tv U.S. Senate CSPAN January 16, 2013 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
your benefits have been cut substantially. so we think there are better ways to talk about social security than chained cpi. i think it could be done more comprehensively. but overall it really also hurts veterans, other people in the program that used the chained cpi, the disabled population. so you have to mitigate it for sony different populations, and many times over time in order to make it at all viable and not really hurt the most vulnerable. >> dean baker, center for economics and politics. i'm really happy to see the focusing on the middle class because i think the aging issue can't be separated out from middle-class issue if wages are falling. there's no way record of comparable retirement.
i guess what i want to say, carried a step further and ask you whether there's a sense of challenging the basic budget debate. i'll be very concrete. other such on the whole reason we have large budget deficits is because the economy collapse. and in classic washington fashion, this is the case with the schoolhouse is on fire and rather than focusing on putting the fire out, everyone in washington runs out to use as much water. the budget deficit is the economy right now. that's the to 50 minute like that but that's the truth. i think it would be great if an organization with strength and integrity of a or b. would stand up and make the point because we're having an entire budget that is basically premised on something that is not true. >> i agree with you. we do have underlying pieces of our economy that need to get fixed. but massive change in spending and we've already cut a trillion dollars over all in spending.
we've cut medicare as part of the political their act. we have to be really careful and just solving these problems by cutting spending. .. >> we do it in a way that supports families and the population that we have. >> let me just add to that. i agree with you, but unfortunately, most of the people on social security will be on fixed budgets. and so there's still a danger having out-of-pocket costs run
away unless we do something about the costs of health care and the health care system, as an example. so although we agree, there's still -- >> we will leave this discussion at this point. you can see it in its entirety at c-span.org. we're live now at the national press club for remarks on preparations for the president's second inaugural next week. we'll hear from several members of the inaugural committee as plans are coming together. this is live coverage on c-span2. it's just getting started. >> this is going to be a little bit of a dance as we try to run through this chronologically. as you can imagine, there's a lot of different players that are involved in the events that will be taking place over the next few days. my name is brent colburn, i am the communications director for the presidential inaugural committee. and we are involved in this weekend really doing a lot of the public events that fall outside the official swear withing-in which matt can talk to -- swearing-in which matt can
talk to. as i kind of think about this, it may make sense for us to do this in sections. and, in fact, i think, matt, if you want, do you want to walk the logistic side of this, and then we'll do the jtf side if that's okay with folks. the three main groups that really put this together is the pic, and we represent the prime minister and vice president's equities in this -- president and vice president's equities in this. we're stood up every four years to represent the president and vice president's views. we do a lot of the events like working with the jtf on the parade, working on the official inaugustal ball which we'll talk about later and some of the events like the national day of service and the kids' inaugural children's concert. then there's the jsic that really is congress' dealing with all the official swearing-in pieces and then the jtf which does the military piece of this which, obviously, is a huge piece the colonel will talk about from a support stand point. and then, obviously, i just want to say thank you to our law
enforcement partners represented by the d.c. police department today. he represents, our representative today represents a huge law enforcement presence that will be helping keep us all safe over the next four or five days. with that, matt, do you want to talk about what you guys will be doing? >> thanks, brent. good morning, everybody. my name's matt house, i'm the press secretary for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies. our purview event is primarily everything that's happening on capitol hill on monday. there's staff involved that's been planning various activities for really about a year now. really, the preparations begin the minute the previous one ends, so our staff and the rules committee in the senate has been hard at work preparing for monday, and i just wanted to talk a little bit very briefly about our theme for monday, and then i'll start of walk through some of the logistical components briefly and then, of course, i'm happy to answer additional questions at the end.
the theme for in this year is faith in america's future, it's a theme that was selected by chairman schumer, spent a lot of time thinking about it. and this year marks the 150th year since the completion of the capitol dome with the capping of the statue of freedom being placed on the top. the project began in the 1850s and stopped midway through when the civil of war broke out. and there was a question among congress and the president as to whether we could fight a civil war and finish the dome. president lincoln said if the people see the capitol going on, it's a sign we intend the union shall go on. so congress found the money, came together, were able to, obviously, complete the capitol dome in the midst of the civil war, and senator schumer selected this theme knowing we have challenges facing this country now. but if we look back, we can find faith in america's future that we can overcome these obstacles again. so this is the theme that's going to inform some of the remarks throughout the day.
it will be in some of the program materials that are distributed to folks who come to the capitol to see the ceremonies, and you'll see it in various elements throughout the program. the day for our committee really begins at about 9:00 when the members head to the white house for a coffee and tea with the president. senator mcconnell also joins that group. from there there's a coffee with the president, the vice president, the first lady and dr. biden as well. then everyone begins to make their way back to the capitol at about 10 or 10:30 depending on how the coffee and tea proceeds. our members come, and they're there, they get there a few minutes early ahead of the president. they'll greet the president and senator schumer as they come in on the senate side of the capitol at about 10:40, and then everyone is, everyone goes into the capitol, and we start the proversion out -- procession out with dignitaries, former presidents the vips that are announced at the platform begins right about 11 and proceeds for
about 30 minutes when the president is introduced out onto the platform. senator schumer opens the ceremonies with a few remarks, and brent will talk about later how the program proceeds from there. for folks who are coming to the mall to watch the ceremony or coming with a ticket to the ticketed area on the west front, we're going to be opening the doors at 7 a.m. we've advised everyone to make sure that they're there by about 9:30 to make sure that there's time for screening screening ant everyone get through and get to their ticketed place in time to see the festivities. we've got a number of crowd management strategies that we're implementing this year to improve on some of the, some of the systems that were if place last time to prevent some of the issues that folks experienced with getting into the ceremonies, and i'm happy to speak more to that during the q&a session. we're really, you know, we've planned for many, many months for crowds of all sizes. we think that we have a great system in place to make sure that everyone who has a ticket or who's coming to the nonticketed area on the mall can
see is the ceremonies. i'll turn it back to brent. >> thank you, matt. and just to complete a little bit what the monday portion will look like at the capitol, obviously, senator schumer will welcome us as the chair of the jsic, and then we'll begin a traditional kind of run of show, if you will, for the inauguration day, for the ceremonial swearing hoin monday. vice president biden will be administered the oath of office by supreme court justice sonia sotomayor who will become the first latino ever to do a swearing-in for a president or vice president and the fourth woman. after that -- and that'll be done on the biden family bible. this is the same bible that was used by vice president biden four years ago and was used throughout his swearing-ins as senate. following the swearing-in of the vice president, james taylor will sing "america the beautiful," after which president obama will be as mored the oath of office. this will be done like it was four years ago and is done traditionally by supreme court
justice john roberts, and there'll actually be two bibles used in this time. the first is the lincoln bible. this was used by the president four years ago, the same bible that was used by president lincoln when he was sworn in in 1861, and that will be on top of the king family bible which has been graciously provided for this ceremony by the king family. excuse me. kelly clarkson will then sing "my country 'tis of thee." we're very excited that richard blanco will be joining us. he is the youngest-ever inaugural poet, the first lgbt inaugural poet and the first latino inaugural poet. reverend louis leon of st. johns church here in lafayette park will also be overseeing the traditional service that kicks off the president's day on monday, will be offering the
benediction, and the ceremony will end with beyonce singing the national anthem. a quick thing on the bibles. obviously, these are very, very historic bibles, and these are very symbolic bibles as we head into the 150th anniversary of the emancipation problem proclan and the 50th anniversary of the march on washington in 1963. with that, i'd like to hand it over to our partners at jtf to talk a little bit about the inaugural parade which will take place after the lunch that matt discussed. ma'am? >> thank you. as they said, i'm colonel michelle roberts from the national capital region, and our task force has the responsibility for planning and coordinating all of the military ceremonial support for the inaugural activities. um, once the luncheon is complete, the president, the first lady, the vice president and the second lady will be escorted out to the east front of the capitol where they will be greeted by major general
michael linnington, the commander of the task force, and he will escort them down the steps to take what is called the pass and review. and the pass and review, essentially, is the presidential escort unit which is comprised of approximately 380 service members followed by each of the service honor guards and, um, the u.s. army band as well as the marine corps band. and they will go past the president's location on the steps on the east front of the capitol. and once they complete the pass and review, then the presidential escort, they fall into the, um, the motorcade, and then they start the parade route. now, along the parade route we have approximately 2,300 military personnel participating in the parade. there are approximately 10,000 total personnel in the praild, and the way the parade is
organized, there are five divisions in this parade. each division is led by a service component. so division one will be led by the army, division two by the marines, division three by the navy, division four by the air force and division five by a mixture of the coast guard and the merchant marines. and, essentially, it's comprised of military bands, service elements that represent the active, reserve and national guard components and then followed by various civilian, um, groups that have applied to be included in the parade. along the entire parade route is a military cordone. that is comprised of approximately 1500 service members from all services. for the activities at the capitol, we have approximately 80 military service members
there -- 800 military service members there performing various functions from the presidential escort to bands to the herald trumpets, the presidential salute battery as well as ushers and military assistants. i'll turn it back over to you. >> [inaudible] >> sure. it's michelle with two ls, middle initial l. and then roberts. >> [inaudible] >> i'm army. >> thank you. and colonel roberts really, um, you know, did not give the jtf enough credit for the work that they really do for this. it's not just the parade piece. as matt indicated, there are people that work on this inaugural weekend for months and in some cases up to a year beforehand preparing for whomever is elected in november. and as someone who participated in the inaugural for president obama four years ago and we had absolutely no idea what we were doing, i can tell you that the folks at the jsic regardless of who the chair is and the folks
at jtf are there ready for you when you walk in the door and really do a lot of the logistical lift on this. it's really more our job just to make sure the president ice kind of imprint is put on some of these events. one of the ways we do that is in the parade, as the colonel mentioned, along with all these military elements there are 58 different groups, 58 different groups, floats and vehicles. these are from all 50 states. they are everything from the virginia military institute just across the river in virginia down in southern virginia which has marched in a number of inaugural parades all the way through a group, one of my favorites, a group from maine of unicyclists that will be joining us. i believe they are called -- let me get the name right -- the jim dandies, the jim, of course, being spelled g-y-m in this case. the president will stand and
watch the entire pass and review and enjoy the parade along with thousands of folks who will be watching from along the parade route. once that ends, the president goes inside, and the official part of his day is done. and he gets ready for the inaugural balls. so as you have seen reported, there are two inaugural balls this time. the first is the commander in chief's ball. excuse me. again, the commander in chief's ball is a tradition that was started by george bush that we have continued. of a chance or for us to honor our partners in the military, and i know jtf has been included in the selection process for the individuals that will be attending. that's mostly enlisted personnel. excuse me. from all the branches. then there's a second larger inaugural ball. more than happy to answer questions about that ball as we get a bit into the q&a portion. so with that, before we go into some of the saturday events, i just wanted to invite our partners from the capitol police to talk a little bit about
security not just for monday, but for the entire weekend of activities. >> good morning, everyone. my name is officer shennell antrobus, and i will definitely spell my name for you. last name is spelled a-n-t-r-o-b h. -- u-s. i'm with the capitol police. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. >> my title is public information officer -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm an officer. no worries. the united states capitol police, our responsibility in conjunction with our law enforcement partners is to insure the safety of those attending the inaugural ceremonies throughout the
weekend. first and foremost, we want everyone to enjoy the democratic process and this historic day. with any event that occurs on the capitol complex, safety is our number one priority. that said, safety and security for, you know, potus, the public, etc., is not carried out just by us, but by partnership with our law enforcement community that would include but not limited to petro poll tan police, united states secret service, park police and other public safety entities. the partnership that we have established to create a pretty robust, multifaceted security plan has been in the works for many months, and while it cannot -- i cannot go into detail about those security, about the security plan, excuse me, please know that we have trained extensively to address any issues that may come up during the day.
thank you. >> thank you, officer. appreciate that. and as someone that did, um, security communications before heading back to the campaign last year, i can tell you that during the q&a the officer will have the easiest job because he'll say i'm not allowed to say that more than anybody else. [laughter] that really is the main day, obviously, is monday, the day most folks will be paying anticipation to when it comes to the inaugural. saturday is a big day or for us. two traditions that were started in 2009 by the first family, the national day of service and the kids' inaugural children's concert. the national day of service will be taking place across the country, events in all 50 states, and a large event down here on the mall. we were very excited yesterday to announce that chelsea clinton has joined us this year as the honorary co-chair for the day of service. she'll be appearing at the mall event. it's in the incredibly large tent that i'm sure you all have seen. she'll be joined by a number of
celebrities and performers including bo biden, ben folds -- who i'm excited about from my time in college -- as well as 100 organizations from all across the capitol region that do service. and folks will be able to go down can and talk to these people, basically, it's a fair-type atmosphere, learn more about how to serve and how they can continue to do service in their communities going forward. as i mentioned, we will also have events in all 50 states. looks like right now we're on track for over 2,000 events across the country. and this is actually the first inaugural committee that has paid for staff in all 50 states, because this is a priority of the first family to see this service day both to honor the memory of martin luther king jr., but also as a tradition that we hope will live on past this inaugural and become part of inaugurations regardless of who's in our position in four years. once we wrap up on the mall, there's one more event on saturday evening. that's the kids' inaugural children's concert. this is a tradition that was
started in 2009 by dr. bide season and first lady michelle obama. it is an extension of their work they have done through the joining forces initiative to help honor and support military families. this will take place at the convention center which is where both balls will also take place. we're going to be announcing details on talent in the next coming days. we've put out an initial list of talent that will be appearing at either both the balls on monday night and the kids' concert or one or the other. as you can imagine, this is a logistical lift to get that all pieced together as a puzzle, and we hope by friday to be able to announce which acts will be appearing in which places. over half of the audience will be made up of military kids and, again, this is a great place to honor the sacrifice not just of the men and women who serve every day, but of the families that support them. on tuesday, jumping ahead of what we just discussed or past what we just discussed, there will also be the traditional prayer service taking place at the national cathedral. both first families, the first
and second family will attempted. and, again -- attend. and, again, this is a tradition that is part of most inaugurals. we'll be announcing the run of show for that in the next couple days, we're still working with the cathedral on who will be there, but the president will attend, and it'll be a nice way to cap off the four days of public celebration. i think that's everything we've got in terms of the run of show. i'm sure you all have a number of questions, just making sure i didn't miss anything and the number of events that we cover. um, i think that's about it. so i'm more than happy to open it up to questions at this point. and, again, i would just be remiss if i didn't want say thank you to all of our partners as well as our law enforcement partners headed by the capitol police and the u.s. secret service who have done a fantastic job working with all of us, so -- >> before -- one item of housekeeping before we go to q&a. if i recognize you to ask a question, if you could identify yourself by name and your news organization, and in the time we
have for questions we'll try to get to as many of you as we can. why don't we start in the front, yes. >> [inaudible] with nbc news. my question's for you, matt. you mentioned you hoped to have some significant improvements in security and the flow of things for monday, obviously, it's important that the public get in, but i think we're a little more concerned with media. i know last year some networks missed air due to lines even three, four in the morning. can we expect improvements on that front? >> sure. i think across the board there will be improvements in the flow of every type of president in and out of the capitol and the range. we'll be issuing media guidelines in the next day or so that will make very clear the movements and i think that we've been planning, you know, for many months i now to accommodate all the individuals who are ve den cialed for the -- credentialed for the event. everyone should be on the same page as far as where folks can and can't go, and i think that we're also making accommodations which we'll have more details on later to folks who are
interested in broadcasting from the capitol on sunday around some of the events that are happening that day. i think we've got a good plan in place, and folks should get to where they to go. >> if i could just add to that on the prick side, you know, we we -- on the public side, we do have the advantage of having done this four years ago. a lot of the planning steps we took were trying to learn from some of the challenges of last time, and one of the reasons that we've consolidated the two balls into the convention center when four years ago they were in four or five locations was in other words to decrease our foot print and make this a more lo gist kale -- logistical -- as well as all the other events will be smooth. and i know jsic actually put out a great on online tool for the public i think they announced earlier this week. it's a mobile web app that matt can peek more to -- speak more to but really has to do more
with what's going on here in d.c. the pic has also put out a mobile app, but as part of our earth to make sure -- make sure people across the country can be involved in the event, it has a lot of information. it will also have logistical information for people attending the event. so we're really between those tools and using twitter and other kind of realtime social media tools hopefully going to make this as smooth a process as possible and would also put a plug in for jtf that has a fantastic presence about their efforts online as well. i think we've seen a big leap forward on how we're using social media to make it a smooth event. >> i was wondering if any of you could address how much -- what the cost is, what the price tag is for all of the preparations. and also in addition to the, you know, hispanic people involved with pic, any other hispanic celebrities or national leaders that will be joining the
celebrations over the four-day -- >> sure. you know, i'll defer on the cost issue. as you can imagine, there are a number of individual groups and organizations and entities that go into this, so ascertaining an overall cost before the event actually happens is tough, a lot of these are moving budgets. so that's something we'll be able to speak to after the event occurs and we tally up some of these bills. in terms of the hispanic community's involvement, the president is committed to making sure that -- and i know all the leaders involved are committed to making sure this is an event that really reflects america. i think you'll see in the parade a number of groups not just from the hispanic community, but from other communities across this country, and we can get that full list of participants to you that really show not just our geographic diversity, but also the diversity of cultures and communities that make up this country. as we mentioned, the inaugural poet this year for the first time will be an hispanic-american, a cuban-american. the benediction is being given, also, by a cuban-american this
year at the official event. and then, again, i think you'll see a number of leaders attending, eva longoria will be here, she's one to have the co-chairs of the presidential ip augustal committee, she was a big supporter of the president's during the campaign. i be i think you'll see -- but i think you'll see when you look up the official ds on monday that it really does reflect the country. >> just add one thing. and to that point as far as, you know, latino participation in the official festivities, we didn't get into the luncheon and the remarks beforehand, but senator schumer invited the reverend luis cortez, and he's done a tremendous amount of work to grow the organization to fight crime and poverty and make sure that, um, individuals across the country have access to affordable housing and quality education. senator schumer invited him to open the luncheon with a prayer in recognition of his long history of service. >> and i would, if i would just
really quick, um, this doesn't speak specifically to the hispanic-american community, but, um, in shuffling my notes i did miss the fact we wanted to make sure that everyone knew that merely evers williams who is the widow of med garre evers will also be doing the invocations to the official event. and, again, this really ties into the fact that this is an event that looks back at the history of our country as well as forward to where the president wants to take us as a country. so we think that'll be a very nice way to open the event and a nice nod towards the civil rights movement and the part it's played not only in the president's life, but also in the country's life. >> with why don't we go to this side over here. sir? >> [inaudible] just want to know -- [inaudible] coming, and if there is a list for us and why don't we see that.
