since 2007 and be under the age of 16 when you came, but you had to be in school, you had to have graduated from high school, you had to have attained a general education development certificate or be an honorably discharged veteran of the coast guard or the united states army. you can't do all that, unless you were here before 2007. so without objection, i'll include the homeland securities development for deferred action in the list of items. let me ask you, is it not true that president obama has deported more migrants than any president in u.s. history? >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> as a matter of fact, some have called him the deporter in chief. now, it seems to me that congress has failed to act in its reform of the immigration system. in the absence of that system, what has been congress' successful role is to dramatically increase border customs enforcement to the point where we have had the most deportations than at any other time. let me ask two final questions. are all 60,000 of the children that we estimate have arrived, they all have a smuggler? did they all pay a smuggler to get here? sdp . >> i don't know the exact figure because i haven't seen the interviews that have been done, but some of the older ones, the 16 and 17-year-olds, at least in the conversations i had with them, either at lackland or in the pc facilities or in shelters, some have come on their own. >> and those that rode the train of death, did they have a smuggler? >> typically, yes. >> now, the national security interests, if we do nothing, nothing as it relates to central america except tell the central americans get your act together but we do nothing more, what's going to be the consequences of that? >> mr. chairman, i think you'll have serious law enforcement consequences for the united states as well. as noted, these criminal gangs operate not only in the central american countries, they operate in the united states. we are bringing actions against them even today on that basis, and the cartels do the same. >> when we had a concerted effort in colombia, did we not achieve taking a country that was virtually on the verge of not being able to control its own internal sovereignty being run by drug lords and ultimately change that country to what is now one of the finest democracies in the western hemisphere? >> we did, mr. chairman. we know how to do this. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you for having the hearing. i actually -- i think it's been very educational. and if it's okay, i'd like it also enter into the record an article from the wall street journal entitled "few children are deported." i'd also like to enter if okay table 39 from the u.s. department of homeland security document that senator johnson was referring to that really challenges a notion and stipulate las the differences between removals and returns. i think returns are diminishing at a pretty high level. but here's what i'd like to say. this is a humanitarian crisis, and i think everybody here, most of us have children. you know, to see what's happening with so many children from other countries breaks our heart. at the same time, with an emergency supplemental, it seems to me that what we should be addressing is, is there something that we can immediately do to change the incentive structure? we talked a little bit about what the phenomenon is. i do think it would be very important for all of government on the executive side to address what is causing this spike, and i do think there is a marketing that's taking place, but it's based on policies. and actually, if you looked at returns, the returns issue is a big part of this. i mean, very few people are being returned. mr. schwartz -- first of all, i appreciate you both being here. i know you all are great public servants. the reason i was focusing on the asylum issue is that if, in fact, the numbers 58%, what that also means is that if you actually ever make it to court, which very few do, you then have a 58% chance of a situation possibly where no action is being taken against you there, too. so i think we ought to define -- i don't want to get into the debate of what asylum is and i know the u.n. and us, we have different categories, but i do think it's important for us over time to find that. i want to go back to the chairman's thrust in this committee hearing. i do think it's important for us to develop policies that, you know, affect the region, and i do think some of the partnerships are important, and i think senator cain's comments that when you travel through central america, you can see the drugs are rampant in these countries. that is fair. but i do think during this period of time we have an emergency that what we would address in an emergency is incentive structure and trying to address the problems that senator johnson raised, and then look -- come back and look longer term at what we need to do throughout the region, if you will, to possibly have some impact on what's happening. some of the central american countries don't have this issue. i think we should look at why they don't. some of the central american countries do have thisish h iss honduras in particular. i thank you for the hearing. i think what's before us right now is maybe an acute issue that we maybe need to first address, and then i do hope over time the committee will develop a longer term plan. again, i thank you both for being here. i know there are emotions running high on both sides, and hopefully there will be some consensus to a policy that will stem the flow as quickly as possible and then let us address some longer term issues. thank you both very much. >> thank you, senator corker. one request of mr. schwartz. i'd like you to produce to the committee what were the detentions of children and the deportation of children prior to 2009? so, let's say, for the eight years prior. >> mr. chairman, we'll do that. >> secondly, senator corker as a ranking member has always been and continues to be a thoughtful member on all these issues, and i appreciate it. the only thing i would say is that there is a difference between passion and emotion. some of us are passionate about some of these issues as some are passionate about the size of government, the cost of government, the spending of government, so it's not so much emotion as it's passionate the end of the day. with the appreciation of the committee for both of your testimony, you are excused at this time. i'd like to call up our second panel. we're pleased to have pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author sono asadio. we also have cynthia ardson, president of the woodson center for scholars here in washington. i would ask the audience that's leaving to do so quietly, please. and steve johnson, the regional director at the american public institute. let me welcome you all to the committee. as i said to our previous panel, your full statements will be included in the record in their entirety without objection. i would ask you to try to summarize them in about five minutes or so so that we could engage in a dialogue and we'll start with you, ms. saseri. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator corker and other members of the committee for inviting me to speak, to testify before you today. i'm sonia nazario, a journalist, author, on the board of kids in defense found bid microsoft, . d i first went to central america to write about civil wars in the early '80s. i focused on unaccompanied children 15 years ago, writing the autobiography of one boy whose mother left him in honduras when he was just five years old. 11 years later he went in search of her in the u.s. by riding up the length of mexico on top of freight trains. last month i returned for the first time in a decade to enrique's home in his neighborhood. i went there for one week. i saw a huge change of why children are migrating to the u.s. a level of violence directed at them that astounded me. i have lived through argentina's dirty war and ridden on top of seven freight trains controlled by gangs through most of mexico. i'm not easily spooked. but after a week, i thanked god i got out of enrique's neighborhood alive. gangs have long ruled parts of his neighborhood but recently controlled by narco controls has brought a new reach and viciousness to the violence. children in particular are being targeted here and throughout the country. children are kidnapped, found hacked apart, heads cut off, skinned alive. sometimes at night, men in face masks strafe anyone on the street. war taxes are imposed on virtually everyone. if you don't pay, the narcos kill you. many neighborhoods are even worse. christian omar reyes, an 11-year-old sixth grader, told me he had to leave honduras soon no matter what. he has been threatened twice by narcos and he fears the worst. last march his father was killed by gangs. three people christian knows were murdered this year. a girl his age was clubbed over the head, dragged off by two men who cut a hole in her throat, stuffed her panties in it and left her broken body in a nearby ravine. i can't be on the street, says christian, who narco hit men pass by -- he says that narco hit men pass by on these ta three-wheel taxis. they shoot at you. i've seen so much death. narcos take children as young as 10 to serve them. they've been told to leave to get out alive. schools have become the narcos' battleground. girls face particular dangers. recently three girls were raped and killed, one of them eight years old. two 15-year-olds were abducted and raped. a girl i interviewed who had been threatened by gangs said, it's better to leave than have them kill me here. and christian told me, i'm going this year, even if i need to ride on that train. children like christian fully understand how lethal the journey can be. neighborhoods are dotted with people who have lost limbs to the train. many know someone who has died in that attempt. the narco cartel is kidnapping 18,000 central americans off those trains every year, and they prefer children. they demand ransom and kill children whose relatives can't or won't pay. you would have to be honestly crazy or desperate to save your life to ride on that train now. many of these children, not all, are