes in their, you know how they deal with, you know, the enemy that they have to have to deal with from day to day. so those people are always looking for how to meet their mission and ultimately, they have seen in this particular case and in the aws-1 auction there were, in fact, opportunities to fund movement into new technology new bands and so on. it was somewhat limited, but as that increased, i think everybody sees that this actually could be a win/win for everybody. but they have to come away with the sense that yes, the technology is there. and, ultimately, because the types of mobile operations that the government needs operate in the same portions of the spectrum that the commercial mobile need to operate in we're going to see them saying yeah, this should fund technology changes, new capabilities but it's probably going to be more oriented towards sharing that spectrum. how do we make that happen? and once again, their whole goal is to come out of this still being able to perform the function they have. they're not going to ever make a lot of money off it. none of the federal employees are going to get rich by great decision. >> will you still be there? [laughter] >> guest: no, i wouldn't still be there. it was time for me to move on. but i think the agencies, you know, see it as an opportunity. but it's got to be a real opportunity, and at least from what i've heard the concern that they've expressed about the 1% number just even in the ballpark -- >> host: well, karl nebbua has the ntia and other federal agencies been reluctant to share or give up some of their spectrum? and what is the downside to the federal government? >> guest: well everybody in this business is reluctant. on the private sector side, the government side there were people that weren't reluctant to share the folks advocating for unlicensed use pause they came into -- because they came into it always on the basis they were sharing the spectrum. you still had to tell that to some people whose garage doors had interference and suddenly, well, we didn't read the small print. everybody is reluctant to share. it's a little bit like, you know, you're growing up, you've got to share with your siblings. you know there's some pain there, and everybody knows that. so sharing is something that everybody's moved toward more out of a seasons of this is what we've -- out of a sense of this is what we've got to do and we've got to learn how to get along, how to cooperate together, how to make our technologies work together so that it comes out -- even if you look at the cellular phone system, there's a system of sharing and cooperation. it's everybody and its brother doesn't get their own frequency and their own system. everybody's joining in to that. and there's a cost to it and there's benefits from it. so i think we're going to see more sharing. but everybody is reluctant. when you go into international meetings, for instance you'll see countries that have 50-year-old mobile radios that somebody provided to them a long, long time ago absolutely defending bands over the fact they don't want to go home and tell their government that they just lost that 50 megahertz, you know? >> because you never get it back. >> guest: you never get it back. even though it would benefit them more to just move on and have cellular phone, you know, adopted in their country and everybody getting the capability. >> host: well, does the u.s. spectrum stop at the boarder? how does canada, how does mexico how do those countries manage their spectrum? >> guest: yeah. well, each country has their own processes. we've found over quite a number of years that the u.s. usually breaks out in some new ideas, and we often find those countries have adopted many of the same things, at least the ones that they see work, you know? they work on those things. but it is a fact that we have our own autonomy within the united states to manage the spectrum the way we want. the mexican government has that same autonomy. certain bands have been worked on for years through the international telecommunications union and have been adopted in ways that make them more appealing for international types of services satellite services, for instance. there are some satellite systems that beam down solely into the united states for maybe broadcasting and so on. but much of the satellite community lives in an international world every day. they provide services to various countries. in fact, the international satellite systems on the commercial side are supporting countries all over the world. they're supporting the u.s. defense department in ways we probably never dreamed 20 or 30 years ago. they are the backbone for communications of dod into the field through commercial satellite are systems. so it is an international world that we live in, and we're getting ready for our next radio conference in late october, early november of this year so those types of agreements are reached. we do have relationships close relationships with mexico and canada. we've got agreements with them on how to share certain bands. but there are other bands, for instance where we've got cell phones on both sides of for borders. the companies themselves, you know, work together to make that interconnection so somebody passing through the border their cell phone service is seamless. and there are sometimes differences on, you know, the two sides of the border what we're doing. but there's a great amount of alignment too. >> get your views on some of the broader spectrum proposals. folks like to say well one problem with the u.s. is you have a bifurcated system, but ntia is responsible for the federal and fcc for nonfederal. we've talked in passing, you've said yeah but other countries it's not necessarily one agency. others people say you should have a defense base closure commission, use that type of a framework to identify spectrum. you should have a general services administration-like framework to try to run the basically, managed spectrum. i just wondered now that you're not in the government, i wanted to see if you have any views on kind of those broader spectrum management issues about how things can be improved going forward. >> guest: yeah. well i certainly believe that the people that are engaged in these processes are i think working hard to move the u.s. forward. a lot of times people talk about, well, the u.s. is falling behind this group or that group, but the united states has the widest distribution of 4g cellular in the world. we have done so very well with that when a number of years ago as we were dealing with 3g and the europeans were advocating this one technology, this one band for 3g, you keep 2g and the other bands, the u.s. sat back and said we believe in flexible technology, let the service providers decide. use any band that's a cellular band and so on, and, you know, europe plowed ahead, they did an auction where everybody had to spend a whole lot more money than they had in order to participate. in the end the u.s. can, you know, keep pressing forward. so i think we have a good system. i think it works. i don't think it's always easy because we're making difficult choices. but i think when people talk about let's have a base closure or let's have just, you know one agency deal with this, it's starting with the presumption that they're going, that that type of process is going to be able to just remove the federal government out of the bands. and i, at least from my experience, i don't think it's going to be that easy. you're not going to pack up the air traffic control system. it's just when people talk about that they often don't have a good sense of what is it that the government really does. and when i ask them, well, do you want to pack up the our traffic control radars they say, well, no, i don't want to do that. you're talking about replacing all the satellites that the government's using in space? no we don't want to, we don't really want to do that. so you end up getting down to a fairly, you know, smaller group of possibilities. and i think those possibilities are being, you know, worked by ntia and the fcc. doesn't mean that somebody isn't going to come up with great ideas that make 30 gigahertz or 60 gigahertz more usable in the future. but i've just seen, you know tremendous progress made. i think there's goodwill on both sides, a good working relationship between the federal agencies ntua and the commission -- ntia and the and i just think we need to continue that process of getting them in the same room, talk about a plan for the future because the demand is still there, it's still growing, and it'd be really great to have industry and government, you know, talking about what are those bands that we could possibly share or what can we make available? >> host: well, what is the growth potential and is there a chance of running out of spectrum? >> guest: yeah. well you're never gonna -- well, first of all you're never gonna run out of spectrum because even though we're not making any more of it, you can keep splicing it up more and more, and we've figured out ways of doing that over the years. so, in fact, there are things that cell industry, for instance, could do in terms of using smaller cells, in terms of using adaptable antenna techniques to multiply the amount of their capability. so there's still a lot that can go on there. but ultimately, we are going to get in a place where we can't just keep moving people out of bands. for instance just moving the government out of a band and then coming back two years later and say well, now we want that band, not only is that an inefficient process, a wasteful process, but it's disruptive to the government operations. that whole process. i mean if you think you've never been through the experience of -- if you've ever been through the experience of moving your family, it is disruptive. well, we're going to move them every two years, and people who grew up in the military know how disruptive that is every two years you pack up and you move again can. the government needs to know where the future is also, and so i think that's a, you know critical for them. >> host: paul kirby, we have 90 seconds left. >> so i guess my last question to you would be, let's she see, which one do i want to use? i only have 90 seconds. you spent more than 30 years in the government, all that time at ntia. now you're a private consultant. what's it like seeing it from the outside? in other words are there things you had when you were there that you do or couldn't say or -- do you see what the outside was telling you in saying these are the things we have to live by, and why are you nasty government forcing us to do that? >> guest: yeah. i'm certainly in a situation where i'm seeing both sides. i'm talking to dod regularly talk to commercial operators as part of the work that i do can, so i'm seeing those things and i'm, you know, you see some of the disconnects in the discussion, and for that reason once again my hope is to be able to bring them together. hopefully, over the 30 years i did spectrum management there's a level of trust that i can add to that discussion can -- discussion. that's, for me, the critical thing. certainly, one of the great differences from working in the government as i was mentioning earlier is that at the end of the eight-hour day when i worked for the government, i was just starting. and all my the laptop, mobile capabilities were really great and allowed you to take your work home with you. i know those folks on the federal side work really hard they work long hours, and there's some really great people over there. but i'm also now working a lot with commercial folks who, to be honest with you i've gotten to know over the years too. so it's not like a lot of new faces. this is a business where we've grown to know and love each other and work together over the years. >> host: karl nebbia, paul kirby, thank you both for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the bipartisan policy center will hear later today from former homeland security secretary michael chertoff regarding immigration policy and border security. he'll be part of a discussion that will also include u.s. border patrol chief michael fisher. that event will focus on how immigration law is currently enforced and what improvements can be made to better protect u.s. borders. you can see that live at 11 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. and later today florida senator marco rubio is expected to announce his candidacy for president, making him the third republican to officially enter the 2016 race. that announcement is happening at an event in miami. we'll have live coverage beginning at 5:30 eastern on our companion network c-span. >> were you a fan of c-span's "first ladies" series? "first ladies" is now a book published by public affairs looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. based on original interviews with more than 50 preeminent historians and biographers learn details of all 45 first ladies that made these women who they were, their lives, ambitions and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. the book "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 45 icon you can american