[inaudible conversations] >> foreign dignitaries. from our standpoint i believe we're still finalizing the list of individuals who will attend, and we'll have more information on that in the coming days. traditional hi, the diplomatic corps has been seated on the platform. there are about 1600 guests that are seated on the platform including, obviously, the president and his party, the vice president and his family and guests, governors, the house and the senate, supreme court, joint chiefs and the diplomatic corps will be there. so, typically, it's a group north of about 150 generally, but we'll have more details on that in the coming days. >> all the way in the back. sir? >> yes, jim austin with -- [inaudible] the question is from mr. colburn. there have been questions raised about the transparency of of your committee in regards to donor-related -- [inaudible] that hasn't been released. could you address those? >> sure, more than happy to. so the committee, according to ftc regulations, has to file a filing 90 days after the
inaugural takes place. that will include all information on donors and, again, this is unique to the committee. it's a carveout in the ftc regulations for us. we are providing donors the names of those that have given to the committee. we believe this is a step above and beyond the transparency regulations placed down by the sec, and we encourage folks to go to the web site. we've been posting them friday evening -- >> excuse me. i said at the beginning i didn't want follow-up questions. we want to give everybody a chance. yes, ma'am. >> katherine stephens, following up on the donors, what was your fund raising goal, and where are you at today? >> yeah, sure. we haven't been discussing the goal publicly, but i can tell you we are on track to meet it. we have every comfort that we will have the resources we need to put on all of the events we discussed and feel very comfortable where our fundraising is -- >> [inaudible] >> is that accuratesome. >> i'm not going to get into specific efforts.
>> you haven't told us anything about the president's day on sunday. talk a little bit about the official swear withing-in, also what else will he do that day. >> sure. >> a couple more things, what will he do for the day of service, and where's bruce springsteen? [laughter] .. they will do that in a small private ceremony at the white house that will just be immediate family. it will be full of press
available for the american people to see. it will be in the blue room what i understand. the president will walk in and chief justice roberts will be there to administer the oath and will be administering the family bible for that. this is the first lady's family bible. he will do the oath and that will be yet. so a pretty quick officials but important ceremony. the vice president will do the same finger earlier that day because of scheduling from what i do understand. that will be at the vice president's residence again with immediate family. she will be sworn in on the fy biden family bible that he used for years ago. in between the two they will be giving a simple replaying out in arlington. this will be different from the one folks are used to seeing the president or vice president do on save veterans day. much more low-key affair.
very similar to the one they did four years ago and will just be the two of them going as citizens and really marking the importance of those that have served this country and have given their lives for this country as we get ready for the public on monday. as right now those are the only things i know of on his schedule on sunday. >> [inaudible] schenectady determined. he will participate. i should have mentioned that. both the bidens and the obamas will participate in that activity in the metro area. we will be making announcements on that in the coming days. so again as you all know that have covered the president, the odds are you will know when it happens. they will be doing something and that will be the entire family. >> kevin? >> just follow on the fund raising questions. if you have leftover funds where do you plan to use those funds? the presidential library?
>> i can honestly say i don't know. there are rules that regulate what we can and can't do with those funds in the past. some funds were used to do repairs on the national on the association's hand that governs the national mall so that is a virtual cross when we come to it but there's a number of civic minded things we will be able to do if we are lucky enough to have access funds when it said and done. >> whoever can address this how many law enforcement agencies and officers will be involved in the security on the date of the inauguration and also how large an area will be closed off with street closures? >> for stila to apologize for saying it was morning when i was actually afternoon. but to answer your question we cannot go into detail as far as how many law enforcement officers will be present for the inauguration. can you repeat the second question for me?
>> [inaudible] >> i can't go into detail unfortunately. >> -- area closed off. >> we have road closures and effectively to talk with you after words to provide you with those. >> [inaudible] >> with all events that happened on the capitol complex, we train constantly to address them. as far as specific threats, i can't answer that right now. but just know myself -- bought myself, excuse me coming united states capitol police with law enforcement partners train constantly to address any issues that may come up. >> let's see. right here. >> kirk jackson. to logistical questions. one is there's credentials for
roaming on the mall outside the capitol area. what does that get you that you can't get with the public going off the mall coming and second, how are we getting off the mall across pennsylvania avenue after the ceremony before the parade starts if pennsylvania is locked down? to they have to go around the capitol and around the lincoln memorial again? >> i can do that. this won't be a super satisfying answer but we can get back to you on details. we have an entire team that focuses on media logistics outside of the communications department to i know they've been working on that. there was an issue with getting across pennsylvania. in the access issues and that, some of my colleagues and i can get in touch with you afterwards to put you in touch with the right folks. >> [inaudible] just a logistical question. what is your best guess for the running time of the ceremony from start to finish and the parade from start to finish? >> i can handle the ceremony
portion. we expect the announcement on a platform of the former presidents will begin around 11:00. it will take about 30 minutes to announce everyone. vv seated on the platform. senator schumer opens the ceremony at 11:30. the president will take at noon and there will be several to wrap things up and then the final musical acts of the procession will head back inside and we hope to have everyone back inside around 12:30 or so to read music begins with the program at 9:40 in the morning and then the other vips cannot past presidents will begin heading to the plot from about 9:45 in the morning. >> [inaudible] >> of course. after the inaugural speech and the performances at the end, the president will head back in to read 62 >> that's right. we hope to have everyone heading back into the plot from about 12:30 or so.
>> [inaudible] >> i can speak to that or you can. i love the idea that any show that opens with chuck schumer and closes with beyonce will be a rare yvette to the american people. i can say the parade this is a more traditional parade. last year was particularly long or four years ago was long. our goal is to keep it under three hours. we are hoping for two and a half, but as you devotees can change based on the weather and based on the other defense. i will also just say this parade is a little bit different from what he might see at the macy's day parade. folks don't stop in front of the reviewing stand to do something this is a moving parade and there's too elements important for planning purposes for the media that will be covering that there is obviously the presidential lefcourt, the colonel discussed it goes with the limo down pennsylvania avenue to the white house. there is a short break after that before the parade begins. it's about 20 minutes. this is so the individuals,
president, first family can come back out to the stand and be positioned for the first elements of the military and civilian units that are moved by the standard. >> [inaudible] >> you can probably speak to that the best to read >> as you can imagine for the participants in the parade with approximately 10,000 participants, it is a huge physical demands that happens. primero the staging is going to happen at the pentagon parking lot. they will go through secret service screening and security screens come get everybody lined up in the proper formations of the five divisions are clear. everybody is in the correct order. and then there are actually logistical teams assigned to each division that are tasked with making sure they started the proper time, get on the right route, and then once they get past the white house reviewing stand there's
different dispersal areas designated for the elements going through the parade so they can get past dispersed without law jamming -- log jamming things behind. >> [inaudible] >> right. spec and start the parade of what, 2:30? >> right. >> i was wondering if you can talk about what our contingency plans you have in place in case you wake up and there is snow on the ground in the morning. >> we do have a weather contingency plan. it's going to be similar to the past inaugurations. last time as president ronald reagan's second inaugural. ceremonies will be inside the rotunda and that is a decision that the joint committee in consultation with the presidential inaugural committee would meet on sunday after and so that everyone has the time to adjust and make plans.
>> the only thing i would add to that is our goal is to have this event go forward. that being said, we are not going to put anyone in harm's way. so the real driver on the decision making process will be public safety. as you all know that were here four years ago kohl doesn't seem to slow us down so we will deal with that as it comes up. we are saying each element of this outside of the swearing and are the traditions important to the president and the first family and the country to really show what our transition of democracy is all about, so again our hope is to be able to move forward with as many as possible regardless of what the weather is. >> yes, in the middle. >> y hushovd reversal from four years ago as far as more transparency on the reversal
fund in terms of george w. bush -- what physically decision was made to change that? was there a request, could you raise by to become more money? >> to be honest none of those were the considerations. my understanding is that we just kind of, you know, each one of these is created every four years. they are not continuations of the same committee from four years ago. like i said we are lucky enough to have us asked from last time and this is a decision made in this instance in terms of disclosure, and again the given the fact that there is the requirement as will all be public. this was a rare attempt to go above and beyond that to have a level of transparency. >> over the weekend and on monday are their telephone numbers we can call if we need to check up on something that may be an arrest or something on the floor, who is going to be
available to answer phone calls? >> one more time from your question? >> on monday if we need to check on anything that happens out of the ordinary may be an iraq or demonstrations comes something we need to check up on if we are not present to see we need to find that information, who can we call? >> you can call me. im the information officer so i would be the first one -- >> i will talk to you afterwards. i will give that to you. >> 202-224-1677. >> a couple other things on that just useful resources. as you pick up your credentials there will be a media guide that is in that. it is current as of when it went to print as of last wednesday. we are still slaves to some
things in the digital age. there will be in online version on the web site which is 2013pic.org that will be updated with any information we've gotten since it went to print, and i would also say we don't have the number handy. we can get it for you like the national league -- national defence and federal police departments there will be a joint information center set up for security issues and i'm sure they will be staffed with someone that can help you out. most of that information should be in that media guide. >> do you want to talk about -- >> i know i've got a number of questions the last few days as far as when the media guide will be available. the joint congressional media will be producing the guide later today or first thing tomorrow morning that's going to have a lot of background information about everything you are going to see on the ceremony and it's going to have an anticipated and projected, emphasized on those words, timeline for the ceremony itself
that is always subject to change based on what happens monday but we anticipate that and the flow of defense and all the details in the media guide should be made public later today or tomorrow afternoon and that will be on the web site, it's going to be inauguralsenate.gov and i will make sure everyone has an e-mail with the link as we get that out. >> how big the crowd that you are expecting that might come through this weekend and also could it be logistically in 2009? >> the short answer on that is the presidential inaugural committee doesn't do crowd projections or accounts after the fact. other outlets often do. our expectation is this will be in line with traditional inaugurals in terms of the size of crowd. four years ago was obviously a particularly historic event. you tend to get larger crowds when there's changes from one
party to another. the president being the first african-american president created a lot of men -- lot of interest. this will be along the size and scope of the previous inauguration. i think as we mentioned earlier, we hope it will be logistically as smooth as possible. all the partners appear as well as other folks that have been working hard to make it as smooth as possible. that being said we do beg for patients. these are large events. the weather could be cold. be prepared to be outside, and to work with us to make it as smooth as an event as possible. >> how many do you receive and how many do you actually get out? >> i don't have a specific number of its thousands. this is one of the most well covered even some old every four years. obviously national significance,
not just significance here in the united states. we have thousands of media organizations apply for credentials and that will comprise people more to the capitol and what they are expecting to read we do our best to accommodate those as much as possible. we want this to be as public as possible so that people here in the united states and around the world can join as a symbol of what this country is all about. >> all the way in the back. >> there is a lot of interesting how many tickets will be available for the parade and to the general public this can sometimes be seen as work and i wonder if you can get a percentage of how many. >> sure. i can't give a specific percentage but i can tell about the universe that makes up the tickets. a certain percentage were given to the general public for purchase. that is unusual and has been unique to president obama in this inauguration and previous.
there is traditionally a sale. this is a chance for us to say thank you to the folks that supported the president. that includes some staff members and folks that contributed to the president's campaign but also includes volunteers who report very hard to make sure tickets are available to purchase for thousands of our volunteers as a way to see thank you and have them participate in this event. and then the commander in chief's bald, and i touched on this earlier, this is a tradition started by george w. bush. it's one that president obama felt we should continue. and it's actually one of his favorite parts of the entire inaugural weekend. that will be twice the size as it was last time so that will be thousands of members of the armed forces that will be attending the event free of charge. so again, we wish we had more tickets. we would like to include as many people as possible but we have done the best we can to strike a good and fair balance with the size of the event at the size of the tickets. >> we have time for a couple more questions. is their anyone that has asked a
question on this side of the room or anything like that? yes, please. >> from adc. i'm wondering about the concert. you mentioned half of the audience is going to meet up with military kids. is that a ticket event or open? stand it is a ticket agent. it will include a majority military families. obviously there will have to be some parents there and other armed forces reps'. we also do make -- i don't have the details, we can get them if you're interested -- meek the tickets available to the d.c. school kids in the first lady's office and other parts of the office over the last four years. it is a ticket agent and it will be at the convention center. but it is free of charge as military families and the d.c. school kids curious >> how many people will be attending that and today they called it open press.
what do you mean by open press? we have to do secret service credentials to cover that. >> our use in terms of a vernacular means you could have applied for credential and we give credentials out. those are given out on a space base so there will be a full rise to see a speech the president is getting more campaign type of event. in terms of the size of the exact numbers, some of that has to do with the build. we will be using as much of the capacity as the convention center as possible. and again last time we had ten officials and today there are too. that is an détente [rollcall] to ratio in terms of partisan fans. we had six, i believe six that were at the convention center last time so we are doing the to in the same space we did last time to read a couple reasons for that the main one is one of the lessons we learned last time is by spreading out talent we were not able to program it in the way that we would have wanted to, so you can imagine it went to one ball you see one or
two acts. we have a full program through the night for all of the attendees. we have as many acts will appear at both of the balls and if you, are there you will get a much richer experience. it will also help with the crowd flow issues to it i don't know if that answers your question, but -- >> [inaudible] >> that's right. and this is a standard procedure for the event. everything has to be for security reasons. >> [inaudible] >> okay. our panel has agreed to stay and answer questions after the news conference coming in on behalf of the national press club i want to thank them for coming especially on such a busy week for all of these individuals, and i want to thank you for attending the press conference. thank you.
[inaudible conversations] as the briefing comes to a close a quick reminder the official swearing-in ceremony happen sunday at noon at the white house and we will have live coverage along with your phone call starting at 10:40 eastern to get the public inaugural ceremony takes place monday that starts with a swearing in at the u.s. capitol, the inaugural lunch and afternoon parade again we will take your calls and comments on facebook and rhetoric. live coverage monday beginning 7 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org.
>> she had been talking about this dream that he had for years. the american dream come and then it would become his dream and in detroit just a few months before and he had talked about i have a dream and america will someday realize the principals in the declaration of independence. i think that he was inspired by that moment. the greatest honor history can be so is the title of the peacemaker. this honor beckons.
to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and on to that high ground of peace man has dreamed of since the dawn of civilization. >> we must embark on a new program for the scientific advances and industrial progress and for the improvement and growth of america. last week a group of defense policy leaders examine the current economic and political status afghanistan and what lies ahead for the country as the u.s. prepares to withdraw most of its forces next year. speakers include the former u.s. ambassador to the european union
to the to union, the former ambassador and the former secretary of pakistan to be hosted by the atlantic council here in washington, this is about 90 minutes. >> we are delighted to have you all. we are delighted to have our distinguished guests. it's pretty rare i think that you get three extraordinary ambassadors sitting next to one another each of whom has tremendous familiarity with the subject. on the council itself has been working on these issues for quite a number of years. this is actually the fourth anniversary of the salvation center. some of you may remember a few years ago the council did a very substantial report with respect to afghanistan. the then head of the council and the national security adviser was involved with some of the people in the audience involved frigate and we followed up on some of that work continuously over the last several years could get this is the latest installment if you will.
i think that we all know that we are at an inflection point with respect to afghanistan to read a lot of the important decisions coming. president karzai is here to meet with president obama. that meeting will take place on friday and what is said here i'm sure will shape the contours of that meeting. we have ambassador james dobbins who is the former ambassador, u.s. ambassador to afghanistan among many other things to the peace now at the rand institute. we have ambassador khan, who among other posts was the foreign minister and also i believe the ambassador to china to raid we have ambassador jawad, who was the ambassador of afghanistan to the united states, all of whom have been intimately involved with respect to the important issues regarding afghanistan, with respect to the important issues regarding the region. we call the event back to the future. some people have spoken to me
before about this to see what we mean by that. i think we will let that emerged as the discussion goes on, but we know we have a lot of fundamental issues to talk about. certainly the military presence has been an issue that has been talked about in the newspapers a lot. the governance is an important issue, economics are an important issue, some technical issues such as what type of agreement might be signed between the united states and afghanistan are important as well as pakistan and many others. with that, let me turn to the three speakers, each of whom will speak for somewhere between six to ten minutes roughly speaking. then we are going to open up to questions and dialogue with respect to the audience. let me start with jim if you are ready and give you the floor, search. >> thank you, frank. my responsibilities for afghanistan to back to 2001, and to say i was president of the creation of the current regime
in kabul. and so i start by looking back and trying to spot the things we did wrong at the time. there were three fundamental errors, two of which i perceive that the time to try to do something about, one of which i feel the to proceed entirely to do nothing about. one was the decision not to deploy any american peacekeepers in the country. we have a country that had no police force and no army and decided the security would be an afghan response will be in the aftermath of the fall of the taliban. i think there was a major mistake to read the second is to allow the collision that we successfully built in the war and for the peace conference disintegrate. iran had been very helpful and pakistan-based had been not actively on helpful, but we feel
the to keep them up to that standard in the year is to read a reconciliation much earlier than we finally did for research and professional taliban leadership they were preparing to be coopted and that is collaborate in the arrangements and instead we sent them to dhaka -- bagram or guantanamo and they might consider coopting and being coopted until the new system. and it took almost a decade to reverse that policy. ..