refugees. refugees flee their country for safety because they face persecution and possible death and can't turn to their government to protect them. despite billions the u.s. has spent to disrupt the flow of drugs from colombia up that caribbean corridor, the narco cartels, mostly mexican, have simply rerouted inland to honduras. around 2011 -- 2011 -- the narcos' grip tightened. that was not, coincidentally, the first year the u.s. started to see a surge in unaccompanied children. we must address the situation, but by treating these children humanely. and that means more than using the word in the title of legislation. to roll back basic protections of the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act of 2008 and expedite deportation means border patrol will give even trafficking victims a cursory screening. their job is to secure our borders, not to educe information from traumatized children. the u.n., among others, has found that the screening of mexican children for protection concerns by border patrol has been a failure. every child should have a full, fair and timely hearing before an immigration judge and an attorney. while kind has recruited thousands of volunteer lawyers, more than 70% of children must still present complex immigration cases without counsel due to the surge. so picture a seven-year-old boy that i saw alone in court, shivering with fright, expected to argue against the government's attorney who is battling to send him home. let me finish by saying, we must bolster security in honduras and the region not by funding corrupt police and military but by strengthening accountability, the judiciary and child protection. less than a tenth of the president's proposed $3.7 billion funding request is for aid to this region. lacking funding, usaid has closed its program there. we show deep concern for girls who are kidnapped in nigeria but not for girls kidnapped by narcos in honduras. why? how can we demand the country's neighboring syria taken nearly 3 million refugees but turn our backs on tens of thousands of children from our own neighbors? if we short-change due process, i believe that congress and this administration will be sending many children back to their deaths. thank you for the opportunity to speak, and i welcome your questions. >> thank you. ms. ardson, as i said before you were able to come back to the chamber, i will ask you to summarize your statement in about five minutes. we're going to try to get through the testimony and then recess and come back for questions. >> great. chairman menendez, thank you very much for this opportunity, senator corker, senator cane and others who have been present. i would like to emphasize some of the points that have been made by earlier speakers but say that a long-term solution to what is now this humanitarian crisis depends on the quality of improvements in democratic governance, in citizen security, and in development in central america. the united states government must be prepared to commit to these goals over the long term, and central american actors in and out of government must assume a willingness and a will to transform their own countries. there is no one causal factor. i will focus mostly on the push factors of criminal and drug-fueled violence. we have heard the homicide statistics, but as impressive as they are, they tell only part of the story. there are -- there is an excessive focus on homicides that is understandable but it does not capture the other forms of street crime, threats, assault, kidnapping, sexual violence and extortion that affect citizens on a routine and intimate, daily basis. many of these statistics about other crimes are not reliable as civilians do not trust the police or other authorities, and this leads to a significant underreporting of even serious crimes. i would also encourage members of the committee to examine a map prepared by the department of homeland security which studied the cities and towns of origin of the bulk of the undocumented children, migrants, between january and may 2014. they found that the largest number, 20 of the top 30 sending cities and towns were honduran followed by pondesula, the most violent city in the world. and honduran children come from extremely violent areas where they probably think risking it to get to the u.s. is more preferable than staying home. i think it's important to highlight that the ms-13 and the 18 street gang were formed in the u nnited states in los anges and the deportation of gang members who had been convicted of crimes in the united states for years with little or no advanced warning to government officials in the region contributed to the defusion of gang culture and practices. crime and violence, including that perpetrated by gangs, have worsened as drug trafficking and other forms of organized crime have spread. those points have been dealt with extensively, and i will not go into them now. what i would like to address is the kinds of policy responses that this committee could oversee and that the u.s. congress could take. i believe that there is really actually no time since the central american wars of the 1980s that there has been so much media and policy attention focused on central america. i welcome that attention. but i also think that our inability or our walking away from the many needs of peace time era in the '90s and early 2000s had some contribution to the current situation. the car seat of the central america security initiative that was launched in 2008 in response to the concern about the spillover of organized crime from mexico has focused rightfully on security. it has been underresourced and it has focused -- it has not focused sufficiently on other government or development objectives. there is no silver bullet to address these problems. they have taken decades, if not one could argue centuries, to develop. but i believe progress is possible with the right leadership, with sufficient resources, with active participation from central american societies and with integrated approaches, and above all, with adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability. a key ingredient for policies to be successful is political will and leadership from the region itself. i believe that as large as the current spending request is before congress, far too little is made available for addressing the root causes of migration in central america. there is approximately 295 million to address the economic, social, governance and security conditions in the region, but that amount is also to be used for the repatriation and reintegration of migrants in central america. i believe that my time is up, and i will say that kblooimprov citizen security is a necessary condition for fostering economic growth and for it fostering investment. our assistance programs up until now have been too overly focused on counter drug operations and not on providing citizen security and attacking the causes of crime and violence that affects citizens' daily lives. i also believe we need to make efforts to foster opportunity in the legal economy by investing in human capital formation that matches education and job training with strategic -- with the demands of the labor market. i will end there and i welcome your questions. thank you. >> mr. johnson? >> chairman menendez, senator corker, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the conditions in central america that are driving out minors as well as adults. while overall apprehensions at the u.s. southwest border are a quarter of what they were during the migrant waves that took place 13 years ago, the uptick of central american rivals is worrisome because they're unaccompanied children that are among the migrants and are taking extreme risks. that highlights the citizen insecurity factor as a driver, and the presence of criminal trafficking organizations. as you have already heard today, the region has persistent security challenges, so i won't add to the list except to say that there is a good case to be made for focusing attention on the conditions that compel people to leave their country. 30 years ago, after prolonged periods of civil conflict, these countries chose to exchange military rule for civilian elected leadership. no question it was the right decision. but at u.s. urging, it meant reorganizing government, adopting democratic behaviors and building a base of public servants from a pool that had little experience. police had to be divorced from the armed forces to which they had belonged. court houses had to be built and modern justice systems established. it is a process that is still going on today. unfortunately, crime and violence prey on such societies at their moment of weakness. during this time, colombian and mexican drug traffickers fueled by north american cocaine habits invaded central america. initially disorganized, deportations from the united states gave rise to youth gangs. our country has tried to help central american neighbors, among others, such as mexico, establish new justice systems. but these tasks take time and they are resource intense. central america's traditional models of centralized top-down governance with weak districts and municipalities also leave citizens, mares and town councils largely out of the business of making their communities more secure. in the work that it does in central america, the international republican institute specializes in the development of citizen security mechanisms that bridge the gap between citizens, municipalities. we have conducted exchanges with communities throughout the hemisphere that have exemplary citizen safety models. however, there is much work to be done municipality by municipality. we have worked to turn dictatorship into heavy rule. most of the heavy lifting has been done by our partners. our approach to helping them has to be long term, comprehensive, statistic and strategic. thank you for this opportunity to testify and i welcome your questions. >> thank you all very much for your testimony. we're at the end of the first vote, and so we'll have about 20 minutes before we'll be able to return. i hope that you'll be able to stay with us because there are questions that we want to ask of you, and i think each of you have a