women," provides lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the statute gnu of the white house, sometimes at great perm cost while supporting their families and famous husbands and even changed history. c-span's "first ladies" is an illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read and is now available as a hard cover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> next customs and border protection gil kerlikowske outlines the key parameters of his agency. his comments, from the brookings institution, are about an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i'm jerrold west, vice president of government studies and director of the center for technology innovation at the brooking institution, and i would like to welcome you to the this forum on u.s. customs and border protection. and this event is being broadcast live by c-span, so we'd like to welcome our national viewing audience as well. and as many of you may know, customs and border protection is the largest federal law enforcement agency and also it provides the second largest revenue-collecting source for the federal government. on a typical day, cbp seizes over 10,000 pounds of drugs 650,000 in undeclared or illicit currency and $3.4 million of products with intellectual property right violations. so needless to say, this agency is working very hard to safeguard america's borders while also enhancing legitimate trade and commercement our featured speaker today is commissioner gil kerlikowske. he's going to discuss his insights from his first year of leading this agency. he's also going to look at some of the highlights in terms of his vision for moving forward. the agency has put out a few vision and strategy 2020 document that lays out what the agency would like to do in the future. the commissioner was nominated by president obama and sworn in last year. in this position he oversees the dual mission of protecting national security objectives while also promoting economic prosperity and security. he brings four decades of law enforcement experience and drug policy experience to this position. before he took on his current position, he served as director of the white house office of national drug control policy. he also formerly served for nine years as chief of police in seattle, washington. so our format for today is the commissioner will offer his reflections on the past year as well as his thoughts on the future and then we will move to the q&a period. so please, join me in welcoming the commissioner to brookings. [applause] >> well, thank you, daryl, very much. it's a great pleasure to be back at brookings and to have this opportunity. you know, brookings has such a remarkable history. this tremendous public policy resource that we have here and the analysis that you all do that shapes debates this wide range of economic social, political issues the opportunity i had to talk about drug policy just a few years ago to the issues around weapons to trafficking and to tax reform. so something that's on everybody's mind. you're getting ready to celebrate your 100th anniversary next year, and the theme that united the brookings program, governance and renewal, is one that we at cbp can really embrace. i've been in office, as daryl said, for just over a year, and i really appreciate him talking a little bit about the complexity of the mission because often times i think cbp is looked at as an organization that is only focused on border security issues. we'll talk about it a little bit, but when you think about revenue collection and you think about the huge role that we play in our economic security, it's important to recognize and understand that complexity. so cbp, customs and border protection, was created in 2003. at that time and just before that every border function was somewhat separate. so different agencies performed different inspections. you had immigration admissibility, you had customs inspectors for imports and exports, and you had agriculture inspections for items that could harm the nation's crops and livestock and national, and our natural resources. and like all bureaucracies, i think that the communication had difficulties amongst -- there were essentially, three different port directors at every port. it just wasn't the greatest system. so we have a unified border agency as a result of 9/11, the 9/11 commission and the creation of cbp under the department of homeland security. and it allows us to craft a comprehensive strategy to secure our borders and support our economy. we have 60,000 employees on the ground, on the water and in the air. both in the united states and abroad. and cbp is one of the world's largest law enforcement organizations. it's the largest law enforcement organization in the united states. the primary mission, of course, is to keep terrorists and their weapons out of the u.s. while facilitating lawful international travel and trade. we enforce nearly 500 laws for 47 different federal agencies, from the food and drug administration to the consumer product safety commission. so there's a wide array of laws that we have responsibility for in pickup with all of these -- in partnership with all of these different organizations. law enforcement ranks within cbp include officers customs and border protection officers that you see when you come into a port of entry, and our agricultural specialists who do those inspections. they're the ones with the little beaglings that are really cute -- beagles, and we try to really promote those beagles a lot. and they work at our ports of entry. and then between the ports of entry we have the united states border patrol and chief mike fisher is here with me today. they secure our border between ethos forts of entry. -- ports of entry. we also have air and marine interdiction agents who patrol the skies and the seas. and we also have thousands of nonuniformed individuals professionals who manage trade issues, international affairs, cybersecurity and other important facets of our complex mission. well, i'd be -- i'm a good fed, so i'm going to give you a few more statistics to add onto that. just in a typical day we process a million people at 328 land, air and seaports of entry. we screen 70,000 truck, rail and sea cargo containers. we process $4.4 billion in exports and $6.8 billion in imports. we seize more than $650,000 in unreported or illicit currency, we discover 425 pests and intercept 4400 prohibited plant and animal materials that could hurt these crops. we seize $3.4 million in counterfeit products and we apprehend more than 1300 inadmissible people at the ports of entry. we arrest on a daily basis 21 wanted criminals who attempt to enter the united states, we identify 548 individuals who, with suspected national security concerns. we intercept 76 fraudulent documents, we fly 213 enforcement missions in the united states, and we seize more than five tons of drugs, 550 pounds of cocaine, 81 pounds of methamphetamine, 15 pounds of heroin 9,000 pounds of marijuana. that's a typical day. but then you have to today in the unexpected. last year's surge in the arrival of unaccompanied minors and the families on the southwest border, and then the outbreak of ebola that required our enhanced screening at our five major airports. so really what you see is no typical day. well, if i could summarize my first year, it would come down to three ts, travel, trade and transparency. and travel and tourism is vitally important to our nation's economy and cbp is committed to making sure that lawful travelers are allowed while those who wish to do us harm are kept out. in fiscal year 2014 we welcomed 107 million international air travelers, an increase of 4.5% over the last year. for those returning to the united states, the greeting from cbp was often "welcome home." during the past five years, the united states has seen an increase of more than 19 million annual international travelers and this growth is supported about -- has supported about 280,000 new american jobs. these travelers spent more than $220 billion in 2014 alone. well, we're mindful of that direct correlation between travel and tourism and healthy american economy. but our first mission, of course is border security. and it remains our highest priority. we constantly strive for more efficient risk-based strategy to successfully execute that dual mission of achieving the most secure border while facilitating lawful travel. and we're committed to innovation. automated passport controls which some of you might have seen in some of our airports they have been proven to reduce wait times at these airports by as money as 30%. and these apcs these automated passport control technologies simplifies the process of international travelers. using kiosks, eligible travelers enter the united states more quickly, more efficiently with no charge and no special enrollment. and last may we set a goal with apcs to have them in 25 international airports here in the united states by the end of last year. and through partnerships, we met that deadline in october. today 34 airports use apcs and that's tremendous progress in less than a year. travelers are embracing apc and a reporter for conde nast traveler, for example, decided to review the technology when she arrived at jfk. she stated: thanks to the apc, she had the shortest wait time she ever had at that airport. sure you've experienced the same thing at jfk. [laughter] another example of our commitment to safe secure and streamline travel is a mobile passport control app. everybody has an app and so do we. it lets eligible travelers submit their passport information and customs declarations from their smartphones or tablets when they arrive, and last september it was recognized with the future travel experience award. those awards are given to organizations that have gone the extra a mile to improve passenger experience. our crowning achievement in all of this we think is our trusted traveler programs. through these programs we expedite thes processing of hoe risk travelers while allowing our officers to concentrate on and focus on higher risk travelers. since the givenning of 2014, an -- the beginning of 2014 an additional 1.5 million people are enrolled in the trusted traveler programs through global entry as well as through sentry on our border with mexico and as well as our northern border. it allows expedited clearance for pre-approved, low risk travelers. members pay a fee, they undergo background screening and they receive front of the line privileges and automatic membership in tsa's precheck program. cbp's primary goal, of course remains keeping those borders secure preventing people who would do us harm from coming. but we continually look at our risk-based strategy as well as a layered approach to security. extending our borders out, pushing the borders out, focusing our resources on the greatest risks. preclearance, having cbp officers at foreign international airports to inspect travelers destined to the united states, that provides us with the best means of identifying and addressing threats at the earliest possible point. cbp cleared in fiscal year 14 17.5 million passengers out of that 106 million that came in. that's 17 million people who didn't have to wait in line at the airport at customs. when they arrived, they picked up their baggage, and they departed. this year we intend to expand that preclearance operations to new locations around the globe extending our reach and pushing our zone or border security outward. we talk about trade for a minute. turning now to the cbp's role in trade during the past year we've had this great t opportunity to travel all over the united states, really all over the world. we've gotten to see firsthand how integral our mission is to the nation's economic health and vitality as well as to the safety and security of our global supply chain. and in fiscal year 2014, we cleared $2.5 million -- trillion in imports, $1.6 trillion in exports, we did 26 million cargo containers, and that's an increase just as travel is increasing so is cargo. global commerce involves hundreds of different types of forms, numerous federal agencies. the system actually can be quite time consuming, and it can be with costly for both government and private stakeholders. and outside forces can have a senate impact on our operations -- significant impact on our operations. in the last week, i met with industry members who praised the cargo backlog in the wake of the slowdown on the west coast. and that was very impressive to see as you read over and over about the ships that were stacked outside of oakland or long beach, etc. we made sure that we had the people and the processes in place so that once that labor issue was settled, we weren't going to be the stopgap for that cargo coming into the country. first, we've accelerated our deployment also in import/export processing and it's called automated commercial environment, the a.c.e. system. it's a huge shift. so we're moving from all of these paper-based faxes original signatures to a cost effective electronic submissions form. and it's the corps of the president's executive order -- the core of the president's executive order that he signed in 2013 and it's