>> this is up from last year, interestingly, not down. 53% of them say they're more prosperous now than they were five years ago. um, and, you know, the reasons that they cite are better security, um, more schools, more reconstruction. now, it's also interesting to point out that the non-optimistic pseudo, it's not 48% because there's just some who are undecided, but the non-optimistic cited war security as their concern. so there clearly are differences
in perception. interestingly, the support for reconciliation for co-opting the taliban, bringing them into the political force is 81%, very high. not that high in the that week and uzbek communities. confidence in the afghan national army, 93%. in the police, 82%. in the government itself, 75%. um, those figures compare pretty favorably to comparable polling in the united states of our confidence in our own institutions. interestingly, 79% of the people think that the government is corrupt. so it's not just that they were giving the pollsters the answers they thought the pollsters wanted. they were quite critical of the government. but they also seem to have a more balanced approach. they can cite the government as on balance better than most
they've experienced in their lifetime while at the same time feeling that it's very corrupt and that something ought to be done about it. polls after the presidential election of several years ago, um, showed the same results. that is, most afghans thought karzai's presidential election had been, had been very corrupt, and most of them were very satisfied with the result. and so they could have, they could hold both concepts which our own media seems unable to do. we recently did a study which i think puts afghanistan in some perspective. we -- that is rand. it's about to be published. we looked at 20 postconflict reconstruction efforts, both peacekeeping and peace enforcement efforts, the big american ones -- bosnia, kosovo, somalia, haiti, iraq, afghanistan -- and the mostly smaller u.n. ones in a dozen or
more other places. so we looked at 20 of them. and we evaluated them on a number of criteria. one was did they produce peace which was, after all, why most of them were deployed in the first place. but also, did they produce more democratization, and we used freedomhouse scores to rank them. did they produce more, better government? we used world bank indices as a government effectiveness index. they rate every government in the world every year. did the economy expand? again, just world bank and imf figurings. and -- figures. and did a lot of the citizens -- the lot of the citizens improve. and there we used the u.n. dp's human development index which looks at both levels of income, but also at education and health and other criteria. in democratization, afghanistan didn't pass the peace test, and 16 of the 20 cases did, so
that's definitely failure. in democratization it was about in the middle in terms of how much it had democratized. it improved its freedomhouse score by 15%. the, in government effectiveness, um, interestingly and counter to what we hear about it, it ranks second of the 20 countries. it had the second highest improvement. that's not -- it wasn't the second highest in the end, but it improved, its rate of improvement was the second highest. it's, in per capita gdp, again, it was second highest. per capita gdp has increased by 130% since 2001. and interestingly, in the human development index, um, it was the highest. of all 20 it showed the greatest improvement in human development which is a combination of standard of living, education, health, those kinds of criteria.
is and so it's -- and so it's, i think it's pretty easy to see why afghans tend to be more optimistic than we think they should be, and, indeed, in many cases more optimistic than americans about america's own future. longlongevity is way up, unpant mortality is way down, literacy is up. if the number of afghan children that are in school today stay in school for ten years, afghanistan's literacy rate will be three times higher than it is today. um, now, the polls, of course, asia society notes this didn't poll in some of the areas that were most violent, and so the numbers would probably be and almost certainly would be lower in some of those areas. and so one has to account for that. but the number of areas which they failed to poll in are still fairly limited. there was a long story in "the new york times"es today on the front page about how, about
levels of anxiety about the nato troop withdrawals, and the story is written about the most exposed areas, the areas that were last cleared and will be the most exposed to taliban return. and the story is about anxiety and concern and pessimism. and i'm not arguing that that isn't correct, i'm simply arguing that it's not reflective of the attitude in most of the country insofar, um, as it can be, can be determined. now, just to end on what we're looking forward to. clearly, there are two transitions coming up. there's a transition from a u.s. and nato-led combat operations to afghan-led combat operations, and the transition from karzai-led government to somebody else-led government. and of the two transitions, the latter is by far the more dangerous, the more difficult and the more uncertain. i mean, i don't think the afghan army's going to run away in 2014.
but it's possible the afghan government will collapse in 2014 as the result of a failed transition. and by that i don't mean that the election will be irregular necessarily. i think a regular election could produce a very unstable result. i mean, it's a two-term, it's a two-round system, um, and so it's quite plausible that you'd have the first round you'd have 25 candidates that in the first round none of them would get more than 10% of the vote, that you'd then have a second round between two candidates, neither of whom had more than 10% of the vote. mathematically, one of them would win, but he'd win with a constituencies of only 10% of the country. and that kind of result probably would not be enough to hold the country together. i think the concern about corruption in the government is accurate, real and valid, but it does miss the point that it's as
much corruption as formal institutions that hold that country together. um, you know, karzai has built an effective patronage network that allows him to exert a significant degree of influence across sectarian lines in that country and across geographic lines in the country. and formal institutions of the kind that have been built not without some success since 2001 simply aren't up to exerting that degree of control and influence. so the big question is can a successor both assume control over the formal institutions of governance, but also have a broad enough patronage network, a political machine in enough of the country so that he'll be able to at least replicate karzai's success in this regard? um, and i think as we tend to
evaluate the forthcoming transition in afghanistan, that's the question we need to be asking ourselves. >> jim, thanks very much. i think that puts out a lot of food for thought, to say the least. let me turn, please, next to ambassador khan. >> thank you. at the outset let me say that the year 2012 has clarified some of the situations which we are discussing today. for example, there is an improvement of relationship between u.s. and pakistan. there is better coordination between afghanistan and pakistan, and also there appears to be a better clarity in the u.s. positions relating to the two very important questions
which is withdrawal and reconciliation. i'll offer a few comments which are based on my experience as being part of the foreign office until early 2008 and then later on as an observer. i do not have any other formal association with the pakistan government. well, pakistan like several other players in the region have made policy mistakes. pakistan has suffered, but it is not all on account of its fraud policies, but there are many other dimensions to the conflict in the region. i would also say they cannot place the blame for all the
problems that are onto others. the first point that i would like to emphasize here because this has been talked about quite a bit in the past, not as much now, i have not met in the last many, several years even while i was in the foreign office any responsible person from the civilian leadership or the military leadership who would be seeking strategic depth in afghanistan or who would be considering the taliban as an asset for the future. the foreign minister and even the army chief, they have rejected these notions. but i'm not going into the details of these as far as
taliban are concerned. there's no question of their returning to kabul or getting revived the way they did in the mid 1990s. there are many reasons for this. one can go into details, but i'll just skip it for the moment. but there's one thing. pakistan could not treat the taliban as it treated al-qaeda. and this is a point which i think the afghans will know the demographics and the history, intertwined history and the cultural traditions will appreciate as much as my pakistani would. the taliban remain part of the afghan political landscape, but here there was a disconnect between the pakistani position and the u.s. position right
after 9/11. and i think ambassador dobbins has made the remark that pakistan's position was not unhelpful, if it was not helpful. the thing is that even at that time pakistan had argued that reconciling with the taliban should be brought into the fold of the -- [inaudible] process. but anyway, that is, that is past. on this count there have been mys understandings, and i would say that -- there have been mys understandings and i would say accusations that pakistan has been involved in double dealings, etc., where as i said pakistan could not treat the taliban leadership the way it treated al-qaeda. now, of course, the situation
after 2009 when the american position towards reconciliation and also towards taliban by that token started changing, so the situation is a bit different. i would say that after a period of certain tentativeness today the reck reconciliation effort appears to be gavin-led which it ought to be afghan-led, which it ought to be. pakistan and the united states, they can play a supportive role. pakistan should be positive and helpful. but it should not be eager, because eagerness can very easily be misinterpreted as having its own agenda or trying to interfere or trying to support one party or the other. also at the same time i would say that there should not be
unrealistic expectations from pakistan with regard to the taliban. we can persuade them to do certain things, but there are limitations. i would say that the afghans generally, we have the experience of the mujahideen as well. at critical times, they've never accepted our advice or our point of view. the taliban should be free to talk to anyone that they want. they can also stay in pakistan like many, several million other afghans who are there. but certainly, they ought not to misuse this hospitality, and here pakistan has to be in the future very firm. and pakistan and, i would say, afghanistan they should coordinate and cooperate with each other in controlling cross-border militancy. i personally believe that there
is no conventional threat to either pakistan or to afghanistan along this border except the kind of threat that both face on account of the extremists, the extremism and militancy. finally, i would have a couple of observations about the question of u.s. forces' withdrawal and the post-2014 scenario. the question of the presence is being discussed now in washington at the highest level. much depends on the status of force agreement which is a complex political matter for president car. president karzai. as regards pakistan, pakistan ought to accept whatever is decided between the u.s. and the afghan government.
however, from pakistan's point of view the downside of continued u.s. presence is that it will continue to provide an argument for militants to justify their violent activities. this is the downside as we look at it. but as i said, it is for the u.s. government and the afghan government, not for pakistan. pakistan should accept whatever it is. there are usually -- now, these are my personal views -- there are usually two arguments which are made in support of continued u.s. military presence after 2014. that it is necessary to keep the afghan army intact and together and that it is necessary for counterterrorism operations. like drones, operation of drones, etc. the first argument that afghan national army, the afghan
national army has already shown its ability to withstand effectively any attacks was quite evident last year, i think, in april when the taliban launched a spring offensive, and it was basically the afghan national army which was able to counter it very effectively. no army can, however, prevent violent -- sporadic, violent activity, bomb blasts, etc. pakistan army has not been able to do that. but these kinds of activities they do not lead to collapse or overthrow of political systems and governments. they cause a lot of pain, no doubt. so even one of the transitions that ambassador dobbins mentioned, the government may fall, but here we have to see
the system may collapse. the system is the system which has been in place, and ambassador dobbins had a great contribution to that by the bond process. that, i don't think, is in the danger of any collapse. so i personally don't see any reason why the afghan national army should not be able to -- [inaudible] without the support of coalition troops, effectively counter any significant military assault by the taliban or any other military force. you might recall that -- [inaudible] after the soviet troop withdrawal was able to withstand the mujahideen attacks and forces which were far more organized in that context. it was only after the soviet union collapsed that the regime fell.
the one comment i would make is this presents a kind of paradox or dilemma that serves both as a cure and also as a cause for aggravation of the malaise. and those who have been reading about these know it quite well. to counter extremism and militancy, what is required by both pakistan and afghanistan is to address this challenge, closely cooperate with each other. they also need to fully realize that discontinuation of this conflict is disastrous for both of them. there is, in my view, no rosy scenario after 2014. there is no silver bullet which will end the violence and the conflict neatly and quickly. what one can hope is that the conflict and violence will taper
off with time. the outside players have a role, but that is essentially to help development of afghan economy. reconstruction and economic development will generate its all dynamic for civilization. the outside players can best contribute by keeping in check their rivalries and scrutinizing their concerns with greater diligence, because sometimes these concerns lead to measures which only compound problems. the afghans, in my view, alone with -- alone can take care of their politics, their governance and security. in these areas outside role has often compounded problems and complications. the economy, etc., and -- [inaudible] thank you. >> thank you very much, ambassador. that's a very interesting perspective, and i think we'll
get a lot of questions on that. ambassador. >> wad? >> thank you very much. it's an honor being on this panel, and i just want to make one point clear that whatever i say is my opinion, i do not represent, actually, the gavin government or anyone in afghanistan, any political formation. some important points were raised about afghanistan. i just want to put the major transition that afghanistan is going through in a macro perspective. basically, what we are facing in afghanistan, we are going through four transitions. we are going through a political transition, an economic transition, a social transition and a security transition. and every one of these transitions provides its own challenges and opportunities. as to the political transition which is the upcoming elections in afghanistan, the good news is that president karzai has clearly indicated that he's not running, and the afghan election commission has put forward a very clear and detailed timetable for the upcoming
elections. and there's a lot of political activities in afghanistan, different parties, different groups are getting together, they're talking to each other. the challenge with a political transition is that, first, we don't have a political party system so we can prepare institutionally and properly for the political transition. that's one challenge. the second challenge is that as much as these political leaders in afghanistan are getting together and talking to each other, no one is really talking a lead to take a clear position on sort of the national issues because of the uncertainty surrounding afghanistan on one hand. and on the other hand, of course, as you can expect president karzai being the sitting president even if he does not want to run for the presidency, he wants to have the most important influence on determining that succession and the outcome of the transition. and, therefore, i don't think he's going to endorse any person soon.
because as soon as he endorse a person or a political force, he will become lame duck. people will align themselves for or against that group or person. so naturally, he will delay the process of clearly indicating where he stands on that issue of elections and succession. the other challenge is that our elections in the past were both funded and supervised by the international community. this time afghanistan wants the international community to stay completely out of the elections. both in the term of monitoring, but also term of funneling which create -- [inaudible] -- of funding. as to the financial ability but also the technical ability of the afghans to run the elections. the second transition the is economic transition in afghanistan. we are transitioning from a contract economy from adependency into a private sector-led economy. and that transition is, fortunately, going much better
than thought. i'm involved in that as part of the work that i do. i travel very frequently to afghanistan, so a lot of the companies who, for instance, made a lot of money working for major contractors doing major construction projects in the afghanistan, roads and airports and the like, now they're shifting into housing and into other areas, into mining. so they're adjusting themselves and aligning themselves into the new realities and, of course, the good ones will survive, and there will be some adjustment. but there's a lot more positive economic activities taking place in afghanistan that makes us a lot more hopeful for that transition to take place more successfully. of course, there are impediments still. access to capital is difficult. the integration of afghanistan into the regional economy has its challenges. a lot of those challenges are political, not so much economic. we still have issues with our transit through pakistan, still our trade with central asia could be much, much bigger than
it is, actually, right now. and in both cases it's not really the infrastructure, it's just the policies that makes it difficult. and, therefore, it's easier to overcome that challenge because we have to have better policies. the social transition in afghanistan is a new generation of afghans. young afghan leaders taking charge of the country. and you can see this. used to be when we traveled in afghanistan and i traveled in afghanistan, different parts of the country, all the complaints was, yes, about corruption, about u.s. military operation, about warlords, you name it. now when i travel, people are complaining about the internet is too slow or too expensive. different discourse has been introduced among young afghans. or it's difficult to get visas to travel outside of afghanistan, all of which is good news, actually. people are becoming more connected, are eager to be more connected, and we see the new generation of afghans emerging. just last week the foundation
for afghanistan, which i established, brought about 30 students, actually, to washington and to the white house. and when you listen to these kids and what they dream of and what they want to do for afghanistan, it's very hopeful, it's very enlightening. but the most important transition which also requires a lot of attention here and in afghanistan is the security transition. the transition of taking responsibility by the afghans from international forces. here also, ambassador dobbins with indicated that the afghan security forces are better than thought, actually, especially the afghan national army. the police force still has its own challenges. and in provinces in which the transition has taken place, people are not particularly worried about the fact that the transition is now being carried out by afghan forces. but what people are worried the most and it's the biggest challenge in afghanistan is not so much in security can as uncertainty.
what's going to happen to our country? what's going to happen to us? when you go in the province and ask people -- [inaudible] they say, oh, we're probably fine, but we don't know what's going to happen in kabul. so it's the political uncertainty. we don't get a clear message from our international partners or our political leadership on what are we transitioning to on the bigger picture? how are we going to fit in this new world that's emerging around us with hostility in iran, demand for raw material in china, emergence of india as an important economic power. how do we fit in all of that? that's what is missing. that's what is missing, and we don't see, we don't hear a clear message neither from our political leadership, nor from our international partners on that issue. but what is important on the security -- and i just want to touch upon them shortly and what makes the security transition
successful are three factors. first is reconciliation. would we be able to succeed on this? do we have a vision, a clear vision about reconciliation first among ourselves, meaning afghanistan, pakistan and the united states? on where the red lines are, what are the parameter of the compromise? who are terrorists, who are the good talibans, who are the bad talibansing? and to what extent we are ready to compromise? we have to reach this kind of agreement among ourselves, as a nation and then the united states as our ally and then to go to other side of the table and talk with taliban. that's key for reconciliation. another issue that is taking a lot of attention, of course, in impacting the ability of the afghan security forces is the insider attack. and it's sometimes people are disappointed and says, well, how could this happen, and how could they actually turn the guns against us when we trained them? and, again, this is, this is an important issue because as the
taliban have indicated, that's their most successful tactic. undermine -- [inaudible] between the afghan security forces and the international security forces. and it's really the post effective way of -- the most effective way of destabilizing afghan security forces. the reason for that, that's key to know, why it's happening. first reason is infiltration. of course, they purpose any infiltrate. we have low recruitment criteria. we don't have a strong national data system to look after who is coming in. so infiltration is the first part. second part is intimidation. when people are enlisting into the national army or police force, taliban, they are contacting their parents, their family and others and threatening them. and especially when you are in an environment of uncertainty, people say, well, international community might be leave, the security might deteriorate, so it's easier for these people to be intimidated and switch sides. also impersonation and using uniforms. i see a lot of people here that have been in kabul, and i've met
them there. you can easily buy an afghan army uniform or police uniform on the market. you can even buy isaf uniforms if you're looking for it hard in kabul. so that's a part, but also copycat, mentally ill and unstable individuals like in here, sometimes you see what is an increase in the crime because people when they see something, they copy that. they think this is something cool or something acceptable. but, of course, rage and revenge, sometimes these soldiers are personally mistreated. but the last factor, of course s what they call jihad; thinking, of course, this is the right way of action. so so it's a complex phenomena, and i'm not going to go about how to deal with it. if needed, we can talk about it. and just last point on the number of the troops. a lot of discussions we have order from 50,000 down to 0,
back and fort. back and forth. so what i think should determine the number of troops in afghanistan not so much the economic constraint of the united states or the political reality for the fact that the afghan mission is not popular. it should be a combination of all three. first, a definition of the mission. what do we need, what does the united states want to accomplish in united afghanistan? if the mission is clearly defined, then we can say this will take so much troops, so many troops. and i know that definition is now more confined into a counterterrorist presence in afghanistan, not so much of a counterinsurgency which will be carried out by afghans. but again, the question is who is the terror itselfs? is haqqani included on that or not? a clear definition on that will determine how many troops will be needed. so i, i don't want to run over my time, but i would love to discuss some of these issues in more detail if there is interest.