valuable contribution to make. so the committee will stand in recess subject to the vote. i expect to be around 20 minutes. this hearing will come back to order. let me both apologize to our panel and to thank them for their forbearance. there were more votes than i understood there were, so we just had the last one. the good news is, at this point, we don't have any more votes until much later. and i know that senator corker, i left him on the floor, he is on his way back as well, but in the interests of collective time of everybody, let me try to move forward with some questions. ms. nazario, you spent time in many of the communities in which the children are leaving from. some of my colleagues suggest that their parents' decision to send their child to a 2000-mile journey is purely opportunistic and a way to take advantage of american law. are these parents indifferent to the dangers their children might face on this perilous journey? and is it just a question of opportunity, or is it a question of violence, some of which you described earlier? if you would turn your microphone on. >> there we go. i think until -- i think these parents make evaluation of is it safer to bring my child despite the dangers of that journey, or is it safer to leave them in the home country? and parents who have come ahead of their children oftentimes ten years ago would say it's more dapg ru dangerous to put my kid in south central los angeles than leave them in honduras where they are being taken care of by a grand parent or aunt, and that has shifted dramatically with what's happening on the ground in honduras. these parents have decided it's just too dangerous to leave their children there. i think also greater border enforcement is part of that picture, because as we have ram ramped up border enforcement -- a lot of parents come here honestly thinking they're going back quickly. they prefer to live in their home countries with everything they know and love and with their families. so when parents come here, they don't buy a bed, they don't buy furniture. these mothers say, i'm going to go back any time. i think now with greater border enforcement, they are more clear-headed about it's going to be very hard to circulate back home, and so i'm going to go ahead and bring up my children more quickly than i would have otherwise. so a decade ago, you know, half of mexicans went back within a year. they want to circulate back home. now with greater border enforcement, fewer than a quarter circulate back home within a year because they know that it's getting harder to get in, then that makes it more costly. so that's been part of the dynamic as well. >> but in the first instance, is it fear or opportunity? >> it's absolutely fear. it's absolutely fear driving this. and there has been much talk about 2012, but the actual surge of children began in 2011. that's when we started to see the numbers go up dramatically. >> ms. arnson, let me ask you, i know you've done a lot of work over the years in the hemisphere. i'm wondering about whether or not, in addition to my arguments about the lack of resources and our disengagement since the wars in central america, we fought to create the seeds of democracy and then we didn't nurture it to grow naturally, and all the things we want to see in a democratic society. how would you assess the effectiveness of current u.s. assistance programs in central america and what steps could be taken to enhance the quality of programs and ensure a greater impact on these countries? >> well, i think u.s. assistance has perhaps been most effective in el salvador where there is a formal partnership for growth. el salvador is one of four countries globally. these are shared objectives that have come up together between the u.s. government and the el salvadoran government and there are regular reporting requirements, there's accountability, there are met c metri metrics, and they have identified strategic areas for investment. but i believe the area to a certain extent has been underresourced, and therefore what you have in the citizen security area are many small little points of light, but they don't connect or necessarily build towards a much bigger national phenomenon. i know that there has been great frustration in a country such as honduras with the lack of leadership in security institutions, and therefore people start from the ground up, and in many ways, and forgive me tore saying this, bypassing the leadership structures. so that's why i've tried to emphasize the need for transparency and accountability as a key ingredient of any programs that we would put in place. you can't just throw money at this problem or this set of problems, as much as i do believe that greater resources are necessary. there has to be specific objectives and commitments from the recipient governments to adhere to certain standards. and the ability to give assistance ought to be contingent on the receiving countries' willingness to abide by those criteria. >> i agree with you on that, and i think those are very important. let me ask you as well, though, isn't it the case that this is not a light switch. we're not going to suddenly turn on a certain amount of resources with all the accountability, transparency and condition alal and find a change in central america from one year to another. it's going to take some time. it took some time to get to where it is, part of it from our own neglect, part of it from the weak and very often corrupt governments that have existed in the region. and you're just not going to turn this around overnight. so having a commitment here is going to be necessary in order to get it to a point where we can see citizen security, where we can see a greater movement towards institutions that are transparent, not corrupt, and that we will see the benefits of that as we did, for example, in colombia -- different context, different set of circumstances, but nonetheless, it took some time. is that a fair assessment? >> i would certainly completely agree with that statement. we can in the united states focus on a crisis, respond to a crisis and then turn away once the immediate crisis has dissipated. and i think that the effort in central america is going to take years. the aid programs to colombia have evolved over almost 15 years now, and it takes time to turn things around. and i think staying the course but doing so with metrics and measurements in place is the way to proceed but to take the long perspective. >> mr. johnson, i'd like to hear your views on it. johnson is sitting at the table. we're going to get right to you. >> well, in many respects, they are similar. i think our approach to the problems in central america to the extent that we don't want them on our doorstep, it's important to have a long-term view, that we have a comprehensive policy and that it's strategically driven and not quite as episodic. very difficult for our country to do because in a democracy, we sometimes change our priorities, and because of our position in the world, we have to look at other things that happen that come upon our doorstep that we have to deal with. but given that and given the kinds of tools that we have that we can apply to these problems, i think consistency and a strategic vision is really important. sometimes we don't appreciate the enormity of the change that's involved. for instance, in colombia, the transformation on a code to an accusatory justice system is just a matter of changing the laws and retraining lawyers. but what it also entailed was the building of courthouses which colombia never needed before, a criminal justice tracking system for cases, evidence warehouses and forensic laboratories which they never had. so it ended up being much more than what was originally anticipated. when you multiply that over something like 1100 municipalities for the various installations and facilities that had to be built, it ended up being quite an investment. and i think we have to appreciate that dimension as much as the dimension of changing certain kinds of behaviors. in central america, we don't have the luxury of having all the criminal elements stay out in the rural areas as much as that was the case in colombia. in central america, you have criminal elements that are in the neighborhoods, that are out in the rural areas as well, but also in the capital and in, you know, the very dense urban areas in the form of drug trafficking organizations. some human traffickers that penetrate into those areas as well as criminal youth gangs. this is very difficult to deal with, especially when you're dealing with drug traffickers that have a lot more resources that in many cases than the government does to try to deal with them and try to apprehend them. and so very difficult to go up against this. the corrupting power that they have is tremendous. and, again, it's going to take time. but one of the things that we feel is key, at least in my organization where i work now, is that citizen participation and citizen security is very important because people in their own neighborhoods know some of the things that need to happen and need to change in terms of leadership for their authorities to begin to react in a proper way that will deal with the problems that they actually feel. and the top-down kind of leadership, of governance that has been the experience in central america long before the transformation to democratic rule is something that's still there and still impedes, to a great degree, the ability for citizens to have a voice. >> thank you very much. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know that senator corker asked for unanimous consent to include in the record table 39 from the department of homeland security enforced model. i would ask for a consent to have a summary of that table. >> without objection. >> i would like to speak to it because i would like to provide the full and complete picture in terms of renewals and returns whi which i think the american people would view as deportation. in respect to formal removals which president obama referred to as the deportation king, president obama is ahead of the pace of president bush's both first and second term, and removals are defined as removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible alien out of the united states based on an order of removal. an alien who is removed and has administrative consequences placed on subsequent reentry only to the fact of the removal. that's what a removal is. a return, on the other hand, are the confirmed movement of a municipal alien out of the united states not based on removal. i think we're trying to speed up the process. i think we want more returns rather than removals which is taking the judicial process and taking years and creating more incentive for people to come. let me just lay out the facts in terms of president obama's record on removals and returns which i think most americans would view as total deportations. in his first term, president obama had about 1.58 million removals, 1.6 million returns for a total of 3.2 million, what i would consider, deportations, okay? as a broadly viewed term. president bush, on the other hand, in his second term, had about 1.2 million removals compared to president obama's 1.6, okay? but in terms of removals he had 3.8 million compared to president obama. 3.2 million removals under president obama. in president bush's entire term, both terms, there were about 10.3 million removals and returns. i just don't think we're being complete in our description of what president obama has actually done because if you combine the two, his record is definitely lagging president bush's in previous administrations in terms of actual removals and returns. again, 5 million for president bush a second term, 3.2 million for president obama's first term. but again, i think that just provides a more complete record of what the problem is there. i'm not sure whether you were here during my first line of questioning, but i would like to give the witnesses the exact opportunity. please, maybe in a sentence or two, i've got a little more time. what should be the achievable goal of u.s. policy, achievable goal? i'll start with mr. johnson. >> our goals in foreign policy are to protect our country, defend our nation and defend our citizens and protect our borders. in doing that, we have a foreign policy that works with other countries to develop alliances -- >> let me just stop you there. let me define what achievable goal -- unaccompanied children. we have this humanitarian crisis on the border. 57,000 currently in this fiscal year. secretary johnson said it could be 90,000 by the end of this fiscal year, so by september 30, over 100,000 by 2015. what i'm talking about is what is the achievable goal to solve the problem of unaccompanied children? keep it brief, because i think this can be described pretty briefly. >> with due respect, border policy are beyond the scope of my current responsibilities, so i defer that question to the other witnesses. >> okay. ms. arnson? >> the achievable goal. one would be to speed up the process by which children who might have legitimate cases for asylum or refugee status are heard so that that waiting time in the hundreds of thousands of cases that are in the docket is rapidly gone through and to speed up, you know, the process without violating u.s. law and international law regarding the claims of people who potentially have requests. that's the very short-term. the longer term, of course, is to contribute to a more stable and prosperous and safe central america, and that is the long-term goal, i think, that has to be the focus of this committee but also an important objective of u.s. foreign policy. >> based on your answer, what you're telling me is that long-term goals are probably not achievable in the short term. let me just ask you, what is the speeding up of the process of adjudication? that's a goal to achieve what? why do you want to speed up the adjudication process? >> to speed it up so that the backlog does not exist and send a message that is therefore exploited by traffickers to play on people's fears and hopes that once they get to the country, they will stay for some number of months or stretching into years, so that those cases can be speeded up, so that there is an expanded process of hearings and expanded process on a more expeditious process. >> so you're saying the goal would be to send a message to the smugglers so they no longer send children to america unaccompanied. again, i'm just trying to focus in on wouldn't the goal in that case be to stop the flow? >> i think the goal is to contribute to conditions that no longer serve as incentives to the flow. the principal cause, i believe, is not the misimpression, though the rumors are certainly spread by these unscrupulous trafficking groups, but the critical driver is violence. and if you look at the places of origin of the children that have come as part of this 52,000, you know, this fiscal year and you look at the levels of violence in the sending areas, those are the most violent places. >> i did point out earlier in questioning that the murder rate in both new orleans and detroit are comparable to one or two of those countries in central america. i don't have the graph right here, so we have violence as well. just real quick, ms. nazario, what would you say is the goal, our short-term achievable goal to address the unaccompanied children problem? >> i think the short-term achievable goal is to protect children from being sent back to death, and i think there is a humane practical approach that is not being discussed by the senate. i am concerned that children are released, and too many of them do not show up for their court hearings. and if you were a seven-year-old child and didn't have an attorney, you wouldn't show up for your court hearing, either. i think you can hold these children for 60 to 90 days, a limited amount of time would be humane, in refugee facilities or even the facilities we currently have. bring in immigration judges, spend money on that, and adjudicate their cases quickly. give them a full, fair hearing with someone who knows how to bring out -- do child-sensitive interviewing techniques, provide that child with an attorney so it's not a sham process, and if they do qualify, to answer your previous question, 40 to 60% of these children do qualify for some existing relief to stay in this country. very few of them are getting that because they don't have attorneys. but if they do qualify, then let them into this country and increase the number of refugees and asylees that we take. if they don't qualify, then deport them immediately, and that message will get back to those countries. if you're coming for economic reasons, and there are parts of honduras and people who are doing that, then send them back and that will send a message. that option -- i'm not popular in some human rights groups for saying keep these kids in detention, but that will force them to go through the process and not simply be released and sometime show up to court. and by the way, they're much more likely to show up to court if they have an attorney, and these cases go much more quickly if they have an attorney. but if they are a refugee, i think we are a compassionate country, and we will let people in. and if they are not, then deport them quickly and that will send a message. >> i agree, we are compassionate, we want to treat these kids with real humanity, but i am also highly concerned about parents making that decision to send their kids on that very dangerous journey. i'm concerned about those kids as well. from my standpoint, our primary goal has to be to deter parents from making that choice. if we have asylum cases, those should be requested in the home countries, and if we need to beef up resources, i would say let's do it in the home countries. let's not incentivize people to come here, take that very dangerous, very awful journey. >> i think we need to do both. we need to have more in-country processing the ability to apply for refugee status in these three countries so those children -- i mean, i spent three months making that journey, and i had post-traumatic stress, and believe me, many children die and lose arms and legs on that journey. you don't want that. so you do need to beef up that ability to do that in those three home countries. and we haven't done that. >> thank you again. it's very important that we define the goal, define an it's important that we define an achievable goal so we define policy. >> what i defined is achievable. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> just a quick follow up, senator johnson. i have spoken with a lot of people, u.s. officials and others in preparation for this hearing but also over the length of this crisis and one of the things that sticks in my mind is the comment of a senior official from the u.s. government. i won't say more as not to identify him because if as a parent you face the choice of your child joining a gang, being killed because they're not joining a gang or sending that child to the united states regardless of the perils of the journey it's obvious why parents make that choice and those sending condition versus to be addressed. >> well, look, i appreciate all the information and the views. you know, as i understand it honduras per capita is the murder capital of the world. that beats detroit. if you're the murder capitol of the world. you're the murder capitol of the world and two other countries are third and fifth in that category as well. so that's globally. so that's pretty significant in terms of citizen security and why people flee. and it would be my hope that if we defined just stopping the flow as our goal then we are going to have a long -- i want to stop the flow too. but the way you stop the flow is to change the realities on the ground so people will stay in their country and not flee out of fear or fear of opportunity. if i have no fear for my life and if i have opportunity, then i'm not going to flee. i visited those central american countries. they're quite beautiful. so i think that if we really want to stem the flow we have to change the realities on the ground. if not, this will be a reoccurring problem. it will have it's spikes and it's lulls but the goal is to ultimately change the dynamics so we don't have any of this flow coming to the united states other than through normal legal procedur procedures. >> you focused on the statistics in honduras. 