called the single window. it's going to allow all relevant federal agencies to review and respond to cargo movement to reduce costs and speed the cargo process. there's another important change that lets customs brokers and stakeholders electronically transmit bonds to cbp. historically in that cbp paper-based system, they'd receive our answer in about four to five days. today they get an answer in 10-15 seconds. that's good for business it's good for us. let me tell you a little bit about the centers of excellence and expertise. they're transforming the way that we're doing business by consolidating particular industries. instead of having to communicate with dozens of different ports of entry at these over 300 bolters and perhaps getting dozens of responses an importer can contact the center designated for their particular line of business. so right now whether it's apparel or footwear in san francisco, electronics in los angeles, too many suit calls in new york -- pharmaceuticals in new york, they can go to one virtual center and get an answer on those imports. these centers improve our ability to identify high risk cargo. they increase consistency and predictability which is what we hear from over and over again in the industry. be predictable and be consistent. so it helps our trade stakeholders in their business decisions. in the travel environment, we have a risk-based system for trade area too just as we do in the travel environment, and that's could our trusted trader program. i talked about global entry and sentry and nexus, but we have a trusted trader program. let me give you a couple of examples air cargo advanced screening, acas, this was launched as the result of a true terrorist threat the explosives hidden in printer toner cartridges. they were intercepted in express mail shipments from yemen december mined for the -- destined for the united states back in 2010. it enables us along with our partners to jointly target and mitigate air cargo at high risk before it is loaded onto a u.s.-bound aircraft. the cargo industry recognizes the value of this program and it helps to improve security. it helps to improve the integrity of the supply chain and prevents major business disruption. acas membership has expanded by 15% in the year that i've been at cbp. we now have 51 apartments. our cuts -- participants. our customs trade partnership against terrorism, we have lots of acronyms. you think the defense department has acronyms listen, i think we can match them. and is we have a lot. we continue to build cooperative relationships with trade stakeholders that strengthen and improve that security. we've focused on amplifying our international engagement. we have a container security initiative. we deploy teams of officers to foreign seaports to address the threat to border security and global trade posed by the potential use of maritime containers by both terrorists and smugglers. these programs foster information between cbp and our foreign counterparts. and it pushes out our zone of security, it pushes out our border. finally, a word about that international engagement. the security integrity of the global supply chain depends on these international partnerships. the trusted trader programs which i described a few minutes ago, align effectively with something called authorized economic operator programs that are being implemented in other countries. and these are often done with our input and our training which we are happy to provide. cbp is active in an organization called the world customs organization, and i believe that our participation in wco plays a critical role in helping build and foster ties. i couldn't have been more proud to nominate our deputy assistant commissioner for international affairs to be a united states delegate to the wco as the director of compliance and facilitation. she goes through an election process in june, and if anna is elected, she's going to bring 28 years of considerable experience including being a port director. and her leadership can strengthen our work with our key trade partners. last year i signed a mutual recognition arrangement, three of them, mexico israel and singapore. last month some of you know that secretary johnson signed a preclearance agreement with canada, and that country's parliament will have to act to put that agreement in place. mutual recognition arrangements are a critical tool at aligning standards to the international community, and these arrangements provide a platform to exchange trusted trader information and to try to harmonize the reciprocal supply chain security programs throughout the world. we have ten of these agreements that are in place since 2003, and other countries now recognize that our leadership in harmonizing these regulations and securing our borders is to everyone's benefit. let me mention the third t, transparency. i'm taking steps to make transparency and accountability hallmarks of my tenure at cbp. public's trust depends on it. well the vast majority of cbp's employees do the right thing, they do the right thing every day. they're dedicated public servants and they're committed to our mission. there are times in law enforcement when a level of force must be used to safeguard the public or protect an officer or agent. and historically, our default position after something was to occur was to circle the wagons and say, "no comment." well, one of the first things i did as commissioner was to change this to make our policies and processes more transparent to the people we serve. for every law enforcement agency, it's part of an ongoing and intense debate right now about how and when and where officers should use force. and the use of force can include a physical restraint, the use of an alternative device or the application of lethal force. cbp, particularly the united states border patrol, has come under increased scrutiny and criticism for using force during apprehensions. march 31st marked the midway point for this fiscal year and we have recorded 385 uses of force. that means that right now we are on track to reduce our use of force by nearly 30% compared to fiscal year '13 -- or fiscal year '14. this reduction in the use of force is encouraging, and it's considering that the assaults against our border patrol agents are trending up. as i said a moment ago, there are times when some level of force must be used, and in those instances the force must be justified and within our policies. and with that in mind, we have implemented a unified formal review process more use of force -- for use of force incidents involving death or serious bodily injury. it will help us resolve the use of force incidents in a timely and transparent manner. training is critical when it comes to the use of force. we've issued new guidelines for all personnel and we've revamped our entire training curriculum to put agents in simulated field situations so they can practice their responses when they have to make a split second decision. and technology is extremely important here too. we have an agency-wide working group to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating body-worn cameras into law enforcement operations. in each part of our cbp environment, air land and sea and between our ports of entry. and we've also equipped and trained agents with less lethal devices that can protect them tools that would be practical in the rugged terrains that the border patrol enforces. these include things like tasers and equipment that can incapacitate an aggressor. we've implemented these options because no apprehension, no seizure, no arrest no pursuit is worth the risk to an agent or a member of the public being injured or killed. that brings me to something that is too often forgotten when we discuss the use of force. there is a personal toll for every officer or agent who uses deadly force. and for many it's a burden they don't anticipate. they don't anticipate it because it is very rare in law enforcement. but when it does happen, it can stay with them forever and does stay with them forever. in a recent op-ed in the seattle times last august, a friend of mine former king county sheriff sue rahr, said something that hit home to me. she said we need police officers with skills and tenacity of a warrior but the mindset of a guardian. well, certainly this issue -- policing in a democratic society -- remains front and center for all law enforcement agencies. cbp is no exception. one of the primary ingredients of transparency, of course is integrity, and it's one of our core values. last september secretary johnson delegated to cbp the authority for the first time ever, to police our own ranks investigate our employees for alleged misconduct. and we're implementing this authority, and we're doing it in a transparent way. secretary johnson also supported me in forming an integrity advisory panel under the dhs/homeland security advisory council. the panel is cochaired by the former head of the drug enforcement administration karen tanty, and new york city police commissioner william bratton. the panel is comprised soft -- comprised of some of the best leaders in law enforcement, and i am confident they're going to make a significant contribution to our culture of integrity and transparency. we continue to emphasize the need for personal responsibility by every employee for ethical behavior both on and off duty. sometimes law enforcement agencies have to respond to difficult situations that grab the attention of the media they generate interest from all kinds of stakeholders. and transparency is critical in these situations. but it's also important in other circumstances. i want to give you one example during my first year. last spring and summer there was an unprecedented surge in the number of unaccompanied immigrant children and their families, tens of thousands of them primarily from central america who arrived at our southwest border. these children are vulnerable to trafficking schemes by adults who were eager to take advantage of them. our agency's response to that surge and the response by the department of homeland security in general really illustrates our commitment to transparency and openness, and it ultimately benefits the relationship with the public that we serve. this was a border management issue i since nearly all these people we end countered turned themselves over to a border patrol agent or a customs and border protection officer. it was not a border security issue. first, we never lost sight of our primary mission to maintain the security and safety of the border. we deployed extra agents to the areas most affected. we continued to stop smugglers and disrupt transnational criminal networks. second we treated the children and families with professionalism and compassion. we recognized the situation as a humanitarian crisis, and i am proud of how the agents and officers conducted themselves many of them having donated clothing from their own families to these kids. and third, we developed a multimedia multi-country strategy awareness campaign called know the facts. it's about how dangerous it is to make the journey north to the border. and in that campaign we emphasize that no legal papers or path to citizenship awaits those who cross ill rely. illegally. we took those actions under heavy public scrutiny, and throughout the process we gave full disclosure to the press and the public while maintaining the privacy of the children who were in our care. and our actions were supported through the inspection process by the inspector general and the department's office of civil rights and civil liberties. this was stressful and difficult experience for our employees, but they showed the world how cbp responds to this kind of crisis. i could not be more proud of those individuals. well those are some highlights from my first year. but what's ahead? what is cbp's future? .. cbp must remain vigilant through innovative initiatives to continually advance and transform the agency so that we are more agile and we are more adaptable organization. and integration. cbp must lead in the department of a seamless global network to integrated border enforcement capability and meet the demands of the constantly evolving landscape. while these three strategic things collaboration, innovation and integration have surfaced in various ways in the form of many of the accomplishments i outlined for you earlier. they continue to permeate our culture that should be in our way of thinking. these are essential to meeting our mission schools. specifically, we have four goals. combat terrorism and transnational organized crime advance comprehensive order security and border management enhance u.s. economic competitiveness by enabling lawful trade and travel and promote organizational integration, innovation and agility. and that vision, that vision and strategy outlines how we plan to enhance both our of julie and our ability to meet these increasingly global increasingly complex challenges. we intend to lead an aggressive champion strategic partnership that facilitate that integrated risk informed, intelligence driven law enforcement operation. this requires a whole of government approach as well as an international unity of effort. we