thank you. >> thank you very much. so i think we've got a pretty comprehensive layout. let me ask a question to start off to each of the speakers, and then i'm going to open it up to the audience. so let me start with ambassador jawad. you mentioned four transitions. from a perspective of the outsiders whether it's the u.s., nato, world bank, pakistan, etc., what are the, what would be the most helpful thing in your per spect pif for either all or -- perspective for either all or any of the particular transitions that outsiders could undertake? >> i think the most important role that the international commitment generally could day -- international community generally could play is economic transition. that makes the political transition possible and the security transition sustainable. and for this what is needed is working more closely to reintegrate afghanistan into the regional economy. this includes, actually,
enhancing and building more power grids. pakistan needs power. there is access to energy in central asia. afghanistan needs power. and if we create an interdependency between these countries, especially the countries that are now not on friendly terms with each other, we will enhance the chances of stability a lot more. so there is included, also, as a more expensive project could be pipeline and others, but at least national-grade railroads. fortunately now pakistan is extending its railroad into kandahar and other or or -- herot to connect now across railroad into afghanistan north and south so we can really rebuild afghanistan as a cross roads or a land of trade. that's key. internally, improving access to capital in afghanistan by providing some political incentives in terms of political
risk insurance, making credit more available for international companies in afghanistan, allowing some afghan companies to have access to as easier credit, that's -- these are the key issues that could help afghanistan on the economic front. but more importantly, a clear message about the future of afghanistan that will give the investors and everyone else a sense of confidence to come in and invest in afghanistan. >> thank you. ambassador khan, you mentioned, for example, with respect to pakistan that it's important for pakistan to work with afghanistan to control cross-border incidents. um, do you think that pakistan along the lines that ambassador jawad just mentioned can also work in some other areas like reconciliation, like regional economics? are those things that are available to do, or to some
extent -- if i heard you correctly -- you wanted to make sure that pakistan didn't jump in too quickly, didn't appear too eager. and i just would love to have you elaborate a little bit more on the role you see pakistan playing with respect to issues like economics, reconciliation and the like. >> yeah. when it comes to reconciliation i would say pakistan has a role not because it claims to have a role, because of demographics, because the pakistan leadership like the mujahideen leadership in the '80s and '90s happened to be in pack tan. -- pakistan. so this is a kind of a role which has become a kind of obligation. but what is it that pakistan can do? we can apply some pressure, some persuasion, but if the expectation is that we can arm twist anybody to accept any position, that will not be
possible for pakistan. this is the one point. second, about the eagerness, the moment you show eagerness, then there are many red lights. what is it that pakistan is trying to do? if, for example, and there was a comment that i had made that we should not be seeking a place on the table. there's no need for us, because our role is this. it is well established. but if we try to end reconciliation, we must have a part. we must play a part. then surely it is going to be misinterpreted, unfortunately. we have a role, and we should play that role, and i think those who want us to play the role they must also understand our limitations. as far as the economic part is concerned, yes, there ought to be cooperation. but unfortunately, because of conflict in afghanistan and because of conflict now which also engulf cans pakistan -- engulfs pakistan, there are
difficulties. earlier we had talked in the '90s that the iran conflict could somehow be get resolved, then there would be communication lines open between pakistan and central asia. there are many projects, projects like the -- [inaudible] afghanistan/pakistan/india pipeline. if something could be done on that, that would be a great project. there are projects for transmission lines from central asia through afghanistan and also development in afghanistan supplying energy to pakistan. so there are all these things which certainly can be developed. >> thank you very much. jim, you've spent a fair amount of time in your career in the situation room or otherwise in the white house. the president has talks coming up with president karzai on friday. if you were there again, back in the situation room developing
the positions that might be suggested to him, what would be the two or three points that you would make with respect to the talks? >> well, as ambassador jawad indicated, the concerns are in afghanistan less concerns about current levels of security or even current levels of development and more about uncertainty with respect to the future. so i think the degree to which one can address that by, um, laying out a future course for american engagement and broader international engagement the better. now, the obstacle to that at least in part is karzai's desire to drive the marreddest bar -- hardest bargain possible, and some of his objectives seem to be rather unreasonable and even in some cases undesirable. so this is not something that's entirely in the administration's hands. um, i think it's tactically -- it's recently yesterday, i
guess, put out a statement that it's open to having no american presence at all in afghanistan, military presence, after 2014. that seems a tactical move designed to, um, indicate to karzai that he has less leverage in this negotiation than he might otherwise. um, personally i believe that if we, that it would be prudent to, um, arrange for a fairly substantial presence if we're able to do so. but it is important that we avoid the kind of situation we had in iraq where we didn't ask the iraqis what they thought or what they wanted until fairly late in the process. and as a result, not only did we fail to achieve an agreement which would allow us to retain a military presence, but we also created the possibility of providing the iraqis a well range of assistance and advisory programs through our civilian side that they didn't want. and didn't -- and as a result,
we spent a lot of money and a lot of effort to create capabilities which in the end the iraqis didn't avail themselves of. so that the earlier that we can come to some understanding with the afghans -- difficult as it is -- about what they want and on that basis decide what we're prepared to provide, um, the better. now, in terms of the troop presence issue, my view is it's a straight cost-risk ratio. the more you're prepared to pay, the higher your risk tolerance, the less you can get away with. what's irresponsible is to argue that you can have low costs and low risks. so if you want 2,000 troops instead of 10,000 troops, you just accept a much higher risk that you're not going to achieve objectives that you've set for yourself, and the minimum objective is that afghanistan not fall again to a regime
that's linked to and allied with al-qaeda. and the lower you go, the higher the risk is. what the risk is, i don't know. it may be small, but it'll be higher if you choose a lower number, and it'll be lower if you choose a higher number. now, you know, i care for historic, for my personal involvement more about afghanistan than most americans, so i'd favor high cost, low risk. after all, i only pay one three hundred millionth of the costs, and everybody else has to pay the rest. most americans don't have that link. they've been there ten years, they're tired of it, and they'll probably choose high risk/low cost. >> let me open this up to the audience. i believe we're going to have microphones, so if you would just say your name and then address your question to any of the panel you like, and i'll start with harlan. l. >> thanks. i'm harlan oldman.
the report that frank kramer mentioned came out about five years began: make no mistake, nato is losing in afghanistan. we slightly son that to say that make no mistake, the west is not winning. quite frankly, i'm much, much more pessimistic marley concerning the security -- particularly concerning the security transition. barring some wildcard events -- india/pakistan and that is not looking particularly good, or an attack on iran which would change the calculus -- it seems to me the level of western forces required to support the afghan army, and i agree the police are a different and much more difficult situation, by some counts would require probably in excess of 50,000 people including contractors because the afghan army has got no air, it's got no fire support, it's got no medical support logistics, etc., etc., etc. on top of that, the salaries are going to run around $4 billion a year. who's going to pay them?
my sense, to add to this pessimism, is that the obama administration is very likely not to cut and run, but cut and walk. and you see these signs in the press right now to get down to a much lower, lower level. the number of 6,000 is around. but if those things were to take place, how does the afghan security forces really operate without the support it needs in terms of air, in terms of logistics, in terms of fires, in terms of pay? especially when virtually every nato country really wants to get out quickly as possible, and we could see a quicker decline in western presence in 2013 rather than in 2014? >> would you like to discuss that first? >> thank you very much. yeah, this is a legitimate concern. in fact, our defense minister is here in town today at the pentagon. he is discussing some of these issues. he has come with a detailed list of the enablers that the afghan national army needs including as
you had mentioned, actually, long-range intelligence-gathering capabilities and fixed-wing and rotary aircrafts for transportation. because we've been completely feint on all of these things to nato and our other friends and allies. but again, a lot of these are not as expensive as conducting this operation with the nato governments in afghanistan. so if there is a political will, that's doable. and same thing as far as or the salaries of the afghan national armies and police, yes, it is a significant number concerning the afghan economy. but for the withdrawal of each international troop from afghanistan we can maintain and sustain 80 afghan national army soldiers on the ground. if there is a willingnesses to continue with this mission, and
as you mentioned, to have, to come with a more reasonable definition of success in afghanistan which has been generally up to now been degraded and been diminished, actually, what it means to succeed in afghanistan. >> the end of the first row. right there. >> i'm will embrey from bancorp international. i'd really like to have, understand a little bit better about the indian part of this triangle. the pakistanis, you know, we hear about that more in the press, what's going on on the ground. my understanding is that the indians are really very active there, and it's really a triangular relationship between pakistan, india and afghanistan. i'd love to hear ambassador jawad talk a bit more about that. >> i think if you'd like, also, perhaps ambassador khan. >> thank you very much. india has been an important friend of afghanistan, an historic friend and ally of afghanistan. there are not only involved in
enhancing the reconstruction piece in afghanistan, they are providing scholarships for more than 1,000 afghans every year. it's different indian universities which is key to building human capital in afghanistan. there were, actually, initially in the past year some hesitation on the part of the united states particularly because of the sensitivity that exists in pakistan about india's role in afghanistan. not to get india involved in the training of security forces and in other issues. this is diminishing more and more, i think. there is more realism indicating that at the end of the day india and china both in pakistan have an important role to play in stability in afghanistan. that is when we have signed on the strategic partnership agreement with india which initially was an issue, should we do that because it may actually antagonize further pakistan if you do this. definitely, india has a much bigger role to play provided
that some of the bigger conflict that exists in our region particularly in kashmir and with india and pakistan are left out of this issue. because at the end of the day, we think that unstable afghanistan is a better friend of pakistan. and a weak and unstable afghanistan will endanger pakistan as much as end danger afghanistan -- endanger afghanistan. but definitely india is a major donor. they are providing more than $2 billion economic assistance, and they are getting also more interested to get involved if training of the afghan security forces in a professional level, like a professional cadre of the police and others. not so much with the afghan army which needs to continue either through the united states or some of of our nato partners to provide continuity of what we have started together. >> ambassador khan, did you want to say a few words? >> i certainly agree with ambassador jawad that the
stability of afghanistan is in the best interests of pakistan and also the region. and whatever can be done to accelerate the process of stabilization, that must be done. and here as you have also mentioned earlier that what the international commitment can do -- and here pakistan and india can also do -- is contribute to the economic development. the economic aspect should be -- and here whatever india is doing that pakistan simply cannot have any reservations to that which is good, it helps. but in pakistan we have about 2,000 scholarships that we offer. then we have, also, these refugees. we would like that they should go back, but they still continue to be in the pakistan, more than three million. so the one aspect is the army.
and here if the indians start training the afghan army, then they should be appreciated by the afghan bs and others. and why they cannot be trained by turkey or nato or united states for that matter? why do we have to have something with people in pakistan, some people who rightly or wrongly might say, look, we are facing a -- [inaudible] situation. so that is why we have that concern. apart from that, nothing else. >> the second row over here. >> [inaudible] hello? >> it's on. >> ambassador jawad, i think -- my name, by the way, is -- [inaudible] [audio difficulty] >> you're okay.
>> my name is -- [inaudible] operations at the world bank. i'd like to talk about the fact that the economic prosperity is probably the single most important aspect of the transition. but, you know, when we're talking about this, we're speaking about long-term schemes, linkages and so forth. in rehabilitation of countries, the world bank has taken a lead oftentimes if -- in countries in latin america, eastern europe and many others. in fact, even in the pakistan where short-term schemes, rural development, urban development scheme, social development schemes have been put into action which have a lead time for results which are very much shorter than the long schemes you talk of. to what extent if afghanistan are those kind of schemes being applied? because to my mind in addition to the parallel track of the long schemes we do need in the
short term the shorter schemes which, again, addresses some of the other concerns about security. because wherever there is, of course, poverty and lack of opportunity, that's also the opportunity for the taliban and other such agencies to come and show their bit. so to what extent is afghanistan, in fact, focusing on some of the short-term development schemes? >> thank you very much. so that's a very good point. as you know, actually, when you implement large scale infrastructure projects, they usually don't have an owner. there's no community that relates to them right away and, transfer, it's more expensive to maintain them because if you build a highway, no community along the road says this is my road. it serves all the communities that's there. and for the stability operation, you have to create this need that the community thinks this is my project, and this is for me, and it helps me. and i can see myself reflected
on that. for that, world bank actually assisted to implement the national solidarity program on the rural development which was projects designed, actually, based on the priority of the community. there was a development, actually, the development council. they're still around, and the money has been provided to them by the afghan government, but the construction and the oversight is done by the community. so they feel they're responsible. yes, those undertakings are very, very important. they're key. of course, sometimes they have their own challenges. when you work at the community level, for instance, and allow these projects to be implemented sometimes the community may tolerate, actually, the presence around the program, and then the doe -- donor comes in and says, we're giving you the money, how can you allow the tal to be around this? -- taliban to be
around this? the micro finance programs have been very key -- [inaudible] that program has been like a model, in fact, in afghanistan to reach out to smaller rural community. >> back row there, this row back. >> thank you. i'm -- [inaudible] i run a u.s./understood ya security forum, and my question is, naturally, directed to you, mr. ambassador. the first is a comment. the end of afghan strategic partnership was signed by mutual hesitation between both parties. nobody rushedded into it. and that's my comment. my question is related to the ana. its ethnic composition and to its training and support which ambassador khan opposes india's role in. would you comment on the afghans' role in it, please?
thank you. >> and, jim, i might ask you to talk a little bit about how you see nato's role longer term. >> on the ethnic composition of the afghan national security forces, when the recruitment process started and the security situation was not as challenging as it is today, so a lot of the people enlisted from the provinces mainly from the south and the north, one reason. and then also some of the leadership of the ministry of defense belonged to the people of the south and the north. so in the beginning there were some i'm balances in the -- imbalances in the composition and the formation of the ministry of defense and the of concern and the afghan security forces. now there's a system put in place, and there's extensive efforts to recruit from the
provinces in the sowpt. some of these efforts are success. , but as you can imagine if you put yourself as a young man in afghanistan, if you enlist as an afghan police officer or army officer in helmand or kandahar, you face different level of threat than someone else. because in provinces quiet, there is the environment where taliban are not operating, therefore, there is less threat against you and your family. therefore, despite the efforts being made, we still have challenges to recruit a pen of the afghan -- a member of the afghan security forces from those provinces. honestly, when we bring students to the united states and purposely go up and try to recruit the students from south or places where -- since b the school system is not up to the standard of english, it doesn't matter. even despite our efforts, we are not successful to bring them as much as we want to. >> jim, do you want to talk a little bit about these issues? >> well, in terms of who advises
the afghan national army, back in 2001 we actually had a plethora of offers, the pakistani, the indian and the iranian governments all came to me and said that they wanted to collaborate with the united states if training the afghan army. i thought that, um, we probably ought to try to devise some arrangement in which at least in limited aspects countries could participate. but others in the administration were flatly opposed to any iranian role, and relations between afghanistan -- between pakistan and india at the time were at an absolute nader. coincident with 9/11 and the subsequent bond process, a pakistani-based terrorist group had conducted a large scale
terrorist attack on the indian parliament, and the two countries were close to war. so the -- very close to war. and so the idea that they would collaborate in some joint venture in afghanistan was more difficult to conceive now -- then than it might be now where relations have to some degree improved. um, i don't think that india and pakistan between them would be able to substitute for the kind of assistance that afghan national army are going to need from the united states and from wealthier western countries for some time to come. to the extempt the two countries -- to the extent the two countries, pakistan and india, could agree on some joint form of collaboration in support of the afghan army, i certainly wouldn't oppose it. but neither would i look to it to shoulder much of of the load
at least in the short to medium term. >> okay. front row. >> thanks very much. i'm garrett mitchell, and i write "the mitchell report" and also a council member. and, um, id to ask -- i wanted to ask ambassador to be lins to come back to his -- dobbins to come back to his observations about cost and risk. and to do that in the context of american domestic political setting, which is to say that 2014 isn't just another year, it's midterms. ..
therefore if we do not have a government, which is cooperative, those kinds of activities will go away. and the ability to suppress groups that are prepared and would like to target the united states and american allies around the world, they would be degraded. that is a risk that we take. that is the first rest. the second level is that you can actually return to a situation in which those kinds of terrorist were able to operate not clandestine within a state, which has the capacity to suppress them, but on the contrary in a state that is actively collaborating with them and is prepared to put facilities at its disposal. before 9/11, before al qaeda hijack the american aircraft and
sent them into american buildings coming hijack the whole state -- the state of afghanistan. afghanistan was alive and al qaeda and that is different from its relationship in pakistan or somalia where they operate essentially either with no state or a state that is hostile to them. but is simply incapable of suppressing them to the degree that we would like. we have a state that is actively compliant. to plan large-scale terrorist operations, as we found in october 2001. worst of all, the taliban remained linked to al qaeda and they come back weaned from the country. i don't put the cost of reducing that cost very much further either. if the risk is 5% you can reduce
to 3% by spending 4 billion a year, i would argue that it's probably worth $4 billion. other people might argue that, look, with what the 9/11 process? we can lose a couple of buildings every decade. and a few thousand citizens rather than losing much larger amounts of money and as many citizens fighting in afghanistan. so you will come to a different risk calculation. i don't know if you can reduce this to a clear risk of so many dollars. but i do think that one has to think of it in those terms if someone is going to be honest about that trade-off. >> what did you want to say? please go ahead. >> i just wanted to make one comment. the concern for the taliban to possibly return. to my mind, and many of those especially in pakistan, there is no such possibility.
they have change changed and they have mentioned how their concerns have changed. i have seen afghanistan earlier last year and the type of activity that is going on at the civilian snow, which will not allow the taliban to run the country in return. the country was hijacked by the taliban because the good gun control force was completely ostracized. so it was due to leadership and to be able to have a free hand over them. i don't think that that kind of situation will ever happen again, in other words, we are
focusing on the past. >> i think you are probably right, but i would still be prepared to spend a few billion dollars. >> as you should. [laughter] >> just remember, jim, we are into the billions. just to be sure. >> thank you very much. thank you for the discussion and insight. i have two questions. the first question is the president and the u.s. troops in afghanistan, there is a possibility that came out yesterday. how will be perceived in pakistan. the second question is where did you see them? on the long-term?
on the streets? where will they be? because we don't see any subject to political matters and where we fit into this? thank you very much. >> the first question about how will pakistan see the continued u.s. treasuries, i think the anticipation as they will accept the agreement between the u.s. government on this issue and um, this could be a problem. with pakistan it is not a problem. you should know that there's all kinds of [inaudible] in pakistan. those in pakistan who, i think,
also -- who they also work with troops in afghanistan. sustaining the argument of the militants. but there must continue to serve on the horses. therefore i have said that there would be this issue or the continuation of these kinds of activities. in the counter argument that these activities must stop maybe weekend. but these are various groups related to the people who have those kinds of views. i anticipate that it will be affected. the other thing is the taliban.