100,000. it's worth recalling that the distinction of the most violent city in the world went to columbia and it was identified in the last few years as the most inthey have a tif city in the world. the homicide rates are still serious but they have gone down and they have gone down as a result of a sustained investment, participation of the society of the private sector of the church and of the local government in investing in human welfare and really transforming that city so it's possible to go from a bad place to a much better place. >> ladies first. >> when i was just in honduras i saw very few children bringing up the issue of is there an avenue to staley gally in the united states. what they all talked about first, second and third is the violence. and i realize that's a very difficult prospect given the corruption, the corruption that has affected the economy when the chamber of commerce says that 7 in 10 small business versus shutdown in honduras because of extortion threats on businesses. can you imagine that happening in the united states? so it's a very long haul process. but i have long said that to stem this exodus whether it's children or adults you have to deal with these issues. the root causes of the issues at its source. >> thank you. mr. johnson. >> i would just say that in addition to the work that's being done in our capitol and in the capitols of central american countries by their leaders that we focus also on the citizens and involving their participation but ultimately the policies are ones that should benefit them and should effect their decisions as to whether they can stay in their countries or whether they have to look elsewhere to lead predictable safe lives. their voice is very important and i hope we can keep that in mind as we decide actions to take moving forward. thank you. >> all very valid points. the suggestions that you collectively had. i want to thank you all for your testimony and for hanging in here with us through the votes. this record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow. i would say that we -- as the record remains open we will permit outside organizations to present statements for the records. with the thanks of this committee this hearing is adjourned. >> so we're here at salisbury house in des moines iowa. it was built by carl and edith weeks in the 1920. carl weeks was a man of many interests. one of the most notable was his art works, sculpture, the library collection is a rare collection of first edition works. medieval manufactures. it's incredible. so carl weeks collected the books that he collected not only because they're important historical works but also because he believed that books themselves were works of art and had a worth beyond the words on the page. so he collected almost every addition of leaves of grass. now leaves of grass by walt whitman changed overnight. whitman added poems but for carl it was the art of collecting. carl also collected a variety of first editions of earnest hemingway's work. this is the green hills of africa published in 1935 and this is a great piece because it illustrates the personal relationship that existed between carl weeks and earnest hemingway. so this inscription, to carl weeks, instead of a drink at penas. with very best wishes, earnest hemingway. >> explore the history and literary life of des moines a. sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on cspan 3. >> afternoon president karza circumstances set to leave office in august after 13 years. they'll discuss his legacy and the country his successor will inherit. >> later the kcato institute examines our current mortgage system and housing reform since the 2008 financial crisis. see that event live at 12:00 p.m. eastern also on cspan 2. >> july 20th marks the 40th anniversary of the first lieu c -- lunar landing. saturday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span 2's after words. >> 40 years ago the watergate scandal lead to the only resignation of an american president. throughout the month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend, opening statements from the house judiciary committee as members consider articles of impeachment against president nixon. >> it occupies a unique part of the political system. it's the one act in which the entire country participates and the result is binding across all the states for four years. the out come is accepted and the occupant of that office stands as a symbol of our national community and committee f. the judgment of the people is to be reversed. if the majority will is to be undone. if that symbol is to be replaced through the action of the elected representatives it must be for substantial offenses supported by facts and not surmise. >> watergate, 40 year later, sunday on cspan 3. >> back in 2012 the un secretary general created a panel on development co-chaired by the liberian president. they talk about the african union involving strategic development. they're hosting the discussion. it will get underway shortly here on c-span 3. good morning, everyone. we have just been waiting for my colleague to join us. oh, i think he's -- one minute. okay. be patient with us and we'll begin. my name is jennifer cook. i'm director of the africa program here at csis. welcome to everybody and a special welcome to our guest today. we're here to talk about the common african position on the post 2015 development agenda. this is a set of agreements that was adopted in january of this year and launched in february of 2014. a set of principles developed in a broad and particapotory process to give public citizens, private sectors and legislators and regional stake holders a greater voice in laying out a global development agenda. a global agenda but an agenda for africa. for over a decade. here's my colleague. i'll introduce in a moment. for over a decade that global development agenda has been shaped by the development goals. most of you are familiar with them. 8 international development goals established at the summit at the un in 2000. all members of the u.n. at that time, all 189 of them agreed to the principles and i'll run through them briefly. eradicat extreme poverty and hunger. reduce child mortality. to improve maternal health. comb combat hiv/aids and other diseases. ensure stability and develop a global partnership for development. i think they have seen a lot of success in setting these big ambitious aspirational targets on some of the major human development challenges as a motivator and incentive and something of a measurement. there's some decrcritiques on t for progress but they have also been criticized for being heavily focused on the external element and expersonal interventions and external funding and focus more, let's say, on the needs of african citizens rather than on building their capacities. so we'll hear today from the doctor who is the president of liberia. special envoy for the post 2015 agenda. he is here today to present the common african position. why it's different from the mdgs, what motivated it and what are the next steps in bringing this to fruition. it's a real particular pleasure today to introduce him. he is an old and very dear friend of mine. we met on a voice of america program in the midst of the liberian war. we're talking about charles taylor at the time. he is a man of many hats. he's a film maker, writer, journalist. he wrote some brilliant analysis and captured stories of the civil war in the aftermath in such a poiniant way. it's a pleasure to see him working on building africa and building liberia toward the future and on the recovery and reconstruction. it's a real pleasure to see him again and see him doing this important work: he's doing more on the mdgs than i have. dan why don't we turn to you. >> i'll be brief and i'll apologize for being late. thanks for being here. i'm a great admirer. hi the pleasure of meeting her a couple of weeks ago. i think the high level panel she was one of the point people on, i suspect you had something to do with that as well. i think the report that came out a year ago is an excellent report. i think it reflects obviously liberia's experience and her experience and her aspirations for the future. i thought what i think is particularly interesting about that report is the reflection of the change the world that the high level panel saw from the year 2000 in terms of the role of investment. the cost and impact on development which is, i'm sure, quite well. and also the opportunities around the role of investment and trade as well as domestic resource mobilization which encompasses mobile development but also allows them to pay for their own development through tax revenues as well. that's something of great importance. i also think that what i took away from the high level panel report is that aid serving as a catalyst, as a supporting actor in other folks central act of development if you will -- and i know that we're coming to a point soon on the post 2015 development agenda where the high level panel sent their report in, the secretary general sent their report back. there's a whole series of conversations around the process so collaborative is probably -- it's collaborative in capital letters. everyone has had a chance to way in but at some point there's going to be a small group that will go off in a room somewhere and have a real political process because you can't have 35 of these goals. by un standards they have been an excellent way of organizing principals although much of the progress that's been made is because of growth in china or india or some specific targeted social programming in places like brazil. though i think assistance has had a role in it though i think there's been other factors that have been as or much more important frankly. so we don't want to screw up something pretty good. you had 8 simple organizing principles. whether it's 12 or 13 i'm not sure the traffic can bare more than that. one of the questions i have been asking and i hope you'll answer is whether it's the japanese or the canadians or the u.s. or the brits i have said what are your pet rocks going into this process? what are going to fight for? what is africa going to fight for in