are committed to transforming our trade and travel processes through technology through public-private partnerships and supplying and integrating processing capabilities. to do that we have to harmonize processes across ports of entry including operational approaches to risk management. and we must continue to expand our risk based strategy and constantly refine our information and data collection capabilities. effective border management requires layers of security that must consider points of origin, modes of transit the actual arrival at our borders, and even routes a the chris or departure from the physical border to a final destination. -- egress. and, finally, cbp must strengthen its culture and our culture depends on our ability to recruit, train and retain exceptional people. accomplishing our mission directly depends on workforce and we're committed to getting the very best people for the job. that includes placing women in frontline positions to remain competitive with modern official law-enforcement operations. women comprise about 7% of the united states marine corps for example, when only about 5% of the 21,000 agents in cbp's border patrol are female. and with that in mind we sought and obtained approval from the office of personnel management for the legal authority to specific recruit women for intrigue level border patrol positions located on the southwest border, and to date we've received 5500 applications. in closing let me emphasize cbp intends to be a standardbearer for other customs and border security administrations around the globe and our core values of vigilance, service to country, and integrity will continue to serve as the bedrock of our culture ensuring unwavering commitment to the highest levels of professionalism. our vision is crystal clear to serve as the premier law enforcement agency enhancing the nation safety, security, and prosperity through collaboration, innovation and integration. i appreciate the opportunity to share that vision with you here today, and i thank you and i look forward to the discussion. thank you. [applause] >> so thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us both on the past and future. you mentioned some of the travel innovations that you've helped to implement and spread. i am a user of the global entry program and the tsa project. they're wonderful programs. i highly recommend them and thank you for your work on implementing them. you mention in your remarks your agency does a lot of beyond border protection it is an important priority but you also actively involved in trade and commerce. i know you travel to greece countries around the world. what are they doing and how are they helping to promote trade and security? >> in your opening remarks he talked about the revenue collection which was important to the revenue that we collect actually is what made us of the country for fronting the revolution were. many customs organizations around the world only see themselves as revenue collectors. that is changing markedly as we see the changes in the world right now when it comes to security. so here we are at both locations, both on the board and that these ports of entry. and we need to be able to not only, economic and customs fulfill those duties, we need to be able to help those countries understand the importance of sharing information and recognize the importance of border security. we have these requests just a letter stacked up in the office from countries that would like us to come visit, talk about our experience. and we are very proud to share with them not only what we think has worked in what's been successful for us but we also cover what hasn't worked as well and where we could improve upon. i think they value that level of honesty and dialogue. >> you also mentioned some of the use of force initiatives are that are underway, edited you specifically mentioned possibly adding body cameras to some of the offices use of lasers and solar. so i'm just curious, what's the implementation schedule on this? where are we now? and where you want to go in this area? >> so the border patrol has made particularly significant changes in their training, reviewing their entire training curriculum right now. but for instance, in the training center in new mexico there are a variety of the different kinds of fences that exists along the border now. this gives those agents in training an opportunity to practice. we have a field test going on of different types of audie warned cameras to look at those, and those seem to be very popular right now in law enforcement. oftentimes of course that evidence can exonerate an officer but it adds a different level of transparency. along with that are advanced training center in harpers ferry, west virginia, we're also expanding and looking at a variety of different mechanisms things that can help stop pursued because oftentimes people will flee in vehicles, along with a variety of us legal technology. we think that will be of tremendous benefit to the united states border patrol, but also our customs and border protection officers. >> so one of the big challenges and border protection is getting information in real time and having it be actionable to the officers. information that arrives two days too late or two weeks too late obvious is not very helpful. want to be done to get information to the frontline agents in real time so that it can improve decision making? >> i think when you go to the ports of entry right now and you see using the apcs that he mentioned or the mobile passport control, you go through customs agency the customs officer in a blue uniform and they're busy entering data and looking at a computer screen. when that information is already out on the computer, they can spend the time asking the right questions and verifying the information rather than them merely doing data entry. so that's particularly helpful. the other of course is pushing the borders out so that when someone is entering the united states and clears customs or attempts to clear customs where we at foreign locations we can actually make a recommendation whether or not that person would be be cleared inadmissible to the right in the united states. that's a huge time savings but is also a huge security settings. so our technology and our improvements in technology, while still having a long way to go, are an important consideration for us. >> so i have one more question and then we'll open the floor to questions from the audience. it seems like workforce development is key in your agency as well as in most agencies. some of euros are having difficulty recruiting workers retaining them. what are some of the new initiatives you have underway? you mentioned kind of diversifying the workforce bringing more women in. what are you trying to do to do with somebody's workforce development challenges? >> i think one of the things that we see with our employees is the value that they placed in working for customs and border protection. honestly, our very best recruiters are the people that work within the organization. they have friends. they have family members. we were close with colleagues -- colleges, particularly community colleges. we were just down in brownsville at ut brownsville and others to talk about the benefits and what you can get back to your country, to be very frank about it, what you can get back to you country by just joining customs and border protection in being a part of this important mission. >> why don't we open the floor to questions of comments from the audience? if you can raise your hand we have a microphone. there's a question up front here. there's a microphone coming up to you, and if you could give us your name and your organization. >> thanks. peggy. i'm the congressional correspondent with the hispanic outlook and education. a couple of questions, one about foreign students. i wonder what kind of data the customs people have from the foreign student database because i think there's been some slips and i wonder if you've improved of that. and the other is pregnant women. i had thought there was some kind of restriction if someone who is seven or eight, highly pregnant, is not allowed to come in but maybe i'm wrong about that. but i know we have a problem with this berth tourist, so if you could talk about those too. >> there's absolutely no prohibition to someone that is lowered into the united states regardless of whether or not they are pregnant or giving birth. so there is no prohibition at all. the student visa information i think was highlighted during the boston bombing information. there's a fusion center of state, local, and federal law enforcement in boston. the discussion was how can more that information, if someone is no longer a student so the into on a student visa but then they drop out of school or the never interschool, et cetera, how can we be more attentive to that? that is both the state department system and also with our uscis part of the department of homeland security so we actually have to work in conjunction with them. but i think you're exactly right, and more attention is being paid to that now and more information is being shared than had been in the past. >> other questions? right here, this gentleman right here. >> tim warren with international trade today. i saw that cbp recent release statistics on the fiscal year 2014 seizures for intellectual property rights violations and i noted that there were fewer of them than the previous year and i wondered if cbp had any thought on why the decrease? >> the report that's issued talks about not only the value but the number of seizures for violations of intellectual property rights. and we do that in conjunction with i.c.e., immigration and customs enforcement investigations. we jointly staff and intellectual property rights command center for information coming in. over the past years those numbers in the valley of those seizures have increased quite dramatically. only within this last year did it kind of plateau out. we want to make sure that we are going after the things that can cause most harm to people in the united states counterfeit pharmaceuticals, counterfeit airbags, counterfeit computer chips, those types of things. so we are concentrating on that comment and we continue to make progress. but i wouldn't look at a one year slight decrease as being really demonstrative of what's going on. >> near the back there's a gentleman with his hand up. >> high, commissioner, it is you again. eric coolidge with american shipper magazine. ii have two questions. you've been praised for your outreach to the trade community, the industry. it's been a year or more since there's been a trade symposium that customs typically hosts. just wondering when you're planning to host or have another trade symposium to bring together the trade community and update them. and then second with all the budget constraints that cbp and dhs have, have you been under any pressure to privatize any of your missions or use some kind of third parties to outsource certain functions? maybe i'm thinking in the c-tpat arena but maybe there are other functions. >> when it comes to betting those organizations and those travelers because we want to make sure both in the trade community that has the least amount of risk to the public is reviewed. i only want that done by employees of the state government that are representatives of customs and border protection. so there's no intent to outsource that. we do use a number of contractors. we look at a number of different databases in that vetting. but it'll going to get that trade group the kind of good housing -- good housekeeping seal of the google, i want to be assured that it was done thoroughly and completely and professionally and i think that's particularly important. when it comes to another trade symposium, as you know the federal government has been under a lot of scrutiny for certain conferences, so we look at that very carefully. that's why before when you got lunch, now you get a bottle of water, if you're lucky. so we'll be looking at putting that together within the guidelines of making sure we are good fiscal stewards. but bringing people together with us is just a key element of the relationship and the communication that's needed. >> smart move. you can't be too careful on the conference from around here. right here is a question. >> thanks. i'm with "huffington post" that you spoke a bit about the unaccompanied minor situation last year. i'm wondering if you give us an update on what what you are seeing this year and is the response or the way border patrol is handling it this year is any different from last year. >> well as i said i couldn't have been more impressed. the first week that i was sworn into office i was in mcallen, texas, and i got to see perhaps in a room the size literally dozens and dozens and dozens of kids sleeping on concrete floors, because we didn't have the contracts in place to remove them. we didn't have the nongovernmental organizations available. all that changed dramatically. so one we're in much better shape today because of having those contracts, having additional detention space, and having food and medical care available, should we see