[inaudible] the taliban's reputation. it is possible and this is basically something that should be assessed by the u.n. peace council and they should do that. pakistan gets involved and i often don't read it just to remind myself how intertwined is the history and the culture in the tradition of these two countries are. sometimes their promise to come
our problems and our comes from their palms. >> would you like to make a comment? >> okay, yes, they have bigger plans, other aspirations and in the private meeting is therefore privately there could be concerns and many have indicated that there are many other forces in pakistan that may have concern about the impact of the deterioration in afghanistan, which leads to the same thing in pakistan. we let them sort it out amongst
themselves. >> okay. >> hello, my question is for ambassador riaz mohammad khan. in your role, mr. ambassador, explain the fact that pakistan still pursues a strategic asset. with that in mind, you also mentioned that there are some expectations from afghanistan and the united states with respect to pakistan's future role and the leadership -- especially with the afghan taliban leadership. it actively propped up against u.s. and afghan forces. he said that there are some limitations in pakistani roles.
exactly what those limitations? >> delimitation is what i had mentioned that we should not be expected to deliver the taliban leaders to a position that you may be wanting them to take. that may not be possible for us. we have quite an experience and it was never agreed to pakistan's point of view. this applies to leadership and you are not to expect that pakistan should be able to accept the iran constitution.
this is between the council and this again is orders in terms of their part and takes place in the seven provinces of the iran leadership. it should not be expected, but we personally encourage them to be part of the process. we are trying to do that now. and we should do that. the other thing you mentioned about the taliban is that i already answered. they have no chance of
controlling a renaissance. even in 1991 they were strong. now, of course, this mission has completely changed. so how can there be an ethic to logically talk about this as a network. but we did not go after them. we did not hunt them like we held that the al qaeda. almost all of the guantánamo bay detainees were captured in pakistan and we did not do that because iran treated them differently. we mentioned that we wanted them to be a part of the process.
so in early 1990, unfortunately there has been a history of retreat. but there has never been pakistani policy didn't cover. this has been very catchy and a lot of this has come about in seeking this governing sect. how can we seek this when there is no formality between pakistan and india. >> thank you. >> hello, i am from the atlantic council in my question relates to nato.
a great deal of effort into are trying to push regional cooperation post 2014. this is proven to be rather typical engaging patients and people for russia. i was wondering from the two panelists if he seeks and roll for nato to push regional cooperation and policies, whether that is something that would be useful. thank you. >> okay, we can talk to jim who just walked in. >> yes, there has been rhetorical framework established for this. and a framework for reconciliation. i think that is very helpful. and i think it's worth
continuing to push in this regard. there has been some improvement in relations between india and pakistan. but open to congress and wait in a way that wasn't before. this is fairly important in development. so yes, i think that nato's political roles are probably somewhat limited in terms of its actual influence. but it is certainly worth pursuing. >> with pakistan see it in a positive light or a more negative light? >> i just don't understand the positive role for the united states to be involved with other international organizations. but as is it a military role that you talk about? is it economic? is a political? basically when we talk about it,
one thing has very been discussed. that certainly, afghanistan would need a lot a lot of assistance and i think it also helps if died on army to me to do a better job with better resources. so we are in favor of that. there was one mention of india and trade. [inaudible] also in the body of afghanistan. >> they make those rules? >> i think that this is a key important way of connecting
afghanistan this week, other signs that are becoming more difficult. definitely countries that have a more fortin position. a lot of it is an organization and therefore despite a framework, it should be different because they have a lot of influence and they can help out a lot and connecting afghanistan to the rest of the world.
no one wants to see that happen. next question? >> yes, i am from the embassy and i have a quick question for ambassador said tayeb jawad about american business in afghanistan. it would definitely affect economic transition and development and could you talk a little bit about what is the current state of affairs? and how do you see this being eventually better for the future of economic development in this country? thank you. >> thank you. the environment is one of
uncertainty and obscurity. mostly uncertainty. so let's say a farmer plants an orchard or veneer, he is not sure that he has 10 years to raise the orchard and bring it to fruition. so if you grill it, there is not economic support in the region. so there is a list of activities and the need for providing us the certainty about the future of afghanistan but by the afghan leadership and the international
community. i have seen the division of property and the areas with the most biting are the ones that are most affected. >> let me talk about a question to close it down. jim used a number of statistics. one that struck me was 52% of the african population of the country is going in the right direction. my question to each of you is what is your view? is the country going in the right direction? are you optimistic or pessimistic as we look forward in the next two years and after two years. >> really -- um, the country is going in the right direction.
um, people feel more confident about the way that the country is conducted. but as we mentioned, there has to be a relation of this. >> mr. riaz mohammad khan? >> yes, this was specifically new to me. but 52% of the people of afghanistan feel that the country is going into isolation because i don't know the relationship with pakistan. but one other thing -- some of the key occupations in terms of concerns which riaz mohammad khan mentioned, which said tayeb jawad mention. these are very common questions.
questions about the future, which are asked in any other involvement of society i think there are definite positive signs -- five years or six years of progress. >> jim? >> were lots of progress is that you can detect in afghanistan using imperial data. i'm not sure that the same applies to american policy. or that we would be quite so positive. obviously there is an interaction between the two. us and with a few other statistics to basically agree
with the ambassador what the situation and since it has changed fundamentally since 2001, today, four fifths of afghan households have radios. one half have tvs. records of afghan households have telephones. those statistics may have been very high in 2001. so tvs and telephones would've been zero. outside of a few people in kabul, i would guess. so as the investor sentiment they are connected with each other and the rest of the world in ways that are completely different from where they were 10 years ago. >> so we are going to end on a positive note, and let me thank the panel. each form has been extraordinarily positive in terms of a very thoughtful and useful presentation and we appreciate it very much. we think the audience for coming and we are concluded now.
thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up in just a few moments, we will take you live here to the chamber of commerce and dan gallagher on the financial regulatory system. president obama unveils his proposal for reducing gun valent earlier this afternoon, featuring an assault weapons ban, a ban on high capacity magazines and a method to close loopholes in the background check system. here are some of his remarks at first, it's time for congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a
gun. [applause] the law already requires background checks to be wrong coming over the last 14 years, that has kept 1.5 million of them on the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. but it's hard to enforce that law when as many as 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. it is not safe, it is not smart. it is not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers. if you like to buy a gun, whether it is from a licensed dealer or private seller, you should be set at least have to show your not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. this is common sense. an overwhelming majority of americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks, including more than 70%
of the national rifle association's members, according to one survey. there is no reason we can't do this. second, congress should restore a ban on military style assault weapons and a 10 round limit per magazine. [applause] the type of assault rifle used in aurora, colorado, when paired with high-capacity magazines, has one purpose. to pump out as many votes as possible as quickly as possible. to do as much damage using bullets. maximum damage. that is what allowed the government in colorado to shoot 70 people, killing 12 people. in a matter of minutes. those weapons have no place in a
movie theater for it many americans agree with us. either way, so did ronald reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the second amendment, who wrote to congress in 1994 -- ronald reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the american public and to the law-enforcement community and support a ban on further manufacture of military style assault weapons. [applause] finally congress needs to help rather than hinder law enforcement as it does its job. we should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. we should severely punish anyone who helps them do this. this congress hasn't confirmed to the director of work that in six years, todd jones will be
nominated for the post. [applause] >> you can watch the president on c-span tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. going live now to the chamber of congress where dan gallagher speaks about the 2013 agenda. first, the introductory remarks that started a couple minutes ago. >> the products that go to a new market, and you depend on financial regulations to be right and have a level playing field. in fact, every way that companies of every size and shape use the financial services industry is impacted by that. including the needs of capital, and whether you have access to
credit, and that is why the work of the consumer euro is important. the way companies manage risks and the ability of nonfinancial firms to manage their financial risk or as they say interest rates and currencies. the so-called derivative stocking. and the capital of liquidity in the role of the fundamental rule that money market mutual funds play to help many manage their day-to-day liquidity. all of these things are happening at the same time. these changes are significant and it is important that we get it right. this is not a question of whether financial regulation reform should be more or less, it should be, you know, we call the you know, we called the rightly or wrongly. how do we make sure you get right? for us get it right? for us, the definition of getting it right to preserve the most diverse sources of capital in job creation in the american economy. today we will hear from dan gallagher who i think is a in a good position to lay out an agenda for this and we hope that this is an agenda which has
attracted strong bipartisan support, then it can be done again. the commissioner brings a very unique combination in background. he started out as a financial services firm. then he joined the staff of commissioner paul atkins and worked as the acting director and he has been on the senior professional staff of the sec and then about 14 months ago it was confirmed by the u.s. senate and the securities and exchange commission commissioner. first he is subsequently smart. he understands complex issues. second, he has an ability to see another person's perspective and really make forward progress on
issues and he understands you can achieve consensus while remaining true principle. finally, he is a great person to work with and many folks enjoy interacting with. for those reasons and many more, we are delighted to have him. mr. dan dowdell here today as a speaker. [applause] >> thank you, david, for the kind info an introduction. it was 14 months ago where i did my speech in this building and it feels like yesterday. but i think that that speech has been important. i am pleased to be here this afternoon. addressing such strong supporters of american global leadership. this is one of the foremost
goals of the commission. before i continue, as you all know, i must tell you that my remarks today are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the commission were fellow commissioners. and you are about to find out why. [laughter] as i am sure you are all aware, next monday, the nation will celebrate the inauguration of martin luther king's birthday. monday also marks 2.5 year anniversary of the enactment of the dodd-frank act. to commemorate the occasion, i would like to take a few moments to talk about the act, specifically with this allocation of resources and opportunity cost that have arisen from the many false assumptions underlying the act. and how they continue to impact the commission's everyday efforts to carry out its mission to protect investors and maintaining fair quarterly and efficient markets and you can say this about the dodd-frank
act. it is a perfect example of not letting it good practice for weeks. indeed, the act is a model of a new paradigm of legislation. the core concept in this case, regulatory reform, overwhelmed of wish list items. what continues to amaze me that the act is not only what it covers in its many pages, but the crucial regulatory issues. the juxtaposition of the two is daunting. it talks about the full disclosure rules from the congo mineral harvest. it can be a ticking timebomb of senate race. that leaves the reform of freddie mac and fannie mae for another day.
the act restructures the nations infrastructure by establishing the financial stability oversight council, not to mention the consumer financial protection bureau. but it fails to eliminate the redundancy of having the sec share jurisdiction over substantially similar and in a related products and markets. dodd-frank creates regulations that does not address the shortcomings of the short-term funding model of banks to continue to be too big to fail. it attempts to solve the financial crisis and illustrates the peril of false narratives. it justifies the mandates of answers but only after asking the wrong questions. i suppose this shouldn't be a surprise and it was enacted
shortly after the onset of the crisis. many months before the bodies charged examined the crisis issued their reports. this was a markedly different approach and a process undertaken after the 1929 stock market crash. in total, the dodd-frank act is approximately 400 specific mandates to be implemented by agency rulemaking and approximately 100 of those falling on the sec. the sec has adopted final rules implementing nearly one third of the statutory mandates. it implements the new rules. the result has been a dramatic increase. as i have said in the past, no exaggeration would say that the commission is handling 10 times its normal rule-making volume with the level of activity.
as a result, the sec, like other regulators, is now dealing with the problem of rush, inadequate proposals that were pushed out in an arbitrary congressional deadline. as you might expect, it isn't easy to promulgate high-quality rules from faulty proposals. it serves as a case in point. he raises two sets of concerns for the first stems from a forgetting the rules done and getting them right. smart regulation requires taking the time to understand the problem that needs to be addressed, including not only the proximate cause of the problem, the complex factors underlying problem. it is at this stage that false nurse or other gratis. in correctly identifying the causes of the problem they're
outright or write oversimplified competition issues makes finding the right solutions are more difficult, if not impossible. it should go without saying that we need to make sure that we are performing a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all rules that are proposed. the second set of concerns centers around opportunity costs and the ms. allocation of limited resources. i have no doubt that the business represented by the chamber understand the concept of limited resources and the need to set clear and sensible priorities are better than does the federal government. every hour spent by the staff on drafting rules are carrying out studies to implement dodd-frank mandates represent one last staff hour spent focusing on the commission's core regulatory responsibility. i'm not here to enumerate the flaws as a whole. i have been allotted 30 minutes,
not 30 days to speak. but i would like to spend a few moments using the vulgar rule to illustrate these concerns. the dodd-frank act requires three federal banking agencies. including two significant making regulations. also investing in covert funds and private equity funds. will identify certain specified permitted activities, including underwriting and market making and trading in certain government obligations that are excepted from these prohibitions it also establishes limitations on those excepted activities he the legislative text of the full corporal defines key concepts that is proprietary trading and trading accounts and grants the
federal reserve board from the fdic, the occ, the sec, and that the cftc, there are few of them are -- rulemaking authority to add to those definitions. the banking agencies issued a proposal in 2011 weeks before i started as commissioner. as i pointed out. fifteen months later, rule-making remains of at the proposal stage with ongoing talks between the agencies aiming to address various concerns raised in over 18,000, letters regarding the presumably unintended consequences that would result from the commencing regulations. yet i quote if you look at the crisis, most of the losses and the strong relative to capital, it didn't come from those proprietary trading activities.
he came overwhelmingly from what i think you can describe as classic extensions of credit. those are not my words. treasury secretary timothy geithner spoke them in 2009. ntc merely misspoke, i will provide another quote from a different speaker. this time in march of 2010. the proprietary training commercial banks was there but not central to the financial crisis. that speaker was paul volcker. don't get me wrong, as noted last year, trading practices can be a whale of a problem. volcker rule or the dodd-frank act supports to address. what much of the rule, it is a source of the problem. the fact is still the law of the land. and banks have long since accepted rules and its implications for business
activities. i have been told by several firms that although these rules have yet to be finalized, they have taken significant steps to shut down the trading activities and in some cases have argued him so completely. as firms have looked to the text and bringing hedging into compliance, high-level staff continue to work behind closed doors to refine a rulemaking proposal that included a bipartisan group of six senators. as drafted, could adversely affect main street businesses by reducing market liquidity and increasing the cost of capital. in another comment letter, senator mercury and senator levin both wrote that the volcker rule demands wall street change its culture. implemented in a smart and vigorous way, the volcker rule can both protect the u.s.
economy and taxpayers from some of the greatest risks created by the nation's largest financial institutions. while providing plenty of space for these financial institutions to provide the plain vanilla, low risk, financial services and help the real economy grow. these are certainly laudable goals. uniformly, critics of the volcker rule argue that that the customer facing products could be harmed. not necessarily by the text of the overrule by the draconian interpretation of it that would be imposed upon the financial industry and their customers. a regulatory counterparts than some of the fiercest critics of the proposed implementing rules. i had the opportunity last week to meet with regulators and
industry adjustments in the uk and ireland. i encountered a distinct lack of enthusiasm for it the volcker rule and its proposal, set forth by the uk independent commission on banking and the eu's group. sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission, has argued criticized the coalition government and the backing away from his original proposal. while the european commission's recent report summarizes the responses received and it acknowledges the widespread opposition of a proposal in a determinedly understated action. it argues that a compelling case for mandatory separation of trading activities hasn't been made. they felt that the proposal is not backed by the required evidence and that there was a need for thorough impact assessment.
with all due respect my to my friends in the european financial regulatory community, what a regulatory proposal is used within the eu, considered too harsh on the financial industry and harmful to markets, it's a clear sign that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens respect to the proposals, even if all of the most vitriolic allegations set forth are true, even if our financial giants act solely and ruthlessly out of self-interest, those financial institutions no that the vocal volcker rule is not set. a hearty begun determining what activities will be in place with the dodd-frank act and how to shut down the truly proprietary trading is appropriate. accordingly, as my friend and colleague have often stated
together, the final regulations implementing the local rule should, for the most part, simply be classification of what the banks have done in response to what we have done. critics are no longer, if they ever did, realistically contemplating the reveal -- excuse me, repeal of the volcker rule. they want to see the implementing regulations right. the october 2011 proposal failed to accomplish his goal. by focusing only on the latter part of senator merkley and senator levin's call for a smart and vigorous way. operating on the narrative the bank's proprietary trading, they focused on smart regulation in favor of pursuing the most vigorous possible interpretation of the rules. the proposal through the baby
out with the bathwater and along with a the rubber ducky and the bath tub itself as well. just making sure you are awake. [laughter] we have been carefully examining trading practices to determine which practices constitute proprietary trading and the definitions of activity on a punitive basis. is it based on an assumption that any trading that could result in profits must fall within the volcker rule prohibition. this failure to separate market critical customer facing activities from true proprietary trading illustrates the second set of terms. opportunity costs in this allocation of resources. the entire waking exercise has been carried out in a manner that has wasted resources of all the agencies as well. for every account, the bank
regulators have taken a lead role throughout the rulemaking process. presumably, it is regulated by the bank regulators. coupled with the nature of emergency rulemaking. the volcker rule is not about the financial execution involved or the relative political standing of a different regulatory agency. but instead the activity in which has been engaged. those activities, the trading and hedging practices of those entities unquestionably fall within the core competency within the sec. for example, the fcc has built an extensive library of rulemaking concerning exceptions for bona fide hedging and market making in the context of short sales. those exceptions get back to the early 1980s are built upon the
proprietary trading rules set forth in the 1975 rulemaking. it expressly envisions market-making activity to be in carried out. yet the entity has tried to facilitate liquidity and promote efficient allocation of capital for decades but played a secondary role in drafting regulation. all of this comes with a cost. both the commission staff playing second fiddle and banking regulators struggling to convert the basic proposal released into workable regulations could be focusing on other matters rather than spinning their wheels with no end in sight. simply put, we could be spending our time in a far more productive manner. focusing on mandates that are critically important, such as those in the jot down. as well as addressing the basic
tackling. one frustration of mine has been the commission's inability to fully implement what i believe is the most useful and important provision, the dodd-frank act, section 939 that we have all referenced very at formerly referred to as the fiscal rating organizations from all agency regulations. this clear and direct mandate is actually responsive to one of the core problems underlying the financial crisis. it was over reliance overreliance on inaccurate credit ratings by both investors and regulators. get the most important rules continue to include such references. meanwhile, charged with diverting the next financial crisis, reportedly independent agency on the reform of money market funds talked about the
commissions feel the responsibility but it was somehow not important enough to be dressed in the dodd-frank act and they are focusing on the bubble that has the potential to cause another crisis. on the issue of money market funds, i am happy to report that craig lewis and his fine staff in our economic analysis division have completed the rigorous study of economic analysis that a bipartisan majority of commissioners have long ago asked for in advance of new rulemaking. we are currently working with economic analysis staff in the division of investment management to shape it perform proposal based on that economic analysis. separately, i am encouraged by chairman walter's commitment, even as we continue to implement this on every day issues that affect investors must. in the coming months, i look
forward to working together to address the commissioners priorities. the short-term priorities such as the long-overdue amendment of the commission's capital and the customer protection was and longer-term engaging in a thorough evaluation of market structure issues. last done in a conference of manner and the commissions market report back in 1994. all of the recent talk of gridlock in a divided commission, i believe that notwithstanding our party and policy differences, this commission is fully united in its desire to carry out the commission's mandate to protect investors in a fair market facility capital information. with a clear analysis of the problems we face in the complexity of the underlying causes coupled with a deliberate
measured allocation of resources, i believe that the commission can accomplish great things. they can avoid the mistakes of the past. especially over the course of the coming year. thank you all for your attention as well as your commitment to advancing our nation's global leadership and capital information by supporting capital markets that are the most fair and efficient and innovative in the world. i'm happy to take any questions you might have. [applause] >> mr. dan gallagher, that was excellent remarks and we appreciate you being willing to take questions. if you have a question, raise your hand and we will bring a microphone to you. that way your questions can be answered. wait until the microphone comes to you. the first question comes with one of the topics, which is money problems. you clearly laid out that there is a strong consensus among the
commission to do things that would strengthen the product without scoring a destroying a product that from our perspective, fundamentally is important to a large segment of american business. in fact, the proposal kind of house -- it clearly states the importance of money funds in saying that they want to preserve the product and lay out a number of ways to kill it. we are all hopeful that the sec will be able to reassert the jurisdiction here and you have indicated that among the things you are willing to at least consider, it would be a floating asset value. but there are enormous complexities that we have been lamenting in this, such as the tax and accounting and operational challenge. can you say more about what your thinking is in that area? >> now that i have a voice again with some water nothing that the jet lag and set me back.
yes, i think that money market funds would be one of the primary issues that the commission temple. the process is obviously underway. i think that we have been preceding without too much reverence to what is going on. and i think that there is sort of a new spirit at the commission working with the staff and industry and amongst the commissioners. the consensus that we need to take some action. honestly there has been a lot of press lately about this. i have expressed my view it would be a great avenue to explore. recognizing, as you pointed out, there are taxing and accounting issues that need to be addressed but have not been addressed, despite the fact that this proposal has been about the industry for the last for five years. only counting front, i am
hopeful that the commission has plenty of authority and we can actually figure something out there. we can't, we are in more serious trouble. on the tax side, obviously with the stock issue and the secretary being the head of that with the irs and treasury, i would hope that we can finally mitigate if not fully resolve issues. on the operational side, that's something that we will have to work with. that's something that we can learn a lot about in the process. i think it's something that we take very seriously. i encourage to see that over time that we have discussion and the op-ed in the journal that talks about half forward. it makes a lot of sense if we end up there. hopefully we will soon see a
proposal, something that is more tailored. much more cooperation from the industry that we have seen before. when you put together a proposal as we had last year, and called it death by hanging or death by shooting, it is easy to see why you don't have these breakthroughs we have been having recently. >> further questions from the audience? >> right there. >> if you could just introduce yourselves to death, competitive enterprising >> yes, i am from competitive enterprising. where does the financial oversight council begin and end?
can it come in and intervene anytime he doesn't like something that the sec does and doesn't do? >> well, not being a member of this personally, i can't tell you that i know anything from behind closed doors. title i of dodd-frank in establishing f-stock makes clear that its members are the heads of the constituent agencies. so the chairman of the sec is a member. the rest of the commission is not. which i personally believe to be an issue in and of itself. as to the legal authority, my understanding is that when they identify systemic risks, they take certain actions in this case. they take what they call a one to zero route, which is to put out a proposal in the primary agency responsible for that matter. then when they get their comments back and side route
they want to take comedies can send it back to the primary agency. in this case, the fcc. excuse me, the sec. i'm hoping that we never get to that point on money market funds. coco how independent are you if you can try those funds? that money market funds have a role in the crisis, the primary fund -- obviously it speaks more systemic issues and other things. ..
what problems would there be if they issued some temporary principles based rules that would be simple enough to allow people to raising capital in the environment while mean while, it gives you experience and time to get them right? >> well, i think, good to see you, professor. i think that question goes specifically to the larger question of the problem with principles-based rules. which obviously the fcc we are not used to. i'll point out too, when we try, if you look at the proposal on general -- when things are a little more principles based and flexible, what we get back from
industry from lawyers, from, you know, trade groups, please, give us a safe harbor with the three easy steps and a checklist so we can ensure ourselves against liability broth to the fcc and civilly. so this is oftentimes a press to get the prescriptive rulemaking. frankly, i'm skeptical of the work. i don't know if they would take the ball and run with it. instead the fcc we need to get on it as a commission and get the rules proposed and finalized. the fact that it's not done is a travesty. the deadline was in july of last year for final rules, we got our proposal out at the end of august. i hope and expect there's a pathway forward and on which way they need to go. >> right here.