terms of whether it's two or three additional things or things it wants to keep in this process. there's going to be a political moment and that's partially why i expect you're in town is we're coming upon that political moment. it's a pleasure to have you and the fact that the room is full and we have so much interest, i think reflects the fact that this is africa's moment as well so we're so pleased that you're here and it's very nice to meet you. thank you. >> good morning, everyone. and i'm pleased to be here. to start with your first questions, i think the problem responding to what they just did for africa is very simple. it's focussing our attention on issues. the down side is that it was externally driven. so by 2010 they met and during that meeting they decided that, well, the mdgs will expire in four years. four or five years. we have to be prepared and then we have to have something to say in what will happen up until that and then we decided that well, we will set up a system. we will set up a thinking group as to how does africa go into 2015 and how does africa take care of what has changed on the continent? a lot of things have changed not only in africa since the 2000 mdgs but around the world. so started working through and having consultations underground in every country around the continent and last year finally it's time to put all of these ideas together and say how do we now put these things into a frame work that will not only reflect africa's priority but also see how we can over the rest of the globe. because it has to be practiced and we're lucky as an envoy of the president to be part of that process, to be part of the process of the un development and un 2015 consultations of a high level panel that had 24 members from a differ part of the world and also co-chair by indonesia and and britain. just the same week we handed it. we create this group. they start creating a group of experts which was the case of the mdgs. we'll start with the political process. we'll eliminate a few head of states so they decided to pick two head of states from each of the economic regions of africa. two from west africa. two from algeria. two from central africa and you had eastern africa. chad, and congo and southern africa we had south africa and we set it up at the seat of the au and the prisoner was named to chair the process and we have been having meetings and the big problem is how do you reduce the priorities that we thought people were coming into workable frame work. after many meetings, the first one of the hlc high level committee or head of states was held in new york in september. we thought what are the main issues. so we came up with five pillars. the five pillars that sort of will be aging for the development of africa. and where is the world going? it was not just about the priorities but where the world is going. what kind of world we want to live in and what kind of partnership do we want to establish. one of the biggest problems is that the partnership was not taken where it was supposed to go. so therefore partnership becomes an important aspect of the whole process. we had structural economic transformation and inquisit growth. this was important. it was important to the president. she'll keep repeating it. no matter what you want to do. no matter how you want to deal with social issues, if you don't deal with the economy factor you still have problems because that is the source of inclusion. that's a source of exclusion. that's where people are excluded. that's where people are -- people that they're not part of the process and therefore it was very important to have economy, transformation, not only in liberia, in africa, but also around the world. i think the global crisis that we all experience and it lasts five years show clearly that we are all interlinked. something happening in iceland and then and then to housing and then from the housing to the banking system and some countries are still filling special countries coming out of countries like liberia. if you need to create a new economic order you have to have people who are able to sit and think and say what do we have underground in africa and how do we transform africa itself from within without expecting every day somebody coming from there and saying this is what you need to do. this is how you define size. but can you really have home grown size. can we have home grown innovations? can we have home grown technology that deal with our issues so we become participants in the global process from an african perspective but not simply sitting there and being on the receiving end of issues. the third one was people centers development. the main part of all development issues could be human being. that include health. in mdgs we're talking about education. education for all. i think in many countries in africa, we have had up to 80 or 90% but the quality of education becoming an issue. say how do we create quality education. not just putting kids out of the street and into the classroom but providing quality education that allows them to be able to prepare for themselves for a descent life. get good jobs and be able to live as human being. and also the perspective that back 20 years ago when we were talking about development, it was more like, how many white elephants can you build? like a big house? big hotels that nobody can see in. who highways into the desert. but now we're saying development is about simple little things. people being able to have clean water. mothers not dying by giving birth. children not dying after six months of life. being able to have to go to school. people not having to work ten miles to go to a school where there's no teacher or no classroom. and that kind of thing. we have to refocus development under basic issues, basic health care. basic education and basic needs taking care of transportation. that includes migration. how do you stop people from creating more slums into the cities because there's nothing else -- there's nothing to do in the village. so how do you organize, quote unquote, organize the village so that people don't have to rush into the city. number four was the ability, natural resource management and disaster and risk management. and this is very important for africa because we -- if you look back into history, maybe back to 400 years agatha africa has served as a place where things are taken from. be that human beings or resources everything else. we have to work. and do with other people to do it. and also climate change. we say that africa has an issue with climate change. we have consequences of what is happening around the globe but we have not created the problem we faced. we want to be part of the solution and we want to see how to mitigate climate change. knew pretty well that we are not primarily responsible for climate change and that even happened before we even got into this point of development sometimes when we talk about africa in terms of development, we think about somebody coming in with a bank book. the check or somebody coming in with a factory and saying okay if you do this, you may have to do that but we're saying can we change that model? we can have home grown economies that take care first of african needs and how do you do that? and how do you transform your own economy and how do you finance that? you're seeing taxation, local resources. there's a lot of resources that have not been tapped maybe because we have always looked at outsiders to come with solutions so therefore we paid little attention to our own potentials and that has to change. that won't change. >> africa received between 50 and $60 billion a year in aid. but 3 to $400 billion fly out legally or illegally and two or three days ago i was listening to mpr, the secretary of commerce of the u.s. was talking about how do we stop companies from moving the headquaters or their countries into where they pay taxes in the u.s.? so we have something -- we both have to fight these things. how do you make sure that people that has flooded resources paid the taxes so they come up and say, oh, we need a tax break for five years? and at the end of the five years they made enough money to move out to the next country and start the same process and it's been going on in africa for a long time. you have companies that work in liberia. at the end of the six years they have enough money to say hey we had new ideas and we can probably do that. how do we stop doing that? the money that grew from african economies. they usually go to another african country. they go to europe. they come to american banks. they go around. so how do we create a new partnership where finances, partnership really is partnership and not what we have is old concept of you are my partner but i stied whdecide wh do. i decide what is on the table. i decide what is feasible and what is not feasible. and then two weeks from now the african presidents will be talking to the president of the u.s. and i think they'll be part of the discussions but these are issues we need to talk about. if we talk about partnership, it's not about you deciding as a big brother what is good for your market and my market. that means there's no partnership. it's a big brother, small brother thing. so that mentally has to change and can we change that? we think that it is possible to change. we think africa had change in terms of governance. in terms of being able to know what their resources are and in terms of the whole global outlook. russia is not the same russia there 10 or 15 years ago. china is no longer the same china. clean air is, you know, everybody's problem. these are the issues and i gave you five but there's a 6th one that came in at the africa summit in june and that was security. they said we like what you have. we like what the committee has done but there's one important aspect of issues in africa that we need to tackle. that is piece and security. if you don't have piece, if you don't have security, whatever you do is blown out of the window south sudan, everybody was so excited about them being independent, one of the longest of all time in africa and they went and invested $400 million into infrastructure but now what is left probably they burned down cars. $400 