that. the good news is that certainly so far this year, and if you remember, march and april were certainly high point of the influx of kids last year. those numbers are down significantly, and we are very pleased with that. but we are certainly keeping a watchful eye on it. so it perhaps will be down to the levels of 2012 fiscal year 2012 kind of the way it's trending now. so we're glad about that. >> dimension to this problem of counterfeiting, and with counterfeit pharmaceuticals, computer chips. jamaican airbags. how big of a problem is this and what of the most effective ways we can deal with this? >> one, it is an african problem, and when you mention how much are you actually seizing, how much are you identifying, you certainly know and i certainly admit that we are not seizing identifying all of the counterfeit materials. but first we have real experienced people really not to -- knowledgeable people. we have people that can examine women's issues. and my wife wondered about my new interest in women's issues. but we have people that can examine these things and really determine whether or not these things are counterfeit. but then we have other experts. they can vote take a look at the computer chips and airbags and those kinds of things. so that's important. i think the second, all the most important part of all of this is that the more we expand our international footprint, and the more we're in other countries, the more we develop relationships and paths for medication in those other countries, the better we are at identifying something before it ever gets in the container, before it ever gets headed to the united states. and i think that's helpful. >> the gentleman right here on the aisle. >> i am a correspondent from japanese paper. sorry, my english capability is limited. by raising the risk to help terrorism in japan, i have to request two questions to you. first, what kind of a operation ship is being used in government to border protection from the terrorist? another say -- [inaudible] is counterpart in japan. second question. for that means, how u.s. and japan government sharing data? >> i think on the equipment issue, the are committed to parts of the equipment. one is the equipment at the border patrol would use in our air and marine agents would use between the ports of entry. so we have tethered air of staff, many of which have come to us from the department of defense, and they have infrared cameras and high technical surveillance equipment in these tethered aerostats. we of unmanned aircraft, a uas program that's also very helpful. we also things like ground sensors that can be trigger triggered information for alerts to the border patrol agents. and then the border patrol agents have a variety of equipment in the trucks and also the ability to have night vision goggles and things like that. so that's between the ports of entry. at the ports of entry of hundred different pieces of equipment. one is radiation portal monitors so the cargo coming through can be analyzed to see if, in fact there's a dangerous level or some concerns about radiation. the other is something we call nonintrusive inspection devices. really it's just big x-ray machines, both portable x-ray machines, but also those that are mounted within. and they can scan a piece of cargo coming through and kind of look inside it. and then, of course, the last in both of these areas is the knowledge and experience of our personnel. one of our agriculture inspectors the other day was looking at a palette of fresh vegetables that had come in. but he was looking you look at the palette itself, the wooden pallet and he said, you know i think that palette is thicker than what i've seen in the past not by much just a little bit. and, of course, when a canine checked on it, sure enough, it was filled with drugs. so the level of experience and expertise that our people have is particularly helpful. i'm not sure i the agency that we work with. i was recently in tokyo for delivery for a short period of time. but i know that our relationship with the government of japan on these issues is very close and very strong. thank you. >> i was in aruba last year and discovered that the u.s. customs office there is action on the island so you basically go through the customs process before you get on the plane as opposed to arriving here. is this a model that you were seeking to expand? are people happy with the? i was just curious your thoughts on that spent i think the agents in aruba are. >> they seem very pleased with this. >> they seem very happy about that. we're in canada, we are in abu dhabi him were in ireland where in bermuda and the bahamas also. so we are in negotiation with about 25 airports right now around the world have an interest in this. one, it really improves border security. but never achieve what most people don't recognize is that those governments or airports pay 85% of the salary and benefits of the people that are assigned there. so that 70 million people that i talked about, when they landed at jfk or dulles or los angeles they just picked up the bag and got to go. they didn't clog up in the customs line. so we see a benefit in that period so we'll see how it goes. >> right here is the question. >> i'm from the washington homeland secure table. i had a question of the joint task forces that were greeted in november. i wonder if you could speak to some of the successes you've seen or hope to see from these groups, especially since cbp is leading one of them in collaboration with some of the other agencies. >> the joint task forces are secretary johnson's goal for his unity of effort, essentially taking i.c.e.-h. i.s. homeland security investigations, customs and border protection and the united states coast guard and saying how can all three worked together better, cooperate and collaborate. and the coast guard is heading up out of florida, the setting up the caribbean, the florida gulf area. customs and border protection is heading up the land border from texas to california. and then homeland security investigations is really concentrating on those efforts particularly human smuggling network. so quite often the arrest of just a young person who is involved in smuggling couple people don't really get the network. may have started but they've not been in operation. we believe that i think sometime around july the joint task forces will work but the secretary gave myself, the coast guard commandant and the i.c.e. director and opportunity through the a part of forming that unity of effort collaboration. so i think we're looking forward to that, and i think he's really to be commended for pushing that. >> in the very back of the gentleman with his hand up. >> yes. i'm paul with move to fox commissioner. regarding the issue of apprehensions of miners and unaccompanied -- unaccompanied minors and family units at the border, you mentioned that you expected a drop towards the 2012 levels. this is a larger dies compared to, for example, a projection made by the migration policy institute that thinks that it's going to go to the 2015 -- 2013 levels. so you expect a larger die? >> i'm hoping that it will be at about the 2012 level income looking at the numbers so far. we have much better information now about predicting and we perhaps did in the past. the earlier early warning from march of last year was the information that the border patrol presented on the apprehensions. now we have very good relations and interaction with officials in those three central american countries. we also think that that dangers or awareness campaign that he mentioned is pretty helpful. by the way we've almost always issued that instead it's a very dangerous thing to try and into the border, to cross the border. we know from the number of people that perished or suffer really harsh physical conditions that its dangers. but the second part of the campaign was unique last year and it said even if you did here, you're not going to be allowed to stay. and i think that was an important message. >> i think we have time for one more question. i do have a question about the global supply chain. you know, seems like a lot of security issues concern that, and so i know you can focus a lot on trade and commerce issues. how are you going about identifying high-risk shipments and what are we doing to make sure that supply chain is indeed secure? >> i think besides having people assigned in foreign ports and making those relationships with other governments and being at the ports themselves and wanting to andy bean going to demonstrate to other governments how we go about identifying these things, there's a second part of that and that is that we need to make sure that we are exchanging information in areas that may be at risk. we're not going to examine 70,000 individual -- 20-foot equivalent as they are called containers that they can come in every day to our ports of entry. so everything we do is based upon risk. we are always seen and certainly have the rule of law and certainly have the authority behind us to be the regulator to be the enforcer. but quite frankly to the trade community, we weren't is open to developing relationships and communication with the trade community. we are the regulator and your the trade community and we're on opposite sides. that really is not true. the trade community wants to make sure that what they're bringing into this country is as safe as secure as what we wanted to be. and when we really open ourselves up to having for instance, a federal advisory committee made up of a wide array of customs brokers traders, shippers, retail manufacturers, et cetera. when the open ourselves up, we expanded our network of eyes and ears. because, frankly, if you're a ship or in some comes to you and says gee i'd like to kind of ship this and i don't want to really go into much detail and on and on and toshiba says, you know what, i'm a c-tpat authorized. i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to put my risk, my organization at risk. we want that chipper then to call us and say, you know darrell was just you and were a little concerned about, we don't know much about him and we're a little concerned. we love and value that exchange of information. with all the technology, it still gets down to that human factor. >> i like that exchange information and children involving in it. thank you very much for sharing her thoughts on travel, trade, and transmits the we appreciate about your new initiatives and good luck in the future. >> good. thank you all very much. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> both chambers of congress return to such today followed a two-week spring recess. recess. the house gaveling in at 2:00 eastern time for debate on several bills with votes at 6:30 p.m. eastern. later does look at reforming the tax code and irs oversight. you can call the house live on c-span. the senate also returns today 2:00 eastern with a 5:30 p.m. vote schedule addition court judicial nomination. it's possible the senate to return to work on it and that human trafficking measure after negotiations fell apart a few weeks ago because of abortion language in the bill. you can follow the senate live on c-span2. on c-span2. later the second florida senator marco rubio announcing his candidacy for president. senator rubio is a freshman senator and he plans to become the third republican official into the 2016 raise. he will be speaking in miami. you can watch that live at 5:30 p.m. on c-span. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy defense and every weekend booktv number 15 is the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> tonight on "the communicators," director for allies, science and technology on the importance of spectrum for the government and the public. >> the last two administrations on spectrum, when i first started in spectrum management back in 1979 i came out of the marine corps after being artillery officer. i didn't anything about spectrum. most people that i met and even some times often work with didn't understand much about spectrum but now at least everybody realizes part of our daily lives are devices complete lock on our ability to commend kate. and often our jobs or stay in touch with our families. >> tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> freelance journalist james foley was beheaded by isis in august 2014. becoming the first american killed by the terrorist group. in late february james foley's parents talk about efforts to save him and that the federal government responded. they were part of a discussion on the journalist hostages hosted by the university of arizona. other speakers include former ap correspondent terry anderson was held hostage in lebanon for seven just. this is one hour and 30 minutes. >> journalism has changed enormously over the last two decades, information information the once move at the speed of the printing press now moves at the speed of light. smart phones of global internet have put the whole world into the palm of our hands. yet that relentless stream of news and data has not really made our world more comprehensible. speed and technology are one thing your context is something else altogether. for me and for my colleagues in the school of journalism, serious journalism real journalism, the idea of journalism we share with our students begins with a simple idea. it is about being there. not just to get the story but to help illuminate places. but it is often about reporters crossing frontiers in the hope they can bring light to the stories of people who live in the world's darker place. yet these days is kind of journalism comes at a terrible price and it is not the reality that brings us together tonight. jon and diane foley and terry anderson, can attest firsthand to this brutal truth. we are deeply grateful to them and to my former colleague for joining us to share their experiences and thoughts about this hard new world. today, journalists are seen as targets, not only by terrorist organizations and narcotic cartels but we present government. since the early 1990s more than 1100 journalists have been killed and many more kidnapped or detained or driven into exile. the toll includes local reporters who lived and worked in these troubled places, it includes a growing number of freelancers, americans and other westerners who have been enlisted to cover faraway conflict zones. the center for border a global journalism was launched last fall to help bring greater focus to the challenges facing journalists everywhere as they engage in more globalized and a more perilous world. working with academic departments across campus and leveraging the work of our journalism school faculty not only along the border with mexico but in the middle east and afghanistan, we hope to export programs and initiatives to preserve and extend the kind of free and independent global reporting that is essential to a democratic society. what can we all do as professionals, educators, advocates to support the journalist who are out there now? how can we train and equip them and keep them as safe as possible? leading this discussion tonight as my colleague mort rosenblum common member of the faculty of the journalism school and with the, codirector of the center. he is a former foreign correspondent for "the associated press" and ramp years in africa, asia south america and europe. he is the author of several books on reporting, and over his career has filed stories out of 200 different countries, a number of which mort loves to point out, no longer exists. as mort knows as well as anyone the essential qualities of a good correspondent has not changed much over time. now is then it is about curiosity, it is about intelligence, important it is about empathy. but more than ever these days it is about courage. >> the numbers are shocking, but tell only part of the story. behind the statistics are victims who don't know what might happen next, and families who can only hope and pray for something better than the worst period in some regions the death toll for journalists rises with an outbreak of war as happened in southeast asia in the 1960s and 70s. in other places such as a nearby border, the danger is ever present. since 1992, 32 journalists have been killed in mexico. intel the 1980s most victims were casualties of war. journalists were seen as observers of the news not part of it and were seldom targeted. then in 1985 terry anderson "the associated press" bureau chief in beirut, was muscled into a green mercedes. seven years passed before he could meet a daughter born while he was chained to a wall. his captors were on the fringes of the iranian hezbollah. one told them as if it were some comfort, don't worry, this is political. when he asked, his car gave him a new, read bible. the associate press executive worked with u.s. officials to get him released. that situation changed after 9/11. journalists were targeted for what they wrote, what they represented. in 2002, "wall street journal" reporter daniel pearl was executed as he pursued al-qaeda activity in pakistan. in the years since, the number of journalists who have become victims has increased at an alarming rate. the threat can be seen clearly in france near the normandy beaches. in a tree shaded park at the monument to reporters 28 columns have been engraved since world war ii with more than 2000 names. men and women fallen on battlefields or assassinated or killed in accidents while covering the news. since 2001 many of the names have been those of journalists hired in their own societies to get the stories to outsiders cannot reach. of the names are those of freelancers who venture from the united states and other nations to cover the news in the most dangerous areas without the continued support of a large news organization. now with so many freelancers in the field people such as new times attorney david mccraw are working to confront the challenges facing journalists and families in these perilous situations. this year a fresh name engraved at the monument symbolizes the spirit and courage not only of freelance journalists but also the families and friends who support them. james foley survived imprisonment in libya and then ventured into syria to help make sense of conflict was reshaping the world. he was executed on camera. his message by the boards of news was clear. the reporter must be there to tell the story. his parents now worked tirelessly to make sure that an easily distracted world hears this message. his death is no reason to turn away from the danger. on the contrary, inc. america and every other nation, people must support journalists who choose to go into dangerous places on the public's behalf. >> thank you all for coming. we have some serious business to discuss this evening. in fact what can be more important than our eyes and our ears in the most perilous places in the overheating planet? just briefly some background before we start. about two seconds after i met diane and john foley in bayeux, france, i knew this evening had to happen. people seldom does a warm and wonderful as you'll see in a moment. their courage and strength are beyond any words i can come up with. among those white columns you just saw, we mourn also a young french reporter killed on the border in the central african republic. diane put aside her own grief to comfort her mother. their message is wise and unwavering. we need those brave, prepared to journalists out there in the ugliest parts of the world to reflect realities that we all must understand. and we have to realize what too many learned the hard way the price is high not only for them but also for the family and friends at home who support them. the foleys start a foundation we'll talk about that tonight on the homefront. their message brought to mind my old friend terry anderson an old college from the ap who for seven years like so many others i wore an aluminum bracelet with this thing on it awaiting his release. when he emerged from the lions den, none of us could believe his towering spirit, his strength of spirit. today he teaches young people exactly what the foleys told us. reporters must be out of there. even today for kerry it is to a close and intensely personal. the cute little kid we just saw welcoming home her father is not bashing is our suffered were caring -- covering stories in lebanon and beyond. i asked terry lester if he was worried about her. duh. people look carelessly -- tirelessly to address in trouble. among them is david mccraw. i have the new york times fifth amendmentamendment lawyer and bill schmidt glanced at it and said, nice joke. in arizona may be the second an employer. but it's the first period and i underscored the first. who is also here with us this evening. we are extremely grateful to have this panel and actually the foleys are here because john got tired of shoveling snow in new hampshire, but what the hell. terry teaches at the university florida and his gators ain't freezing. and david accepted bill schmidt invitation without a second hesitation. and thank you again for coming. when i left tucson from here actually, this school in the 1960s to get mixed up in fareway mayhem, you had to be pretty unlucky or pretty unaware to get into serious trouble. my first post was the congo covering a mercenary war with drug crazed rebels with machetes who believe the magic amulet turned bullets to water. but we knew what they were. we stay out of their way. in vietnam for the pentagon began trying to limit our access and, therefore, increase the danger, we could go anywhere we were dumb enough to go. and so on. in asia africa, the middle east latin america we journalists were some observers not part of the stories. so we once put it parchment the size of a plea. pretty much across the board combatants left us alone so we could tell their side. well today, all of that has changed. we are no longer a definable press corps with correspondents who know one another and boxes back, watching our backs. freelance independence and local reporters hired at low wages operate on their own. freelance means no wages. it means you get what you sell. governments of rest them militias and terrorist groups hold them hostage, gangs with no political purpose kidnap for ransom. so that's a topic for tonight. what now? and keep in mind because people tend to forget this, and we are talking about journalists. if we as journalists ask our government to protect us we are asking them to control us. it's a pretty series conundrum because that's not what we are. we are not there as representatives of anybody's government or anybody's anything. at the same time u.s. citizens elect, higher, and pay the government to do their business. and one job description is helping americans stay alive. we are not a policy pond for any administration. so let me start with terry. terry, if you can just give us a brief rundown of how the u.s. government first worked with hostage families back in the early '80s, and then in your case, "the associated press," in what changed and how do you see it evolving? >> the american government used to look at hostagetaking as a criminal enterprise. and just as you do in crimes that involve hostages, what's the first thing you do, you bring in a negotiator that doesn't mean you'll give them anything or you're going to reward them for what they're doing but you've got to talk. by the mid '80s by 1985 when i was taken, the government was the reagan administration was insisting that they would not negotiate with terrorists. well, as we all know, those of us old enough to remember the iran-contra, they were negotiating with terrorists, as a practical matter. until the negotiations were uncovered, became public, and then they stop. up to that point they were actually talking to the families of hostages. my sister whom many of you may remember was a front person for a group of families and was very outspoken in her advocacy after pressure on the government to get something done. appointment and white house was a guy named oliver north, marine lieutenant colonel, and she talked to him frequently. and then all of a sudden, it stopped, got cut off. now when president reagan found on the table and said we do not negotiate with terrorists, he said we mean it not going to happen. but the terrorists in fact didn't believe it for quite a while. but more importantly the people in the government that we that our families have been going to for information and for help took refusal to negotiate to mean don't talk to anybody including the families. and they cut everybody off. and that has pretty much continued since then, and i think mr. and mrs. foley can pretty much testified that that's the way it goes. they will tell the families don't go public, keep quiet, we are doing everything we can. but, in fact it was an excuse to do nothing. which was the real problem. >> thank you, terry. diane, that's starting to sound similar from what we have talked about. what has been your experience, you and john? >> well, jim, this was jim's second capture it you will forgive been in captivity for 44 days in libya, and which in retrospect was so brief, but at least there, his capture had been witnessed by a "new york times" reporter and we knew that he was held by the government and thus the state department took the lead rather clearly in that case. and we were in touch with the state department. actually it was another person who got him out, but nevertheless the state department was in touch with us. the second time was very different, because we had no idea who had taken jim. he did not report back to his colleagues on thanksgiving day and we received a call from another freelancer who had been awaiting his return, that jim didn't show up that they had been stopped at gunpoint and captured. so we didn't know what to do. it was just surreal that this would happen again. and jim was freelance so we had no organization if you will, behind them to come and take care of things, you know take charge. so we were frantic a really. and fbi eventually contacted us and told us they would be taking the lead, because this was a kidnap of an american citizen outside of this country. and we thought that was good i mean, we needed help. so that's how it started. >> almost immediately the fbi convinced us to go into media silence. and certainly the captors felt similarly. in hindsight i think that's one of my biggest regrets. media