[inaudible] [inaudible] >> yeah. publicly stated, you know, for the last nine or ten months i think we need to reproposal that. at the end of the day, it's a legal analysis under the apa. whether a proposal that was as vague as the involvinger proposal was that generated 18,000 substantiative comment letters is actionable for purposes of final rule, and so that said, i can be a practical guy if the final rule made sense and was clear and legal analysis showed we could go final. i think we should.
i don't think that we should be at the fcc left behind by the bank regulators. i don't think we should front run them either. i think the role in this process is important. seeing as most of the activity on the trading side should be happening in the broker dealer of the institutions. we'll see what the staff can come up and see what is legally permissible and see if we can move forward. >> right there. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, john from -- [inaudible] on the issue of the removal of credit rating references, that was originally proposed as separate release before money market reform got so big. since then it kind has become tides with money market reform. the next release will address the credit rating. do you foresee that as something must be done together. can it be something that, you
know, should be done separately maybe. you know, was the issue of the rating references contingent or not whether you go to -- should they be together or separate? if you have any comment. >> i don't have a strong personal preference how to comes. i would like to see it and vote on it and get it done with. you know, the preference of the former chairman and staff coupled up with the money market fund reform larger money market fund reform is relevant to me. i think we need to carry forward, you know, and simply get it done. broker dealer capital rule. the two big rules still in the weak -- books with rating agency references in. it of all the mandate in dodd-frank, i think the one, it's a core cause of the financial crisis, the failure of the rating agency and the overreliance on the ratings, and yet despite that we have
conflict minimal disclosure. we don't have removal of the references. i don't get it. [inaudible] >> i don't know. i haven't seen the proposal yet. i doubt it if i wouldn't push for it if it was going slow down. that was a preference last year. but i do hope regardless it comes soon. >> a lot has been made about the slow pace which the jobs act is implemented. in some ways, you know, it's even slower than that because many of the ideas in the jobs act, the best ideas were idea that the fcc gathered and considered and said it was going to adopt for years before congress acted. and then, you know, one of our concerns is that there is, you know, the jobs act, dodd-frank, the most difficult two-thirds of dodd-frank, and areas there's a pent yep area you could achieve broad baip consensus. the fcc's agenda seems to be
subsumed by other issues. you mentioned some conflicts. those cases were mandated. it you go to the proxy access to date or perhaps the future debate coming on prelim disclosure, put that on different. those are highly politically charged issues that consumed massive amount of staff and commissioner time at the expense of a whole number of other things. what path do you forward see over the next year? what is your personal view on the political disclosure proposal? >> yeah. i agree with your statement. i think there's been a lot of distractions. i spoke in publicly about the fact we've been sort of led astray, as you point out highly politically charged issues. we're supposed to be a bipartisan essentially a political agency in setting the political agenda political preferences have been made. i disagree with them.
there are things that many man states, you know, it shocks people, i mentioned in my speech, we're a third of the way through the dodd-frank final rules. all right. everybody thinks dodd-frank is done. it's been reigned in july 2010. it hasn't happened. a third of the way through we'll be doing it for years unless congress changes it something it important for the agency to get the priority straight. to look at the issues i keep talks about mundane things that never get you a headline. these are important things is what the agency is about. and protect investors and so i have great confidence, as i said earlier that chairman understands the issues and will get us on a pretty good path
toward focusing on the right priority. as to political campaign disclosure, that should not be one of our priorities. that is just a, you know, a political wish list item. obviously, the recent promulgation of the agenda showing it as an agenda eye teem is unfortunate, i think. i can speak for myself. i think i can speak for commissioner, we have to interest in pursuing that and given the current composition of the commission i think that should give you at least temporary comfort. >> another question right here. there's a mic coming to you. >> neil roland. wow -- you have proponents of municipal bond reform. where do you see municipal bond adviser role headed and other aspect of municipal bond
regulation? >> i agree with the -- since i walked in the door and obviously years before that, that we need to focus a little more attention on the issues many of which raised in the commission's report that came out last summer. where that is going to go agenda wise, i'm not sure yet. i think that taking step back we actually have to focus very intently on the six income markets generally. that it amazes people. i was coacting director of trading and markets in 2009, we had two people focusing on the six-income markets they were on the commune any side. there are minute full-time employees that come to the commission every day and think about the markets general. we have 110 focusing equity markets. there's a as if nation with the micromarketting issues. it's born out by the fact we write rules about microsecond and things like that. that will be stale the minute we
get them to the federal register. i think a focus on fixed income especially in a 0% -- we watch investors where they don't want to be either. they would rather be an interesting bearing cd. they are in junk bonds. $2 trillion shooting corporate debt last year for the corporation themselves it's great. what where is it going? what is going to happen after that? in particular for the small investors who don't have the dealing power big as set managers. it's a big issue. it's what i would be focusing on instead of et f. i'm not. so i do think though because of the commission's interest jury room. i don't think it's the two of us you'll see a focus on fixed income issues generally. and i think that will be a very
positive thing for the agency. a followup on the question. i'm a reporter also. what about the fcc's report that came out a few months ago and whether or not the fcc will start to seek the authority over issuers of new municipal bonds? >> the report was care -- i think there's so much that can be done outside of that we should focus on the possible instead of the perfect. and so again, i just don't know exactly what product will come out. i think there probably would be the potential for several interpretive releases further round table on issues and potential role making through msb on the issues. and one thing, neil, i forgot to respond on the adviser piece,
specifically. i wouldn't put as a, you know, huge priority, you know, in the context of responding to the financial crisis, i wouldn't put it high on the list. however, i think we owe clarity to the market and we should prioritize it. it's been hanging out there too long. i think it would be a relatively high priority agenda item for the commission this year. >> [inaudible conversations] >> let me take you back to the 30,000 level one second. young i think if you survey the american people, there was somehow the perception all financial services forum are based within three square bocks in -- blocks in new york and small number of firms. as you travel the country you realize the financial services industry is diverse. in our view, that's been a source of strength which is that
job creators of every type and size have been able to go to the right kind of financial firm, small, medium sized or large, whether it's a bank or nonbank or asset manager or otherwise to get the financing and liquidity and the risk-management and the other ways they depend on financial firms they need. i don't think that story is well enough understood, and the danger in implementing 400 rules you'll begin picking winners and losers among financial firms. that you will reduce the choices available and end up not by one single rule with but by the combination of all of them suffocating the way that american entrepreneurs access financial services. what is your view on that? >> i think you touched a accord i've been talking about a lot about lately. to me the issue is capital market versus the banking market
bhap i fear coming out of the crisis what you see in dodd-frank, what you see in the e.u. directive and international body like fsb. here fsoc is the bank regulatory view of the world taking over the capital market. the notion of derisking and safety and soundness. it sounds great when you come out of the crisis. when you have seen hell and come back, you know, the last thing you want to do is engage in risk taking to allow it to happen at all. you got burned in whatever narrative about the crisis. as you know, the capital markets are all about risk. without risk we don't have the capital market. you have to put your capital at risk if you want to get a return. we can't derisk them. when you talk about silly things. you risk something at 50 basis points. might kill the product at the risk of killing the product, you
know, it doesn't make any sense. but this is the mind set that is pervading. it's what we have to watch. because soon enough, you know, if there aren't enough opportunity to take risk and get a return. the economy is bad enough now. we'll see how to does after the mind set takes over. >> thank you, david. thank you for coming today. thanks for your remarks. obviously, this is a global economy and financial services, especially it's important to look at it from a global perspective, and it was very useful i think for you to remind us of the comment about europeans especially lit japanese had on the folker rule. with respect to the money market and mutual funds. there's talk of european action here in the near future. i was wondering for you have any advice to our friends across the ocean as far as action or
whatnot with respect to the fc correcting might be thinking in doing? >> thank you, mr. commissioner, for your question. i was in london and dublin. i don't know which jurisdiction was interested in the money market fund debate. it's a big industry in both of the locals. and, you know, in both places i was told by industry as well as high level government officials at the ec on the cusp of releasing consultation paper on money market funds, and they're doing so because they view the fcc to be on the sideline. that everyone wanted the fcc to take the lead, but that after the famous event of last august we were on the sideline and never coming back. i'm happy to share with the folks, which was a limited pool we're actually working and i hope and expect within the first quarter here to have a proposal out for comment, which was a
great relief to some. but unknown to far too many, and so if the international community was waiting and watching, the fcc and that was the preference like fsoc said it's the preference for fcc to take action and not then. they should continue to watch and wait. we'll have something, it will betarialed to the problems we're experienced in 2008. was born out by the staff study we ordered up on the website. for the first time. you have an fcc are in tiff of the problem out there for the industry and other regulators to react to, to challenge, to reagree with in parts. and therefore i think it's going make it a better rulemaking. i would hope and expect, obviously they are free to do whatever they want. but give the fact we have $2.7 trillion in the market. it's a macroeconomic issue for us. they would want to wait and see what we do first.
>> in the back. >> hi, i'm marc with -- [inaudible] i'm wondering what is the time table for a request for information for cost-benefit analysis of a fiduciary duty rule. 0 how do you see that issue developing this year. i realize it's not a mandated dodd-frank rule. does it mean it will continue to languish? >> it can't languish if it's not mandated. i call it deliberative process. the proposal the staff has worked on to, you know, bring in economic data for our analysis. it's pretty well put together, i think, there is some language issues we're working our way through.
at the end of the day we have a new chairman here. she is trying to fig or your out what priorities to focus on and, you know, i think it would be an easy one to prioritize. if she wanted to. it's further down the road than others. that said, and i've said that in speeches. it's not man dpaited. we thowb deliberative. i'm not convinced we should do this under the 913 authority. this proposal, this request for comment we're putting out is to simply figure out should we do anything? if we do anything do we have the right analysis under guarded it? and so as things go at the commission these days, as important as the issue is to the industry, it's not the most burning priority to me. >> let me ask one final question -- a lot has been made about cost-benefit analysis and the need for regulators.
particularly the fcc and certainly all regulators to do a cost analysis of the regulations they're imposing and understand the benefits, and many people think of that as kind of doing a check the box economic study after you decided what you're going do. and our frustration, i think, has been that really what it requires with regulators should do is define the problem they are seeking to solve. look at the range of options that would actually solve that problem and find the most cost efficient. it's not the cost regulation. it's how best to achieve a desired objective. and ultimately there's an obligation by regulators to do that. i think too often in the fcc in particular i think many regulators viewed it as a compliance effort rather than a driver of smart rulemaking. >> it wasn't a question. i'll respond it.
[laughter] i agree with your statement, and i, you know, on this front will give great credit to former chairman shapiro almost a year ago mandating the staff put together what we call the economic analysis guide made public last year that binds the -- fines the commission staff in the rulemaking process as how they are supposed to engage the economist, look at data and options and alternative. explain the decision making process. commissioner said it better than anyone. at the end of the day it shouldn't be about the complicated process of or checking the box. it's proofing out your work. a lot of times the staff did do work. they didn't explain the choices they made. they didn't explain data and take it in to account. this new paradigm mandates they do it. and it hold us accountable. you know, i think it's a new day for them. obviously there are things in there i could quibble with.
it was a nonnegotiabled document. i think the notion of, you know, mandatory versus discretionary, as i mentioned in my dissent on conflict mineral and restrictive resources don't make a lot of sense. putting that aside i think it's a new day. ic the rule of the economist has been changed in the agency. they are not the postfacto checklist guys they used ton. i'm hoping for the reasons we have better rules and not longer ones. i think we seen some change in that regard and hopefully throughout the year as we work to knock off the important priority that the new paradigm carries forward and folks like you don't have to sue us as much. >> we don't like to sue either. [laughter] we always believe with awe due deference to the lawyers in the room, it's expensive. what we're trying to achieve,
ultimately, is to make sure that, you know, you get a better outcome with the deliberative process. >> and i'll point out in the regard. i already mentioned the staff study that went out on money market funds. it's revolutionary in so many ways, david. it's untouched by the policy makers, i didn't tread before it went up on the website, we put it up there, there's an appendix, i can't read. it's in math. it is, you know, us putting our ph.d. economist up against the industry's ph.d. economists let's hash it out. they relish the stuff internally. but it's a new day too. again because we put out the baseline we're talking about as we move forward on rulemaking allowing folks to challenge it and make sure we got the narrative right. we don't regulate based on false narrative as i talked about before with dodd-frank. >> one of the first lessons i taught my daughter is look both ways before you cross the
street. when you don't dot study that's been done now on money funds. we don't agree with everything. it's like crossing the street before you look both ways. it produces a train wreck, and i think, you know, we will soon know if 2013 through the security exchange commission will be a year where many of the long awaiting issues get moved on in a way that brings four commissioners together. a very productive year or otherwise. we're hopeful it will be. i know, that's a spifort your remarking today. we greatly appreciate your willingness to lay out the agenda with us. i'll give you the final word. >> happy to be here and stay engaged. it's going to be a busy year. i think it will be a productive year. the personalities are right. the priorities are important. so, you know, but we need engagement by commenters. we need data. we need to get the rules right. thank you for having me here. [applause]
>> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] we'll have more live coverage on c-span2 we'll hear from the federal reserve bank and president richard fisher. he'll talk about the need to downsize too big to fail. and reestablish traditional banking practice. that will be live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we continue the live state of the state address coverage as we bring the speech from the
nevada's governor as he lays out the priorities for 2013. >> he had been talking about this dream that he had. he talked about it for years. the american dream, then it become his dream, and he had been in detroit just a few months before and talked about, you know, i have a dream and america will someday realize the principles of the decoration of independence. so i think he was just inspired by that moment. >> sunday on after words. he recalls the journey of the civil rights activist. participating in the 1963 march on washington. it's part of three days of booktv this weekend. monday featuring authors and books on the inauguration, president obama, and martin luther king, jr. >> the greatest honor history
can bestow is the tight of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america. the chance to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and on to that high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since of dawn of civilization. >> we must embark on a new program on the scientific advances, and industrial projects available for the improvement of . >> this weekend on american history tv. public radios back story with the american history guys. peter, ed, and bryan explore the history and tradition of presidential inaugurations live saturday morning at 11:00 eastern. part of three days of american history tv through inauguration day. on c-span3. fema administrator craig fugate yesterday discussed the
restraint on federal funding recovery efforts after natural disaster and highlighted tools local community can manage risk. he gave one of the keynote addresses hosted a the the event host by the national council for the environment. it's an hour and fifteen minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. welcome to the thirteenth national conference on science, policy, and environment. my name is peter -- i'm the executive director of the national council on environment. it is my honor to be the master of ceremonies for much of this conference. thank you for coming. lot of people are still outside. i encourage them to come in and settle themselves down.
so super hurricane sandy, the drought in the midwest, and the impact on agricultural, wild fires, the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear reactor in japan last year, haiti earthquake, the list is long and worrying. in 2011 we had more disasters in the united states costing over a billion dollars than ever. in fact, we had even more expensive diasters but not quite as many in 2012. the drought and the super storm were hugely, hugely expensive. so disasters are happening with greater frequency, greater severity, and absolutely will much, much greater cost. we are here over the next three
days to work across traditional boundaries to connect scientists of with practitioners, policy makers from the international to the local level, with conservation -- with corporations, and it is our belief that only -- i want to emphasize only by working together can we solve these immense challenges face us. and the costs are not simply financial. as we tragically know, many, many lives are lost in these disasters. and so if we can come up with just one useful idea in the next three dais, the -- days the benefit even if it's only one
life saved is worth. it i want you to recognize the importance why we are here. a number of housekeeping items. first of all, there are around many people with the green stripes at the bomb to have their name. these are the staff. these are the amazing people that work with me who i am honored, who my colleagues, they are fantastic people. they will help you no matter what problem you might have. and every conference that we have there's always some issue that comes up that we can never conceived of. we never heard before. we do our out most to help you whatever comes up. okay. inside the conference program, there is a map. it's the 11th conference here
and i still get lost. okay. many of you have been to this conference before. some of you have not. you know exactly what, i mean. it's a wonderful building. it's amazing. there are these wonderful sort of diagonal and twists and turns. there are times when i think it should be the international trade maze as opposed to the building. some fun things, you were given a raffle ticket. two tickets to the environment and clean energy inauguration ball taking place on monday evening after the inauguration. to win, you need to put your name here, and phone number would be helpful. we'll do the drawing tomorrow
evening before the memorial lecture, and if you want to win, put your name and hand that in at the registration area. silence cell phone. i was actually doing an interview this morning, cameras were rolling, second question asked, halfway through my question, my own cell phone dwan to ring in my pocket. don't be embarrassed the way i was embarrassed this morning. turn off your cell phone. on your seats are question cards. the way we do questions here is you write them down, so please be legible. if you write like me, your question won't be asked. people can't read it. try to be better than me and write legibly and brief. if you have a question, do this,
staff will come. they will collect the questions, and we will give them to the moderators. we have fan it's tasters. anybody who has been here. we know we bring in journalists and reporters, people who are absolutely fantastic at drug out -- drawing out the essence. we try not to have powerpoints. we try make it a dynamic and interactive conference. use the note cards. this is for today fill out questionnaire. take off the things in which we can improve. we really appreciate hearing. fill out the questionnaires and leave them at the front. there are probably housekeeping matters i have forgotten. that's okay. i want now to turn to our opening keynotes. we are extremely lucky.