million investment that went in there is all going toward the window. so without peace, without security, you're not going to be able to do anything. our problem is there is a group of people at the un or nations that control it around the world. they shutdown the discussion when we're talking about the high level panel. they say no you can't talk about piece and security. this is part of the security councilm council mandate. talk about human safety and all of those things but peace and security in the same sentence, no, you cannot use that and in africa we say we are 27% of the u.n. so we'll talk about it and put in our agenda how we negotiate around it. what term will come up when the political discussions start that's a good thing but we don't often see peace in terms of boots on the ground but it really comes to send troops to any conflict you already have thousands and thousands of dead people and mostly young people, women and children, the most vulnerab vulnerable. in most conflict the army always survive but everybody else dies. so we are looking at peace in terms of peace building. but an end to inequalities and driving something that will maintain society where you don't have to fight. people don't have to fight for their rights and i think most part of the continent and now you could say africa changed in that light. we had three generations of leaders in africa. first we had the founding fathers, who had great ideas. just talk about integrating the continent militarily and financially. but didn't have the means to do it and somehow there was a transition and every day you had new military leaders from some country and that crystallized this system of africa being stable, insecure and not worthy of investment and that idea went on for almost 20 years but now we have a new set of leadership. i would say 90% are elected. they are accountable to their people but not to the west or the east as in the 1980s. in the 1980s if washington liked you you could be in power for 50 years. if russia liked you you could be in power for 50 years but then you were going over how you went out. but that has changed. elections took place. good or bad they're not perfect but they take place. people respond to the -- the government responds to the needs of the people and therefore we have a new africa and i think in that sense africa had changed and we're capable and able to look at ours from within. these are our issues. these are our problems. we know that the u.n. process is going to be a global process. you're thinking about 200 and something countries that have their own interest giving ourselves and the african position, we had those issues. some people had -- well, some people talk about economy and some people talk about them being more important and some talk about how do you deal -- some deal with interests. climate issues. security. we say yes. these are all ideas for negotiation. we'll sit and talk about those but for the time being we'll sit and talk about where africa wants to go, where africa wants to go and what world we want to live in 20 years from now. we have comparative advantages as africans. besides being 27% of the un, africa will be the youngest continent in 20 years. maybe say five out of seven young person capable of working age will be living in africa. africa will still have tremendous natural resources. africa will be $1.5 billion consumers and goods. we would like to be able to discuss these with the rest of the world. so we have copies that we brought. i would like to pass them around and then open up the discussion for the rest of the time. >> thanks very much. there will be lots of questions as well. what's interesting to me about this set of pillars is that it opens up a whole new range of players in kind of the development agenda. i think the mdg's were very much focused on government to government and or fill philantropy to government. where in this one it's investors, banks, private equity and so forth as you talk about science and technology it bring ace whole new community. you know, i think science and tech partnerships from the united states and other countries has been an area of growth or expansion whether it's health or on a whole range of issues. on the natural resource management, obviously that's a big one. we have been doing work recently for the new energy producers and the big new flows of oil and gas coming out of east africa. how will that get managed? interesting on the capital flight issue. a couple of years ago through the imminent -- what is it, the africa progress panel put out that excellent report talking about kind of the shale companies in congo, tax evasion, tax avoidance and that at the same time, the g-8 in the u.k., at the u.k. summit was focused on setting global transparency for tax enforcement and rules on beneficiary ownership of these various companies. so it would be -- i think this agenda blends very well with that one on the natural resource management. i'm going to turn to dan and then we'll open up and take a couple at a time. i don't think we will not go -- i don't think for the full hour but we'll see how the question is. >> i would be curious about this role of china in africa and how you think about it in china development i asked every public leader i met how they saw china and i got a variety of very thoughtful answers and interesting answers. i would be curious about that. >> yes, i have my idea about china as development and i think i also have my idea about the u.s. and development and i have my idea of china being the new kid on the block. they have a lot of cash. one time somebody asked a president here what do you think about china? she said, well, they promise and usually they deliver and africa has a lot of needs. and there's a down side of cour course. it's the cycle of dependence you don't want to fall into. you don't want to fall into china being the factory and africa being the consumer and africa supporting the natural resources to china because that's what is happening. if you go into the market of that car where ten years ago you could buy your handmade things in the market, they're made in china. if you -- a few years back when i was in that so all of these flags because of the african cup of nations, the flag, the balloons and i asked the kid, let me see and i looked at it and it was made in china. i'm aware of china and people are starting to think about okay, china. we have the money, you have the money, you have resources but africa has its own. it shouldn't be driven because china has its money because it's easy problem. >> thank you. >> good morning. thank you doctor. i'm barbara simmons dean of international education at tutman university. one of the things you mentioned was a new africa. we just had our first commencement at which he was the keynote speaker. earlier that day someone said we were producing a new breed of student. can you talk more about the new africa? >> hi, i'm with global development network and we build research capacity in developing countries. and i'm wondering how does this process working on the mdgs work with agenda 2063 and the african union vision for the future of africa and is the process overlapping and how is that working? >> new breed of students, i think the emphases is on the quality of education. the university, i know, i have been -- i was there when it was first opened by the president and we talked about it and the fact, for example, that the university is now talking about creating science labs, agriculture labs and to deal with products that are coming from marilyn. >> marilyn liberia. yes, palm oil and sugarcane all producing in liberia and how to transform those to chase the economy and make sure that the kids don't get up in the morning and say have to go to get a job. but i can work in the factory. i can work in an office and i can work as a scientist in my own country to do something. i think that's what we call a new breed of students and i think that's big on the president's agenda and it's also an essential part of creating a new sort of education and new curriculum based on africa's needs. it's based on where africa wants to go and based on africa's resources. on occasion of 2063, 2063 is a long-term vision that is being developed by the au, african union. and that is a 50 year plan. it goes hand in hand with the cap. takes something from it but what it says is essentially that 2063 agenda is african agenda. it's not something that we're negotiating. cap is primarily for negotiation to have our voice in the agenda but the 2063 agenda is the long-term vision of where africa wants to be in 20 years, 30 years, et cetera is purely an african agenda being developed by africans for africa and that is not really looking at outsiders and saying what outsiders can do for us but rather what africa can do for itself and i think what africa can do for itself, i think the fact that we're able to do the cup to come up with a common position after four years of negotiation and, you know, discussions is something about what they were talking about. and she will never have one tangible solution. so we have to have one and africa has come up with one. this is the only region in the world we have 54 countries agreeing on the same development agenda and i think we can sell it. i think we are good in the world there to be working with us. >> hello. my name is wendy. i'm with the american red cross. you mentioned that disaster risk management is one of the priority pillars for africa and the network of red cross and red crescent societies in africa, they're very strong with disaster risk reduction in and kind of in cooperation with their kmuns. that's where the real strength lies. these thousands of branches in africa working with families and people. do you feel like it's being adequately addressed in discussions within the open working group right now? thank you. >> yes i think we, as i said at the beginning, we think that transformation of our development processes through economic transformation, taking care of basic issues cannot address all of these issues. i think we're trying not to -- they were more focused on social issues. and sort of emphasized the social aspect of problems that you'll face on the