silence helped to entities. one is the fbi and the other is the captors. the fbi had no pressure to go forward with his situation and odyssey the captors wanted silence for obvious reasons. so this went on after about six weeks we really were hearing nothing, absolutely nothing. we were frantic. we fortunately were able to secure the services of a security team through jim's paper, "global post," and we began our search. but for one year we really didn't know where he was or whether he was alive. >> and at that time what was most difficult is we really had no person in the government to go to. we have no one who was accountable for jim, if you will, or any of the others who were kidnapped. i started a series of trips to washington, going to the state department and the fbi, you know, just to remind them that jim was still missing. we did know if he was alive or not and such. we were very disappointed. you know we have no access to anyone with any power or who had any information. and we were not allowed to be part of the effort to get our son out. so i know we can do better as families. we were, at many points i was just appalled at the way we are treated in some instances. and -- >> i think, you know, for a year it's important that for a year and a half diane and i were both told that jim's situation was the highest priority, that everything possible was being done to bring him home but they could tell us nothing because everything was classified. >> what did they tell you if you had gone ahead and started thinking about ran some on your own? >> there was a senior state department person counterterrorism who -- >> nsa national security council. >> we eventually got all four families together, and this was in roughly me of 2014. and he was very blunt. effect on three occasions said the same thing to another one we are not going after them. number two, we're not going to negotiate. number three, we are not going to pay ransom. and number four if you try to collect money you'll be prosecuted with high likelihood be prosecuted. >> at that point we realized we were on our own but unfortunately it was but two years later. so we said what the heck you know i would rather be in jail here than jimmy over there. so we began to raise money in terms of pledges but we did want to handle the money. it's very difficult to collect money from somebody our ask donations from somebody who might wind up in jail. so we struggled with that, but we had some very fine individual were going to go to battle. >> thanks. david, and as it turns out there's a new public information person at the department of state who is one of us. a guy by the name of douglas frantz was a tremendous investigative reporter at "the new york times," "los angeles times." as it happens i worked with him just after 9/11 but we are both in pakistan. trying to get across the border and doug is he gets it. he's a really good reporter. he was gone over, working on the senate foreign relations committee and now he is at the state department. so my question david, is this came up the other day at the museum in washington and his answer was look these are american citizens, we will do the best weekend. and this is being studied very seriously at high level to be something come from the? >> i hope so. first i want to thank the university for having me, and i want to thank everyone that set this up to be up here with these three brave people. it is an honor for me. my connection to this topic came about because in 2008 one of our reporters was kidnapped and i became the person who was designated to run the response to that and work with his family and work with the government. that was shortly followed by another kidnapping and then by the detention of four of our reporters in libya. as a result of all that it was such an unpleasant experience such a difficult experience i really into that committing a lot of my time to help people avoid being in the position in the first place to i spent time with working on security. on the government question, it's clear to me from those experiences that government can and should do better. diane and john and i were talking earlier and their experience as a family actually is not that different from what we experience can even though we have access. in "new york times," a powerful institution, we know people, we can get people to come to the phone, and still the failure of the government to share information was extraordinary. there are many good people working in government who were very helpful doug frantz has always been extremely helpful on everything that we need and we appreciate that. but structurally the idea that the fbi as lead agency, makes absolutely no sense. the fbi does not have the capacity to solve crimes committed in syria or afghanistan, and they shouldn't be the lead agency. to give you one example and then move on which is that on thanksgiving day in 2008 the taliban called our bureau in kabul to negotiate for david, who was being held. the fbi was assisting us very helpfully, by coaching our reporters how to handle those calls. this call came, the fbi could not get a ring clearance to leave the embassy to go to the bureau to help our people. believe are not the taliban doesn't stay on the line waiting. so this was a lost opportunity and it reinforced to us the limits of what the fbi can do. and, of course when it comes to getting intelligence, i'm not sure they are getting intelligence from cia, the nsa or anyone else but i'm not sure there's that level of cooperation. when something happens like what happened to jim, it's very important that information be front and center and acted upon. >> back until 2003 gary no sir was the head guy for this sort of thing. they were much more flexible than. they said they would look the other way if someone did want to pay ransom because it wasn't the government's business. i'm sorry if i am -- you know i -- >> no. i have to say my experience was a little bit different in that very high level fbi official told me and after david was kidnapped, and he said look we are not having this conversation but the way people get out of kidnapping somebody pays a ransom. don't be an idiot. and that conversation never happened. but that was that stuff, i was shocked to hear what you went through, because there was some practicality. comes in 2008-2000. i think there's been issued since then. >> diane and john, in france when you spent a lot of time with reporters who have been out, had been taken and gotten away for one reason or another spanish and french reporters, what's been your experience what's the difference between what goes on in europe and here? >> well, i found there was a huge difference, and that was what was rather shocking to me. once the spanish and french started coming out i was just anxious to go to because it took fbi wants to get cleared. they couldn't even get the government to allow the french or the spanish depending, to get access to those hostages. so the fbi encouraged me to go speak to them. and to get as much information as a good of course i tried for them, but whatever. so i went as a mother, right? but what i was impressed with in paris was that i the privilege of going to talk to people in the foreign ministry and such but i also had an opportunity to go to a meeting of the local media advocacy group that was had a representative from school of journalism, print tv radio and hostage families. and twice the amount they would sit together and these were leading media people, you know, and they would that a lot of the rumors the family for hearing about their loved ones in captivity. became to find the journalists often you more than the fbi that they really knew but they didn't know who to share it with or how to share it or if it was supposed to be a blackout. a kind of did know what to do. but in france they were sharing it with the family batting rumors that advising families that one is fine i think about it that what what is good, you know -- vetting. at the same time they were making sure the public did not forget that these people were missing, had been kidnapped. so they would tv without bylines every night, how many days has it been since they've been missing that sort of thing. they have big pictures of the journalists on every town hall in france. so they really caused a huge reaction in the public. and the third thing they did was they have high level access to the government so they were able to share rumors that they felt had some validity. so i was jealous. i just came home you know i mean, we needed some help. we were all alone. jim being a freelancer didn't have anyone behind him. we had a couple of dinner, good people who stepped up. >> i think this raises a number of issues. number one in france in spain journalists are valued to the almost hero's if not here is. and why is that? well, they have courage and the brain truth back home so the french and spanish citizens know what's going on in the world, can make proper assessments of how they feel about this or that. it also made us think that what could be done if this were happening in the united states. .. sharing information, and assessing risk and really pushing the powers that we to make change and get these people home. one of the things i regret most is that darn media silence because we gave out utility. obviously, we are a democracy there both down. pressure counts. the only pressure is the pressure associated with an organized media who want to accomplish something good for one of their own. >> things chairman. >> let me ask you a question rifle when his come here. let's take a great leap a great leap year in a great day. as soon as is a representative democracy with people who spend as much time looking at the constitution as the super bowl lineup in the oscars last and the people we elect to represent what we want from the people in washington occupy. that is really how it is. this is their country. what is it. let's go down the line starting with terry. what is it that citizens can do should do to make all this better. >> understand what it is we do what the process is, what reporters are out there for what their purpose is in respect what it is we do. most of you not involved really don't understand how journalism works. you don't understand how we got information how we set information, how we choose our stories, how we write them how we added then. you don't know the process. it's a pretty process. the stuff you see in the media certainly in mainline news organizations is pretty reliable. most of the reporters i know arguing that map for certainly the money for the same with the thrill even those who go into danger repeatedly, they are not there for the adrenaline rush. they are there because they truly believe that it is important. that it is important for them to find and tell the truth as best they can do about what is happening in the world and that you need to know those things. and that is why they going to places like syria or other dangerous places. you know, journalism has been changing. we all know that. more and more the people who do that are independent journalists. fewer and fewer are mainline regulatory respondents with an organization behind it. thankfully "the new york times" maintains a large and brilliant foreign correspondent. that's about it. everybody else is an independent journalist. that makes it more dangerous for them. we can only earn what they get paid and the pay levels are pretty miserable. they don't have the money to buy a $600 blackjack that they are taking a $3000 personal safety course. and they don't have anybody as i did spend seven years trying to get you out. they are out there by themselves. i am encouraged by our industry's move to accept the moral responsibility for the independent journalists that they are serious about. >> thank you for that. two things before he moved to david. one is a group of organizations who recently spoke has put together a list of things that journalists ought to know before they get out there and as we got to know back home. one of the main ones among them is news organizations to use the services they journalists should be response before. the second thing i want to say if there will be questions. if you wouldn't mind, write them down. we have volunteers running around helping. if you have a question, if you would write it down we'll have plenty of time for that. >> let me say two things. one is sure simon, who was a friend of everybody you appear recently read wrote a new book about all these issues called censorship. the important thing is that is what this is. this is censorship. this is a human rights issue. this is not only about journalists being killed, kidnapped, harmed. it is about you and all of us not getting them her mission you are titled to you because censorship is not about speakers right. it is about the listeners right to receive a message. we have to think about it that way when we think about civil rights struggles. we need to raise awareness. we need to bring lawsuits and stop impunity in places where lawsuits will work. those suits can become a beacon to show people it is wrong for government to turn their back on their own journalists or not punish