we're going open with an international perspective and domestic perspective. we have two individuals that bring both of them -- i want to say if -- they bring considerable experience at all levels. and sometimes you get great speakers who are new to the subject. this is not the case here. these two individuals understand the issues involved as well as anybody in the world. we're really lucky to have them. they are both going to give remarks. first, it's going to be margarita. then we're going have craig fugate. after they have both given their remarks. ly be gathering up your questions. ly come to the podium and ask
them some of your questions. we begin with margarita. she's the united nations' assistant secretary for disaster risk reduction. she has thirty years experience in the field, humanitarian relief, institution building. she has dealt with disasters of more time but broadly humanitarian disasters than probably anyone else. she has great respective and so, margarita, if you will come to the podium, and when she is finished i will briefly introduce mr. fugate and we'll take questions. thank you. [applause] good morning. i must say that i'm really on honored and impressed to have
been requested to speed to this audience. i know, you are a powerful group of scientists, and i think a lot of students here today as well. we have both the advantage of the crude wisdom and hope for the future here today. one idea that peter wanted do you come up with after three dais work let it be three ideas for the future. so i'm very honor, of course, to speak here today with craig fugate, who i think is an extraordinary practitioner, you will be very impressed by what he will tell you today. i wanted to start with just a -- i'm a little bit engineering for the benefit of the audience. this conference it says is a cross road in the human progress. in one direction lies a meager
result of an extraordinary opportunity given. in the other distribution the world community can change the course of event by reducing the suffering from disasters. action is urgently needed. sounds good. yai. there was a document twenty years ago. so let me say that i'm really very pleased that you have made disasters the topic of this year's conference. i know, the national council for science and environment meets every year. and that you pick teams. i think the opportunity for us to bring together these practical disaster impact with the science and the insight is opportune. i will also will like to use the theme of your conference, science preparedness, and
resilience of the framework for the short comments this morning. science has for many -- look at disasters of the scientific issues. well before the international of the reduction was established, scientists had worked for a minimum to get the tension to accrue the risk and accumulation how disaserer impacting society. it's society that creates a disaster. they are not itself. some of you will be are in and maybe worked at the international -- which came to an end in the '90s. i think that very distinguished group. the united states was active in the regard. the distinguished group of scientist reached a point where
they felt no one is listening. there was something about the strategy to try to bring to the attention of the decision makers we're in front of a dangerous trend of undermining the significant development impact that companies achieving around the world. non a strong understanding that climate change which had been happening, but happening far long time. it was going to be a clear determinant for the future disaster risk evolution. when the organization that i representative is relatively modest in the u.n. secretary. what is not modest stake holder international partnership beamed around the -- [inaudible] for the disaster reduction
isvr. i will say they have -- [inaudible] in the rest of the world. we can only work in partnerships. we can only build on the knowledge of science. we have to work with government, of course, the local government, with business and parliament yaren and take holder that understands and is willing to engage in education and manage the rick for the future. the first product to the first idea of the people that get together in these earliest parts of the decay the -- we need an instrument for international corporation. peter mentioned corporation is the key here. and they started working on what became the framework for action. -- [inaudible] maybe you have heard it.
maybe. i'm used to it not being familiar. i'm used to the people actually know what is it n it when we start describing it. the framework for action was work of the previous details. there had been the strategy which was very strongly silence-based. there had been other strategies but the new strategy was about outreach, advocacy, it was setting a framework for one outcome, three global as strategic goals, and five priority. and the sense of the people who put it together. if you can actually attack these five things, you will be a safer nation and safer world. the adoption of the framework for action happened to coincide. it was a coincidence, tragic one with the indian ocean tsunami which took place in december, as you remember, 2004. in 2005, people met -- the
framework. i can assure you even though i wasn't there, i was in indonesiaed at that time. but i can assure you that the framework for action gained completely different political impetus by the tsunami. which was, of course, in all that are a tragedy a strength we have lived on. it forced the mind of many countries around the world. but having worked on the framework for action and now also -- [inaudible] sent out the voluntarying reporting system the countries on the by annual report on the report according to the framework. they are unique things. you have 140* countries making reports to a system that discreet, establishing failly discreetly, i would say a base-line for global disaster risk and what the countries are doing about it.
we finalized the third cycle now. so i think a little bit say that the strong emphasis on science has disappeared a bit during this. and what i would like to see is we relight the likes to science in particular many economic and social sciences. i think the physical sciences are there, although i don't know what the case is in the united states, but i know for sure everywhere else in the world we're asked the question. are you teaching risk at academic levels? are you overing students learning about risk and the answer is all too often no. [inaudible] gets more and more informed by
risk. that is are our university around the world looking in to a future where they can equip their future leaders of countries on decision making at every level to complete the risk not yet. where we come today with the help of science we need to reengage and revitalize the strong interest in the risk we have seen during the many detail. and that the framework for action -- [inaudible] the first generation. i think when i look back now at the work that has been done, and the evolution of risk. i think we have been in the period of preparedness, as you call it within -- it's been a period of building systems with of reaching out and bringing up the evidence baffs learning more in rather about the --
particular about the economic of managing risk and big questions today ability how i'm going to pay for the diaster losses in the future. it's a very critical period now. i know, i'm sure we're going hear from -- [inaudible] we cannot cover the cost anymore. we have to ask citizens to take a -- you can call it a risk transfer cement. it's an important shift in the app attitude where governments have seen their role to take care of -- [inaudible] so how this is -- [inaudible] plays is quite a novel message. how it's going play bit important and how we manage
future risk. i think just to conclude on the risk evolution, there's a fundamental recognition that is still a gap -- the sustained and economic and social development that also will be inclusive. it's absolutely critical that risk is recognized and managed in all sectors of society. [inaudible] they will be radical changes in society and add to the risk of these disasters that you recognize. there are many others silent disasters. one of the more critical, i'm convinced by now is the longer term impact on individuals of disasterrers. not enough is known about the
five, ten, fifteen, and went years after of the disasters. education, health, income. many people talk about the thing they remember after the disasters is the unemployment and the economic losses. and they will were not able to get back to where they were in the disasters. this is in rich country. be a higher political priority to look at the aspect of resilience and safety. you are familiar with the driver of disaster risk. it's the framework for action was really clear. climate change, technological risk, property, government, silence and very slow moving but
dramatic disasters. suffering a lot here in the united states like drought and future current future or the shortages. very often urbanization is talked about as a risk. i think you cannot just say risk. urbanization is also economic growth. it's opportunity, it's education, and it's also a many climate especially say it's the most economically efficient way of managing climate risk. you have so many people in one place, it might become feasibly financially from a different perspective. but in themselves all of the factors drive risk very rapidly. internationally if we take a quick look at the disaster trends and you if you follow disaster you will see that frequency and type of disasters have been more and more
everywhere. and people ask themselves what is the reason for this? when you work in disasters, you tend less ponder the reason, and you have to address it. but you also have to say if it's a trend, which has been for forty years now. and what is it that we do in societies that actually do not makes more capable to anticipate and mitigate the impact of the frequency of disasters? and seven years ago i met a group of metro lodge call climate specialest and a discussion about what it means. it means simply you can't say with any certainty you heard that. but for sure it means more of the same, more extremes, and more unusual events. and i think that's not a bad planning paradigm. it could be very expensive, if
you have to build in redundancy -- as a model for do not be complacent, don't assume that every event is the final event. and really take seriously that it's not the event that creates the disasters. it's the society that it impacts that is the basis for disaster. it's how we organize society, we design and build infrastructure, where we put our industry, and there's a lot also about governance that seem to manage risk in society. as we will see. the knowledge base that we work with is actually getting rapidly stronger. different kinds of global risk models are being developed. strong model for how to project future losses, and understanding various risk mitigation instruments of being developed.
[inaudible] i hope you know issued a report in 2012 on the extreme events that is the language for disasters. and they did an ipcc a good solid review scientific study together with disaster experts from all around the world to actually see if we put them together what are the trends can we value dpait what the disaster prak ticks said? the answer was largely yes. except for in the few cases where they say we don't have enough data to project anything for the future. nothing we have seen after that has really shown an indication that we are not continuing in the same direction. the economic losses going up from by disaster everywhere in the world. poor countries, rich countries, middle income countries, it's a
rapidly increasing trend. the richer the country the value the higher losses. the poor countries are still in a position where particularly if they are depending on one or two areas of economic basis, they can easily suffer 12% nearly from the gdp from a hurricane in the caribbean. and increasingly they are in the situation that they barely rebuild their infrastructure before the next hurricane comes and hits the same infrastructure. so many countries in fact today -- i'm not saying they are -- ready to prepare and respond to disaster but compare to where we were twenty years ago for sure the capability to respond much improved globally. but what they see ahead of them is the fear of how are we going
pay for the reconstruction? over and over and over again. we don't have the financial means to tackle this. where will the future instruments? -- [inaudible] the government also and how can business cover the losses they incurring in the same context? i think these are the questions that will have to bring us together internationally and nationally to really look at what is the viability of the model for development we have. and who -- how do we keep innovating? what is the rate of innovation and financially instrument. there are so much taken up by responding and worrying about today's events. population growth.
you -- you can see that the population is growing two or three times as quickly and most vulnerable areas. why is that it's obvious because that's the basis of a strong economic growth. this combination of economic growth driving accumulation of future risk is very clear everywhere and the evidence is strong. all this means that we actually could know how to plan for the future. we could give priority to looking at the areas. and finally, when we look at future resilience, i would like to share with you a couple of things that we have learned through the reporting of countries in to the framework fraction monitor. as it's called. three reporting cycles, what are they saying this success is? one success is building preparedness and response to
early warning system, improvements, lofts legislation has been issued around the world. the big challenges to get to these arena of development planning is in agricultural, order, lang management, and urban planning. this is what they call reducing underlying risk. i think we're still in the preparedness phase of getting the guidance and the strong direction. this is a high priority because the damage to society is not acceptable, and therefore, we need to ensure that all parts of society be private to public and fact -- [inaudible] that's one of the aspect that comes to the report. they report in fact they have challenges with information flaws. not that they don't have access to include. the way the information existed
in the public space. its aen enormous value. and it's not assessable for us for a decision making. how can we help people who want to use the knowledge out there to have easier access to be able to manage their risk in a -- [inaudible] third point, lot of issues around governance. why is that? sister different in different countries, obviously. still all too often, the responsibility to drive, manage, and lead the mitigation is left with the national institution that are in charge of emergency management. if you're an emergency manager you are allege extremely well resourced, you are also extremely basic. and in many countries in the world you actually do not have to be -- you don't have the
influence in the government institution to coordinate, lead, and drive innovation. it's not so easy to be in that position. nor do you necessarily have strong political access to be able to draw on it and put behind the necessary decisions. the advantage with emergency management very close to people. they really know what the issues are. they practice, they can be very strong driving force. most countries in the world comment on governance. they comment on public policy issues and similar areas. two messages from them, the framework for action we're -- 2013 in 2015, we come to the end of the first working period, so to say. ..
they say please come to grips with this with a framework for action. second thing, and i believe this is a major, what many people call emerging risk is really to understand that the more complex society becomes, the more vulnerable we are beginning of the same time. the more exposed our infrastructure, in many of the fiers of the accidents and earthquakes are, of course, not only limited to nuclear power plants. chemical industries, giving side by side with all the technological advances, and what impact the combination of a major earthquake, a major hurricane is not one infrastructure, but we are not quite sure about resistance.
we are increasingly clear that this is one of the major risks, economically, socially, and by that means politically also. so with that, i wish you a very successful conference and look forward to hear what other things you want to do after the conference. thank you very much. [applause] >> it was interesting. in listening to the remarks and, many sessions we have this afternoon in the symposium, putting oppose fees. plenty of opportunities said drill down a lot deeper. introducing this next man is a challenge.
the federal emergency management agency is something that people don't hear about, except when that is the only thing they hear about. you know here about them but when a disaster strikes they are in the news front and center. the public perception is a rollercoaster. after katrina when it was subject. the last 40 years the standing and appreciation has risen dramatically. it has gained a level of respect that i think is absolutely essential and reflects the fact that we have leaders that have given a lot of preparation for the disasters when they strike so that fema is ready. not just itself, but installation ships, at different
levels of government. that is due in very large part to leaders that have come to fema. his background is interesting. he began as of volunteer firefighter. if any of you have had an opportunity to interact to volunteer firefighters and paramedics did you know these are some of the very best people in our society. i happen to know several, and they're phenomenal people. to see somebody like that is, i think, a testament to meritocracy in our society, and that is a really great thing. director of management agency for many years. in 2004 he dealt with four major hurricanes in one year.
a test for anybody at any time. so far the last four years he has been head of the u.s. federal emergency management agency, and he has done a phenomenal job. [applause] >> well, thank you. coming from the south we oftentimes are comedians and make a lot of fun. one of the things is a something called a sign. it might be a sign of the private sector will ensure you . ever thought about that? we oftentimes get so lost in talking about policy in cause and debates over climate change,
is a real, not real, man-made, not man-made, i work pretty much in the world of outcomes and not in theory. i ask myself if the private sector with all their financial resources and tools could not figure out how to make money off of your risk, it might be a sign. they can do if her house fires. they can do it for your cars, as bad as the driver is in d.c. they can still in short you and you can afford it. you may not like it, but you can afford it. they figured out how to make that work. how come they cannot do earthquakes, how come they cannot do floods, how come there not doing all the more or sinkholes or russell of -- a whole lot of other hazards. this could it's down to something that we oftentimes when we talk about disasters and the response, everybody always,
we have to make everything back the way it was or better, like this. we want to that build it back better. year receive the insurance company doing? yes. well, now, in short it. so i think the challenge we have , when we talk about hazards we are talking about risk, and we are talking about investment strategies and to bears the risk . my sense is if you're the united states -- most people don't realize this, the national flood insurance program actually has more policies that we have cash on hand and when sandy head the amount that was going to be paid out exceeded the cash on hand it in our existing bar authority, congress had to appropriate
almost $9 million, over $9 billion so we go out and borrow enough money to pay those claims off. who is paying the interest on that? who is ultimately settled with that debt if the insurance policy is never paid off? you, the taxpayer. your own insurance company called the national flood insurance program. you are responsible for the exposure. it has a point where the men can no longer borrow enough money or congress cannot bond more money. we will be allowed to pay our claims and will default which means it will come back on you, the taxpayer, to make up the difference. why was the flood insurance created in the first place? rumor that thing about it might be a sign? when the private sector said the risk of exposure to flooding is
greater than our ability to make returns for our shareholders -- first of all, insurance companies are not evil people. they have a job to do to manage risk in such a way that they can provide coverage at our rate which they pay out less than they take in, somebody gets generated to pay shareholders to get them the best in the first place. they said with floods we can no longer do that. our exposure is greater than the potential return on investment, and therefore we cannot continue to at investor pensions for retired plans, bonds, and your individual funds in this risk anymore because the exposure is too great and we're going to lose money. very capitalistic approach. the problem was you had so many mortgages that were no exposed that it was going to create a
potential second impact in that the exposure to all the institutions that were no leverage in those policies would have no coverage if a major flood event occurred. therefore, the government stepped in to provide flood insurance to insure that those mortgages, all the investments were covered against this hazard the noble idea. they're responsible to the people who were selling that flood insurance to did not like to pay a lot of money for it. so we tended to set rates below which supported the risk. now, the problem with this type of investment scheme is is like a ponzi scheme in the league gets exposed when this disaster happens. on a day today in the year to year basis as long as your dealing with those expected below 100 your events which i have no idea how we ever started calling something below a 100 year event that happens every couple of months.
we can't figure out had to deal with press, and we can at communicated. your chance of buying a lottery ticket and winning is less than getting enough lead, but most people go out and buy lottery tickets. you'd be surprised some people don't buy flood insurance. the problem we have a flood insurance is we have now built the program which part two of congress recognizes that we as subsidizing a risk below market rates and unintentionally create a dynamic or not the the the risk in the bill that fight and argue over flood raid. we have underwritten this risk to make it affordable you, the taxpayer, have to absorb and are now responsible for an extremely large portfolio policy.
and that we have reached the point where congress says we need to move these now always from affordability to actuarially sound. that is easier said than done because when those new policies come out the first thing you're going to hear is poor people can afford to live where they're living in dual price the of homes. and so more issues of how you balance that. but the flood insurance, i think, is just one example of the challenges that we have in this country, how we manage risk from the standpoint of a taxpayer where should we make your investments and a set exposure for the benefit of the nation. the problem i have for flood insurance is people who benefit are those who have the policies and can live in places most of us can only dream about. you have to understand, there are a lot of people a group of live in areas other subject of floods.
subsidizing housing and coastal areas are many of us cannot afford to live, much less visit on a frequent basis, you wonder why. to you get a return of that investment? are you benefiting? is there enough taxes being generated in the economy to offset that? would disaster occurs. is your return of that exposure later the more your paypall will be? as a taxpayer the answer is unfortunately too often no. we have subsidized rest to a point where as long as no extreme event occurs it seems okay. when the extreme event occurs, you are now exposed to much greater cost without necessarily generating revenue or other
societal benefits to offset that risk. now, through the 70's and 80's and the early 90's to love when a lot of growth was taking place in the growing coastal and other urban areas, very few storms were occurring in frequency was very down. the illusion was i have lived for 30 years. this never happened. thirty years cycles are like an eyelash, an understanding of how these systems in that mimics work, not talking about any other force issues. they're sitting on top low rents and fall tile areas, increased population densities, increased resiliency, supply chain built for just-in-time with very little slack or capability to make up in very few fallbacks
situations. then you accelerate and increase the frequency and duration of events that occur. over the last three years i went from the worst flooding, worse tornado outbreaks, 500 year flood of and the men then i go to the worst drought and impact's a drought which people underestimate drought. drought will cost more than 70 deaths in the long run. two hurricanes. we are talking about men had. i want you to think about this. people are talking about sea level rising inches, maybe a foot over decades. the city produced case storm surge of three to 4 meters for over 12 feet in one of the most
densely populated areas in the united states. i didn't think this could happen. i have pictures of the 30's and they're actually flooding the subways. it's just doesn't happen frequently. we have hospitals that put all their rick jacobson in the basements. it makes sense when you don't deal with storms every year. it's much easier deshields, acoustically isolated, and the great space to put that tent with clinton. if you were getting hurricanes' every five or six years he would get a bill to there. the storm system in the 30's of any magnitude it made perfect sense when you get it. we're not going to rebuild that the way. so from the science perspective here is my asked. who is making the decisions about where we build, how we build, and building codes. if you're not familiar with the devastates and will take this to
the federal government, no. this is that decisions are made every day where risk exposure occurs. on the day-to-day transactional basis you probably don't really see this, but this is where decisions are made about where we will kick -- where we build, how we build, the types of building codes we're going to enforce, yet many of these officials under tremendous pressure generate revenue. how the local officials to their revenue is jobs and growth. have you ever seen anyone running for office seminar committee to give small? it's always jobs and growth. that is the mantra. yet they're having to make decisions that oftentimes are short-term, very limited windows of what this risk is. we don't give them tools to say
is this development, construction, going to return more money to my taxpayers or have i created a hidden exposure because once we approve this we transfer the risk for from that growth, development, those people living there. we transfer that. are they going to get enough benefit from that? this goes back to, we don't have a good way of managing risk. we don't give local officials good tools to say these decisions make sense. these decisions could be mitigated. we may be able to do things to allow this to occur and not transfer excessive risk. by the way, the tax base in the jobs of sets that. many officials don't have those tools, so we repeat and see decisions made time and time again in a short-term gains where risk may be transferred to the public without a clear understanding of getting enough return for that. the second thing is, when we talk about climate change, have
your debate and have a nice day. i have to deal with that station. whenever you're discussing, something is out there and has been going on and accelerating. we're talking about in many cases incremental changes, and then dealing with a cute events. when we looked at mitigation strategies i think we have spent so much time looking at things like flood insurance rate maps and trying to normalize and look at things actuarially. we have to take a step back and go, perhaps it is time we quit looking at just building contests and value and looking at this as insurance and trying to figure out how to mitigate that. this is a critical piece of infrastructure, like a fire station, school, icky utility. should we not put more mitigation in that against the maximum of impact? again, men and, we are talking a sea level rise, projection of inches overtime may be 1 foot.