continent and we're trying to move away from that. not that we don't think -- we think that social issues are not important but we think that they are linked to bigger problems. they're linked to economic issues. economic exclusion. economic separation between t you know, the widening gap between the rich and the poor and all of these things. so i think those issues are taken care of and if you look into the document, you can also find it on au.org. we have all of those issues underlined but as goals and as, you know, goals and targets in the document but i think, you know -- and we also say this whole thing is about giving the african americ african person his or her place in the world. not somebody that just has to sit and watch the train go by. >> i have a question i'll throw into the mix and maybe it goes to dan and to you in terms of you talked about the peace and security element probably getting some push back from the u.n. because it's kind of not considered so development oriented let's say or it's a different set of people. but i wonder, where do you think this will face kind of the biggest challenges? and dan you have done a lot of work on the u.n. you just had a dinner with the u.n. special envoy on this. where do you see the kind of gaps between this set of pillars and what is being proposed by other actors which i followed less clearly. >> i would just say think think these are interesting pillars. i do think that they do reflect much of what's in the high level panel report. i do note that there's sort sor less discussion perhaps in the economic pillar around rule of love and governance, per se. i'm also interested in how the african position is thinking about things like corruption. i do think if this is about africa's taking matters in their own hands, as you said 90% of the countries are now democratically elected and think it's a very different africa than 20 or 30 years ago. i think -- i do think the perceptions are catching up to the reality of there's a lot of significant amount of progress made in africa. certainly people are saying it and now people are doing and thinking differently. i'm curious how you think the rule of law, governance and if corruption is one of the most important things that in many of the polling, if you look at many of the polling, it's one of the most important pressing issues. how do you think about that as part of your development agenda? that suite of issues, in particular. i know that did come up, the governance agenda does come up in the high-level panel report. there is a question whether it will make the final cut. i hope it does. >> the overriding issue in all of this is governance, good governance. we know without good governance you cannot do these things. it's there. it's in the back of our mind. it's also on the table. every discussion we talk about good governance. how do you implement good governance. which you look at governance -- thank you for raising the issue. we look at governance now on the level of the nation, but we also look at governance as a global iss issue. he asked the question about segregated council. if you ask me to create a democracy at home and i create a democracy at home and i'm working with you, how can we work as partners? how do we connect as people who are not big and small but all people, you know, working on the same level. so the council issue will come up. why do five countries have the right to veto a single issue or any issue that affect 200 other countries in the world? that, for us, governance at that level is also a problem. it's not just corruption, yes. when there are corrupt men, maybe somebody is corrupting him. so you've got to look at it both ways. there are corrupt people in africa. they are exporting money. they are taking the funds from the coffers and sending to other banks. maybe the banks are also corrupt. who is responsible for those banks? who benefit from those funds that are taken out of africa? so we have to look at that process. that's also partnership. partnership to fight corruption. not just looking at africa and say, yes, africa is corrupt. corruption comes with money. it comes with anywhere there is money there is potential for corruption. then we say, why don't we sit down and have a forum on corruption? in two weeks from now we'll have a meeting on the hfc meeting on accountability. a forum on accountability. what is accountability? how do we do it? how do we account to the people and how do we account to the rest of the nations around us that we are doing everything right, what we get out of it? so we talk about accountability. we talk about corruption. we talk about governance, but as inside issues but also look at the global issue. accountability, if you promise to do -- there are a lot of promises made. gdp will go to the development. it has never happened. we are old enough to know that it will never happen. we didn't put in a cap. these people want to help, but it's not an issue. accountability is a problem. somebody promise they will build you a highway. in the middle of the highway, oh, we have budgetary problem at home we can't finish the high wae. highway. we are struggling with a highway that leads to nowhere. who is who blame? new global framework has to have the issue of accountability. not just us receiving aid to be accountable, but those prompts promising aid to be accountable on the promise. >> i think this is a very important point. i think both with technology and civil society and more increasing democratic governance that you are having more accountable societies. i see more language. accountable governance is u.n. speak, i think, aspirationally democratic governance. i think your saying about accountability of donors is a good one. way see in washington is the rise of china as a donor mean there are other games in town. if we drop the ball on things like not building a road in africa, as your president said, when the chinese say they are going to do something, they generally do it. i do think it's going -- my argument has been china in africa is something that we can bemoan or learn from. my thought is we ought to become more agile as a donor. i don't think we should sell out our principles, but being able to bring aid and trade, if we say we are going to build a road, we better do it. if i'm liberia, i'll bring my problems down to the chinese. it's a sobering exercise to the donor world to realize there are other players in globalization that can help solve these problems. i think that's an interesting point about accountability going both ways. >> if not the corruptiones a secretary tackled, at least transparency as a principle in all of this, both at the global level and domestic level. i think that's what the g-8 tax transparency and beneficiary ownership. >> your point about corruption is a good one, too. i think the u.s. 30, 40 years was very alone in the conversation. i'm not saying we are clean or perfect, but i think we are idealistic as a country and push some of the foreign corruption practices, i think you are aware of. you see a raising of the bar in expectations around the world. brazil just passed a law, mexico just passed a law. the multilateral development banks have a much higher level of integrity standards. i do think the world, the standards are improving. i do agree, corruption is a two-way street. absolute absolutely the president is right. there are enablers in the developed world we have to take a look at that, too. i do think that it's a terrible cancer on development, corruption, and also a terrible cancer on the success of democracies. it poisons the well of democratic leaders and the chance to make hard reforms. if you are a corrupt government, it poisons the ability to sell to publics, the ability to make hard choices. i know many countries, it's one of the top three issues. i'm sure it's in many african countries. i take your point it's a two-way street. accountability and corruption is a two-way street. actors in developed countries have to be held accountable, as well. thank you for that. that is an important insight. >> and china is a two-way street, too. >> china is a two-way street. right. i think that as well, but thank you for putting that out there. >> we scheduled to go to 11:30, but i think we'll go 15 more minutes. i'm with the naval post graduate school. i want to recommend a book called "fragile by design" written by a faculty member of harvard and stanford and it's about the link between banking and power. it starts in the 1,500s and they are absolutely intertwined. it's always been corrupt. the question is what degree of corruption are you willing to tolerate? i'm impressed by your 50-year project because we are so short-term in our thinking in the united states. if the stock market doesn't go up in the next quarter or you overprojector underproject, you failed. or underproject, you failed. the fact their thinking long term and recognize all of these piece parts have to learn how to work together in order to get there, i want to congratulate you for that. we have a set of incentives and metrics in this country that i think are a great disservice today. i watch all these systems. i would argue, for example, in both economics and political science or international relations and our universities, most of the top faculty are teaching what they learned in the '60s. there are no incentives to learn new things. they have to have whatever they write cited by their friends who are all educated at the same time. anyway, all i'm suggesting is -- it's true. it's a real problem for what we are dealing with today. i was in

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Canada , Brits , North West , South Africa , Honduras , Japan , Chad , Argentina , Algeria , Brazil , Congo , China , Liberia , Colombia , Syria , Indonesia , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , United Kingdom , Mexico , South Sudan , Iceland , India , Nigeria , Green Hills , Eastern Cape , El Salvador , Colombian , Honduran , Americans , Mexicans , America , Chinese , Mexican , Britain , Canadians , Liberian , Japanese , Salvadoran , American , Christian Omar Reyes , Agatha Africa , Los Angeles , Sonia Nazario , Walt Whitman , Jennifer Cook , Steve Johnson , Barbara Simmons ,