those who harm journalists. so i think awareness is the first piece here that is important and think about it as your rights receive information your right to know what is going on not merely our right to publish it. this goes to the great work that the foley are doing that there needs to be better resources for independent journalists. if you think about the whole process, what it is to go when come to get a story come back is throughout the process they need resources. the training they received indicate a kerry, the response that they run into a problem. it is an obligation we should all share in in organizations like my own which feels very strongly that freelance journalist are working for it should be treated the same way as our own employees. but it also is broader than that because more and more as terry was saying, all of us depend on independent journalists who take risks not supported by formal structures, not supported by established organization and the resource is to make sure they have resources in place to support them when they are out getting stories. they have resources and organizations to help them here >> which leads to diane and john's message. i happened to note the main thrust of it which is correspondent at one point are really our own family out there. david i said kerry has said it's not really the case anymore even if we have real jobs. our own families are our own families and friends and structures we have back home. dallas also about not only -- and answers the question of what can be done, but talk about the foundation. one of the first things that struck me thinking about everybody else than thinking about putting together a foundation in the name and honor to help other families and help people who don't have that kind of string or even those who do. >> well, i assert for very much the things that we are to the raising of awareness as american citizens be aware what is taken from us when these journalists are killed and that is not what we want to go to those areas. yeah the whole issue of more and more freelancers in danger across the world because of how journalism has changed. there are many journalists now. thankfully there are good companies like the times they really take seriously their relationship with freelancers. but there are far more that do not at all in good care less. therefore, one of the things the foundation is trying to do a search may work with groups that exist the committees who protect journalists, reporters without borders and other organizations to help freelancers commit to safety practices that they could do but also call it news organizations to protect them if they are going to take stories from them. along that area is kim believed and a free prize. therefore, we are also trying to call on the american media to find ways they can collaborate such as what was done recently with columbia university when several groups came together in a tiny step, but still a beginning step i believe was handed out as you came in, and the guideline that was just a small step but a certain part of it was people who are normally competitors, various news organizations signed on together. in that way it was wonderful. it was very exciting. so we hope the foundation will promote or the back plus working with advocating for american hostages and their families. well, yeah there are many issues with freelancers. one of them is that columbia we were talking to folks at the dart center. madison and not as expensive of course as some of the survival courses that run in the range like terry was saying, $3000 but more of an ability for independent journalists to learn how to assess risk which many organizations can do for them. when you're out in the coming year on the own. >> we became very much involved with an organization called hostage u.k. hostage u.k. is a nongovernmental organization built and designed to support hostage families. they are able to link to the government information with families, but more importantly, they can walk families through this whole process. when jim was cap shared, the first response was where do we go next? if you have a group of people who have been through all of this come you don't have to go through all that day in and day out back and forth. we compare people with responders. rachel briggs who is director of the u.k. is planning to come to the united states for the year, help us at the organization of. one of the goals of the fund is to support that financially. it won't be a simple deal. but we think when not in fact have been in fact happens we in fact happens we will have such a better support mechanism for great distress obviously. we are looking forward to moving not. >> david, let me go back for one second because the business of whether or not to pay rent the u.s. government is this funds the bad guys and sets a bad precedent. talking about the money compared to what we gave them by leaving behind all the stuff we paid for ransoms are pretty much a drop in the bucket. it is not very consistent. every so often there will be some strange exchange for afghanistan. so what about ransoms? >> i am in the fortunate position of having never had to decide. david wrote escaped and steve ferrell journalists who were kidnapped in 2009 were the subject of a british raid in afghanistan to take the taliban. steve is a u.k. citizen and steve was rescued and killed in the raid. that is pretty much the story with the military raid. they are very very lethal many times to the person to be rescued. i don't think there is an easy answer on grandson and "the new york times" has never had a policy about that. it would've been fortunate to have never faced that. when i think about it as an individual in talking to a lot of families over the last six or seven years to ban out to the situation it seems to me that the idea that somehow paid grandson that encourages journalists to take more risk is flawed. i don't think anybody wants to be kidnapped and i don't think french journalists go out thinking i can do what i want. i'm also skeptical of the idea that not paying ransom deters kidnappers, and that it creates disincentives in the theory is kidnappers will not take americans or breaks because those countries don't -- technically don't allow grandson. i just don't think they think of it that way. they take westerners and sort out the citizenship later. a hard issue is the one that mort mentioned, which is the funding. you want to avoid paying if you could but i also know if it was my son just as you feel about your children, you would find a way and it's hard to make that into a public policy statement that this is bad for the future of my country for some hypothetical, theoretical way. the point i would come back to you the one mort raised if i am not sure we are sending a good message to the terrorists and kidnappers. there is an exchange of prisoners. there was an american german citizen in somalia for whom a rant that was paid in the united states looked the other way. that was i think last year. there was ransom paid in the philippines which didn't work out so well in 2002 and unfortunately those people did make it out. again they were u.s. citizens. the lack of decency undercut the notion that somehow we are drawing the heart and mind. the last thing i would say on this and others can jump in because they know better than i do. i think the idea of telling families they shouldn't even talk to the hostage takers is really, really bad ties. it is advised that runs counter to every interest getting intelligence, humanizing the victim, developing a relationship in hopes that some in his going to happen. if you don't talk to them those things don't happen. >> and that is what we wanted was just our intelligence and fbi to negotiate to talk to them, find out what they wanted. we've left these families to negotiate. we didn't know what we were doing. we had no idea. we can do better than that. we've got incredible resources, you know. they didn't want to talk to them. i know that we really feel the anger big time. it just made everything worse because they did reach out to us twice trying to negotiate with as. but they wanted to negotiate with our government. they knew we really couldn't help. >> i think that is truly the case. i forgot what i was going to say. i know. so the recall aspect of this whole thing is as follows. diane and i got the opinion of several excellent in washington and our question was what happens if we try to rescue our son through the process. the answers were interesting. number one, the justice department has never prosecuted a family under duress or trying to bring their loved one home. matter. number two the fbi has said to us, we will help you negotiate. they weren't in any. they told us to write these friendly little letters to describe chin and how much we missed him. but this just angered jim's captures because in france or other countries those ransom note and through the family through the fbi to the government. i think they assumed the same would have been here, which infected. again, another disconnect. you know if you can help, help. if not -- >> that is what would have been helpful is to be clear. you know, if the government wasn't going to help us tell us. in the beginning that we cannot do this. we can't. be honest about what they were able to do and what they were willing to do. unfortunately, that was just not the case. >> we have to at the very least delegate someone to be a liaison. >> yes, they have a special case. france has their hostage crisis unit. we go. >> let's take questions from the floor. are we organizing not? -- are we organizing that? >> if i were to add just to jump in here john and diane put their finger on two things. one is the government's willingness to negotiate. but if they are not going to do that why there is a need for support so the families left to do this have appropriate support training and assistance. when our people were taken in libya and again it shows the difference between having a major organizational issue, i have a cold she sits in the office with me while i talk to the libyans why talk to the state department and while i. it is like having an executive coach when i hang out. he says here is what you did. it was really good. here's what you did that wasn't so hot. tomorrow we will do better and it makes a huge difference to have someone with expertise doing that. if you are left to do it yourself, it is really getting the government engaged and also providing appropriate assistance to the family. >> there should be a dead friends between what we are not going to pay ransom as a government and we are now going to talk to anybody, including the families and certainly we are not going to talk to the kidnappers. i think the government interpretation that we are not going to negotiate with kidnappers is a copout and a cover-up and allows them to do nothing without paying a penalty. that is what they want. that is that the advice to families, consistent advice not to go public, not to make it fast. it is designed for. that may be cynical, but that is what i believe. i am hoping the current review of the government hostage policy is going to find some space they are allowed them to do some of the things that mr. and mrs. mrs. foley has suggested, that will allow them to help families that will allow some type of contact to go on. as i said before, the first thing you do is bring in a negotiator. doesn't mean they will pay anything. it means they are going to talk to see if there is some way to resolve this. we have never seen if there is some way to resolve the problem with the islamic state. we don't know if there is any room on their part because we haven't tried. i think that is a serious mistake and a moral failure on the part of the government. >> just one point here which i think highlights the problem. our people, "the new york times" people in turkey and recovery in syria were getting information about the kidnapping, just in the normal course of reporting. we as a policy were collecting that. reporters are giving it to me and i was passing it on to the

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Turkey , California , United States , Jamaica , Syria , New Mexico , Washington , District Of Columbia , Bahamas , The , Kabul , Kabol , Afghanistan , West Virginia , San Francisco , Mexico , Arizona , Aruba , Libya , Ireland , Spain , Singapore , Greece , Miami , Florida , New York , Canada , Japan , Tokyo , Philippines , New Hampshire , Oakland , Texas , Iran , Congo , Boston , Massachusetts , King County , Columbia University , Lebanon , Pakistan , United Kingdom , Beirut , Beyrouth , Town Hall , Central African Republic , Somalia , Dallas , Paris , Rhôalpes , France , Bermuda , Americans , America , Jamaican , Mexican , Libyans , Iranian , Spanish , French , British , Japanese , American , Diane Foley , Marco Rubio , James Foley , William Bratton , Doug Frantz , Mike Fisher , Terry Lester , Abu Dhabi , Los Angeles , Asia Africa , Conde Nast , Tim Warren , Paul Kirby , Steve Ferrell , Rachel Briggs , Michael Fisher , Michael Chertoff , John Foley , Terry Anderson , Daniel Pearl , Gil Kerlikowske , Eric Coolidge , David Mccraw , Douglas Frantz ,