lottery talking about american? twelve to 15 feet. what am i going to mitigate against? sea level rise or the maximum theoretical consequence of a catastrophic disaster? and i do this for everything? absolutely not. we need to make sense, but what if greece are looking at the functions that we do and how to the bill resiliency in the function verses is looking a we have to do all community doing, we're already air. it is already built. have we mitigate the most critical functions. and the last thing, i love this to resiliency because it is like mitigation. it's almost like one of these words you can use a lot of ways of everyone will agree upon it, but resiliency -- i make this trip because it is not a correlation that is 1-to-1. and the academic world there is a lot of -- for generalizations and talking to people i think it
is an important point. i think efficiency has become the enemy of resiliency. i take this is something that we have built economic models that report return on investment in short times that we have forced ourselves in some developing systems other just-in-time and some me to ensure property that we do not understand and see the consequences of shocks to the system where it no longer has the ability to absorb and manage. they have become so brittle that the disruptions in demand makes the system almost guaranteed to fail in the steps of events. so how do we start talking about supply chains and start talking about the interdependence is? when you start getting into cyber this is where it really -- people start seeing cascading impacts. what we saw in japan was this cascading impact of a singular
event to adding to the secondary in third order of events become actually more impacting than some of the initial impact, at least politically. so how'd you work at systems that look at resiliency in the phase of and types of events occurring in try to look at how you sell, how you show investors , have you show boards of directors that you need to have that balance between those lean, efficient, very profitable systems and the tipping points that your resiliency could well regulatory impacts with outweighed the things that you need to do to fill some capacity because in the united states most of our critical infrastructure delivered is provided by you?
utilities, food, supplies, health care, a lot of those days now. so you cannot just go in there and say, investors need to second up and everything. but i think, again, we oftentimes are working in such sure when as a return on investments that we have essentially exhilarated by building systems that are less and less resilient. people say it wasn't as bad in the 80's and 90's. why is it so much worse? you know, technologically we're doing it better, smarter, faster. why? a lot of times it's a simple answer. fewer people, fewer resources. not a lot of slack in the system , not a lot of excess capacity because that is not making money. that has been cut out. you are more vulnerable now. how do we as a society built
resiliency? how you do that? [applause] >> an amazing speaker. while i am about to ask some questions here i see two members of our first plenary in the reserve seats. the other members can come and take the seats we will be ready go. this whole idea of resiliency in sustainability was something that we actually had a special pre accomplished meeting about for the united states and are mature protection agency yesterday, a symposium on resiliency and sustainability. delving into that core concept
that we often think of sustainable communities and sustainable systems as steady state things. when, in fact, in a world where major disruptions are frequent and severe, sustainability must be something that is dynamic, must be something that is resilience and responsive to dramatic changes and dramatic impacts. and so the results of that epa symposium that were distributed this morning and obsessions coming toward including one this afternoon. there was a question about the framework for action that was mentioned in the remarks. and so i'm going to just answer that question. it is the h-y-o-g-ago, which is
a prefecture in japan. i think that is where they did the framework for action, the development. from going dassin general questions. the first one comes from something that both of you mentioned. the issue of funding changes and communities that make them more resilient. nighter one of you control budgets can bring about changes of the scale required. so what can you do and what needs to happen to get the
funding blowing to where it needs to have the change in impact? obviously we're all familiar with what is happening here in the u.s. command it is a more acute issue in poor countries around the world. you have the microphone in your hand. why don't you answer first. >> the challenge, and particularly as you see right now, always easy to give money after the fact. almost impossible to give money prior to the event occurring. well, that is not the case anymore. even getting money after a disaster is extremely difficult. so i think again becomes back to the preponderant of these decisions overtime made at the local level. almost everything we're targeting is national policy. the united states federal policy
does not dictate a lot of that. these incentives and disincentives to taxes and grant funding. where real decisions get made is that the local level. i'm trying to give our folks something to look at. we have to quit selling mitigation as a gloom and doom and really need to look at it as a transference of risk that you want to make decisions for you t say, i am not a no-growth there. what i do think is, you need to give local decisionmakers better tools that when they get high-pressure to build because of jobs they have the tools to say this makes sense, this does not make sense, the risk is too great, or by doing this mitigation we can manage this risk and benefit from the community. we oftentimes, and this is true, we have a one-size-fits-all.
our preferences don't build there, grow there, put things in vulnerable areas. all right. fine. can we do it in such a way it does not transfer extreme risk back to the taxpayer without seeing some benefits? sibila of the construction to go there without increasing code requirements? we still have parts of the kutcher word is like a checkerboard. a million-dollar home next to a house built prior to cuts in the same neighborhood and we saw what happened then send the. it had some damage, but basically power back on and can be moved back again. that development may be acceptable because of the tax base it generates and the fact that many are secondary homes. unfortunately most people don't have the tools to make those on a repetitive basis across a lot of communities driving us toward
managing that risk more effectively. >> if we look at internationally, even in the countries that are still low income countries with very high risk live there are many countries where western prevails. i don't know if their is a representative of the philippines here, but in the philippines, the government is taking by parliamentary impetus to a very far reaching decisions of transferring resources to local levels. in fact must so large were the financial resources made available the they couldn't really be used in the timeframe that they were offered. so all that to say that it is not just money. it is also, of course, some of the policies, the direction, the
knowledge, and the clear sense of that this is a priority. so there has been a lot in the last few years, a lot of mobilization of local government . i don't know if some of your represented here. the practice of working directly with local government is very effective when it comes to really concrete lee how you manage risk, set priorities and local level. if you are citizens in the local, town, city, actually can engage -- to engage in their risk identification and risk management you have a very different dynamic and the potential to build alliances locally for mitigating very obvious risks and to get to reduce the. one of the affected proponents of managing local risk is a governor who has been very clear all around. he is a very sophisticated in he
says, never talk to people in my community about this. tell them that our goal is to achieve in his case the millennial development goals, but an hour to do that we actually have to invest in the risk that actions. he puts away 10 percent of his annual budget which is a mix of government and local income and other sources and very consistently has been on this for a decade by now. so it is also, it is money, of course, but it is also the choices you make, particularly if you're in the beginning of rapid economic development. what do you do with terror infrastructure? where do you develop? how you deal with the positive issues? these have a concrete questions that i think at local levels can be discussed. it should think about the international perspective, is in
the edge of national development aid also giving priority to strengthening. the short answer is no. and you can say that goes against what everyone is talking about. policies are changing gradually. but i don't think that the flow of resources is anywhere near what the talk is generally of how important it is to reduce risk. on the other hand maybe i should also say, in comparison to national resources dimensionally generated resources, in comparison to foreign direct investment in poor or middle income countries, the feds are resources that they can obtain through the overseas development, the system, it's a minimum. the most important thing that we really work on is that national choice, and that is why we also
invest, a lot of mobilization in getting business involved. they also show of response ability for how to invest in less risky environments in how to reward those low will government's indifference that actually take the large responsibility for mitigating risk. what their business and investment. >> thank you. we have time for one more question. probably about three hours of questions in front of me. this next one combines three or four cars. it came under the title of them did he do and damned if you don't. and this is about to rebuilding. so one part of this was what happens to poor people who cannot afford to keep homes?
and you dealt with this. also, some of these vulnerable areas, economics, factories and infrastructure in the private corporations are in areas, and that is part of what drives people to be there, so there is also an industrial economic aspects to this. part of the challenge about helping are not helping it is an ethical question as well as a legal question. so i would like each of you to just address that briefly if you could. >> here is all i have been framing it. up into many places where i call than the proverbial one company town. it is in the flood zone. the work force lives in housing,
low-moderate income, but it is what is affordable there. the flood comes in and lives every day now. there's the tax base, no work force command the company closes. the local officials go, what happened. and this is what i am talking about. we have to put this in the terms of dollars in what the impact is . i like their resiliency this way. part of what you will hear is -- you will hear this all through the recovery. telling us that we can add to this. the carob build there. we cannot do this. we know better. fine. except figure that card to have fun shares because we have to make sure that the rest is covered. that is why these requirements of there. understanding that camellia's someone else is telling you you're going to do something, you're going to look at every way to get out of it. i know what you doing it because
someone else told youtube. i want you doing it because you have look to your tax base. the united states local officials it is tax base. without taxes there is no services. you may hate taxes and never want to pay taxes, but the bottom line is for governments of the united states, local and state governments without tax revenue you cease to provide essential services. develop the tools that give them up to look at the resiliency of their tax base hit and their exposures. understand after a disaster it is easier to make began airing changes, but in small incremental changes how you look at the changes -- decisions you're making to say that if something happens our tax base is resilient enough that we can survive it or we are so exposed in this if it happens we need to understand what the consequences me. and so the issue about rebuilding affordable housing,
well, maybe it's not a good idea to rebuild it where they're most vulnerable, but you cannot sell them out of your community. this is one of the things we have seen, what i call the neglect where local officials have area of poverty. they go, that is actually pretty good land. if we can yet those folks out of there we could redevelop that area and made more revenue, make more generation. the problem is, you leave your work force to far lane on happens your economy? it try something that they get, tax base. if it may be called party, but in a pragmatic way of state of the state what it takes to have our brazilian tax base in the face of the threats they are and what their current exposure looks like, we talk a lot these events in the abstract. i would like to bring it down to go, if this occurs to this level, this is what your tax base looks like. and what other steps that you can take to build resiliency.
and these are the feelings, the whole of the community, not the easy stuff, not the popular stuff. but all of the stuff that it takes that communities are made up of and how do you make sure that in building your community urinals zoning out, pricing out toward eliminating affordable housing. the real answer is, it may now be possible for people to rebuild and live the lives that they have for generations in the same spot, particularly when they flew out the fourth and fifth and sixth time. many of these people are trapped . they cannot afford to move out. it don't have the resources. oftentimes run we do buyout programs the first time not a lot of interest, said the proper time, they want to relocate.
want to leave their home. quite frankly, emotional reaction is excessive because that has become safety. it is an emotional reaction, but it is very strong. i remember a mere one of the mayor's after the f quake, and he said immediately after one of the communities that was literally wiped out of the coastline, you know, in front of a very high mountain. he immediately after the disaster 80 percent of the people said they are never going back. we're ready to move out. as time was going, the number kept coming down. of course more and more people for get and stay. we prefer. it doesn't happen again. local officials left alone, it is an enormous challenge gesture
in dealing with people and their reactions to that. how you build back depends on your capability to deal with in the tire pressure you have to deal with in the second -- the community in the economic pressure. we know that. of course. but these are decisions you take locally. the second point is, all of us say, possessors are that they make and are never the same. what it actually means this we're not very far into think about molding human settlements of large cities. risk is now look the same today as 45 years ago, and then another two years it will look very different. that was the experience of the many companies in bangkok who were flooded for nine weeks. twenty-five years ago when they
established to mature, they did the risk assessment. it was a very positive sign. draws for population, labour force, transport on the river, clean water, everything is needed. the soda and then makes of this concept, not only for the disaster event to be mitigated, but longer-term option, not the ones that are forced upon us by the necessity of a fairly rapid reconstruction. it is probably an opportunity that we missed too many times. my third point is that i think it is typically maybe for the west of the world. our opt to disasters has put it, and this amount permitted to move along. what i learned in japan is that you have to nurture disasters are remember them, keep learning them. that still remember the governor
17 years after the your earthquake, the year of four, he said a memorial ceremony, i am quite worried because people are beginning to forget the big disaster. that makes us less resilient to deal with the consequences. unfortunately i think their is a strong lesson in that we was not put them aside and forget them. we learn. actually, remember how you deal with them. >> thank you very much. [applause] i am pleased that this morning's proceedings are being broadcast live on c-span, so as any of you are in the audience were your
friends and family believe you are in las vegas gambling and you are embarrassed by the fact the you are here trying to wreck our cutest safer and save lives, keep your heads down. the plenaries are moderated the suggestions. again, questions of the the cars that we picked up by the staff. i will pass them. our moderator today is john hamilton. corresponded with national public radio. retired admiral bob willets who was u.s. pacific command at that time of the events in japan. the ceo of the institute for nuclear power operations. please excuse my pronunciation.
the dead be chief of mission is at the embassy of japan here in washington d.c. chairman of toyota motors in the united states, and, finally, dr. ted the mexico, professor by lech -- biological studies at the university of south carolina. thank you. >> so welcome. looking at disasters as the unfortunate large part of what we do. it has become we doubt this is a
story about american the tsunami. it was almost as an afterthought the city came up to me and said yet what to look of reports about the nuclear power plant that might have been damaged. been the course of the plant became a major part of the story . i would then the spending a couple of weeks in tokyo trying to explain to our listeners will was happening at that plant even though i never got within 100 miles of it for obvious reasons. this was an example of how one disaster can trigger another and another. and it was an example of our disaster along one stretch of coastline can affect an entire nation into a lesser extent much of the world.
the people sitting with me here today know a lot about the events of 2011 and have had some time to reflect what has happened. let's hear from them, and i would like to begin with mr. willard. i am curious. before you begin working in nuclear power, of course you had been a commander in the navy responded to a lot of disasters. and curious, what made this one different? >> thank you. first and foremost, the magnitude of this particular disaster, disasters are not uncommon. man-made or natural. in charge of u.s. pacific command with responsibilities from the west coast of the united states to the midpoint of the indian ocean, we were responding to disasters more less on average once every eight weeks.
and there are volcanoes, mudslides, tsunami, typhoon, cyclone, vast. and you heard the referral to the 2004 tsunami that emanated from an earthquake south of indonesia and killed over 200,000 people. but the magnitude of what occurred off the coast of honshu was unprecedented in any of our experience. it was inadequate that was once in our imagination, and hundreds of aftershocks. it was not one tsunami, it was seven waves. and the one that struck fukushima was 50 feet high. and as a consequence, a series of nuclear reactor accidents that occurred subsequent to that and they're ready logical to mention, a dimension to this
disaster that was, you know, unprecedented in any of our experience. then the so i think the magnitude, and it happened then a highly developed society, resilience generally to earthquake, for sure, but along a coastline that could not contend with the magnitude of the sudanese that were subsequent to that. so every the remarkable thing in terms of size and skill. >> next at think we need to hear, how did these events affect toyota? >> well, first of all, let me thank you for giving us an opportunity to talk about it and how we prepare and better manage this disaster. the event in march of 2011 was
devastating for japan and so was to tell you the. immediately thereafter the earthquake and see them hitting japan, our president established a company-wide the emergency task force. to address or assess that situation and take immediate action. and then our priorities were very clear. first of all, to provide immediate assistance in the affected area. we quickly formed a convoy of 8711-ton trucks with water, food, medical supplies, blankets, and incentives over. we said after that also 721-ton
trucks with holy water, and that water save their lives. so this is immediate action that they had taken. secondly, to assist in the speedy recovery of the affected area we are proud to say that our people have helped what is a very difficult to recovery for the area. over 200 employees from 15 affiliate's engaged in the recovery on a volunteer basis and played a leading role in early recovery of the disaster hit area and finally our business to resume for the production in japan as possible.
we have already planned to form us the base of our production site in japan, and the cursory area and then that specializing, and the whole area, we specialize on small cars. but immediately after that to really help revive the economy there, we accelerated and put all of the engine plans and everything to help insure the employment being created in all these. our headquarters in japan colleges during tokyo's city, is not in that affected area, but still, as many as 660 suppliers
were in the affected area, and some for under 50 dealers. one very crucial example after we found it is that there are two major suppliers that in terms of size, but paid material which affected the production line of the tread for not having enough. that is one of the very interesting examples that we found, but the other one is much more major in magnitude, which is the company called renaissance, which produces seven -- semiconductors. having 30 percent of the global market share, which affects all of the microcomputers of the car
from around the world. and that is the most critical part of that. and the initial assessment for the recovery of that part or company was very grim commend we estimated about eight months of production being lost in disrupted. with a tremendous amount of -- effort of all the team members from our company, from other companies, suppliers and dealers , they were able to us start -- restore the production within four months, which is twice as fast as was anticipated . so these are sort of a situation that we're in. >> so an amazing effect on one company, even though that company was not headquartered in the affected area. moving up from that, let's talk about the effect on japan as a whole.
and curious if you could talk a little bit about how japan, when it began to fully realize the extent of all the things, the old cascade of events and what the response was. >> first of all, i would like to thank you for the harbor city to be part of this process. as you know, our government and the whole japanese nation is eternal grateful. the people of the united states. in one way to repay is to share. this is very important as an opportunity to do so. and in terms of our discord in responding to the cascading
disasters, i can point to several. apart from the sheer magnitude, which you already have mentioned , the first we have, this is a case where we saw the very structure of local government be literally wiped out. in some cities it was even difficult to identify who was living in that town shipboard city. we already. so even we have -- the national government has a policy to implement, but no means to do so. so that was one of the most difficult aspects. it was that aspect, the presence
of u.s. forces that made a difference. and i would like to express my gratitude. the u.s. forces. and apart from the encounter, our efforts were complicated by several factors. if i can port to several of them . after recovery, of the progress was just not possible. but as we make progress going into the next phase we start to be encountered with a sort of increased interest in the
previous section one of the keynote speakers talking about people's tendency to want to go back to there original homes. this is -- whether -- many people living in the areas were engaging in fishing. so once they start to rebuild their livelihood, they want to go back to there original homes close to the coastline. this is the area where we have because of the risk. so in terms of making sense, relocating homes. but that, as i said, created a conflict wi