tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 26, 2015 5:30pm-7:31pm EDT
bush used these policy czarres to manage key aspects of the war on terror and at various times and various ways in the years following the terrorist attacks of september 11th 2001. research that i presented in the paper. that i would talk about this afternoon, comes from abroader project of czars in general. and my partner in the project. dr. jose villalobos owes and i are publishing a book this summer to focus on the evolution and the rise of presidential policies czars as a managerial tool for those of that you are starting christmas shopping early. it will come out in june. and it is a fit into the stocking and if you are celebrating holidays in july. i am happy to autograph them. we will talk after the panel about that. in the meantime the research that went into that book was motivated by that of which president obama's alleged over reliance and
czars caused during the transition into office and in the earlier months. and even the years of the presidency. we found this development of the phenomenon to be fascinating. and mysterious. and we spent a good number of years learning more about that. and when we discuss how early the presence of gob. i may clarify he can actually what we mean when we use the word czar. tasks with coordination and responsibilities over a particular policy problem that said administration is intense on either solving or at least appearing to solve. what i want to talk about this afternoon is czars. what the pressures are that lead administrationes to create them.
and what czars are able to accomplish. and talking about that a little bit in general. and particularly with respect to the experiences of george bush's post 9/11 czars. when the new complex problems facing the nation will become salient and creating both a political and policy need for action. richard nixon with john love and william simon. and the administration's response to the energy crisis the 1970s and interestingly. in the school of business frank czar was an energy czar and the inner agency response to the ebola up deck epidemic and both of the cases nixon's use of
energy czars and president's appointed the zars on their own initiative. there are policy issues and resolve if not actually solving them. so presidents own the development of the phenomenons. and other times such as the case with george bush and the institutionalization the drug czar sxv late 198 0s. the development of the czar is spirited by the congressional action and not surprisingly by incentives facing the president. and so following september 11th, the george bush administration created at different moment czar doms and the homeland security czar that dave talked about at length. and national intense begins czar that we have the fort
to forenot too attendees of the could have friends. and the pan elf the room that is following this one. and a so-called war czar. of with the three cases we will see the examples of presidential and responses to the pressures and one of the ways for the difference of the two is causes for the development of the czar and offensive and defensive approach to creating czars so when they have the own volition there is offenses czar and doing as a response of external pressures and defensive approach. so for example as covered or tom ridge would be director of homeland security. and not long after the attacks of nine lever. and the position was in the
executive order of the presidency. and only officially responsible to the president. and that created quite the firestorm as acknowledged and when the controversy erupted on whether or not ridge had to testify before congress. the controversy never is satisfactory settled and ignite add private conversation with key members of congress that was not on the record. and therefore didn't intrude upon the bush administration's claims of ex-beingtive prerogative. the other two zars that we will talk about today are however exams of defenses and czar politics to the national intelligence czar came about after the 9/11 commission released the report in july of 2004. and it was the institution of the position was created by an act of congress. the bush administration initially opposed the
creation though it was in large part supportive of the findings of the 9/11 commission despite that, they implemented a position in the way that was consistent with the preferences of congress. and the president signed a law that would created position and among other thing into law in december 2004. and in 2005 john negroponte who served as ambassador to the united nations and iraq was announced as the nation's first intelligence czar. so he was a high profile choice. and that received a lot of kudos when he was selected but it issal worth noting was an individual that came to the information without prior experience in the intelligence field. the war czar issal the result of the external pressure and chaired by james baker and lee hamilton and iraq study group that
issued a report in 2006 that included suggesting the creation of the high level position of soared naturing actions with the department of defense. department of the state. and all of the other various agencies that were involved in the ongoing war efforts of the time. the white house was pretty unenthusiastic of the suggestion to add on what they have viewed as another level of bureaucracy, though they knew that the growing perception at least was that both wars were going badly by that point. unsurprisingly given the administration's lack of enthusiasm about this position when they turn to staffing it, they had trouble attracting top shelf talent. many of the people that they wanted to have in this position realize that it would be a tooth less role. they did not want to. they did not relish the idea of competing against vice
president cheney and other important administrative elites over war and foreign policy politics. in fact the bush administration was rebuffed several times when they attempted to fill this slot. and mainly by well-known retired generals and eventually the administration satisfy and settled on douglas loot who took the position in 2007 and held it for several years including into the obama administration. so between the three cases was arrange of cause that's unlined why the positions were so actually created. and all three, one thing that all three had in common is that there were responses to the simultaneous crisis. one was a unilateral presidential action and creation of the office of homeland security and the selection. and another was a result of the congressional action
though as creation of the intelligence zars position and john negroponte took and then the third was created by the administration a creation of the war or czar position that douglas filled. and with experience of czars tracks of what we know about the broader history reef czars in the white house. the administrations just as often and public as a unilateral attempt to push their own agendas in other words, just as off continue in the request or the system of other branches as they do in their own viewings. and a couple of reasons, one controversy surrounding the zars portray them as u.n. rat rational tools of which the presidents will avert the constitution en route to achieving the nefarious goals.
and it is important because of the success of zars that off continue depend on the source of the position. and the administration's interests in the creation of the particular czar is a major factor. and it is not the only factor but it is an important factor that is involved when it comes to determining how successful a czar will be able to be. though presidential enthusiasm for the czar will matter that is not all important. and there are cases when they oppose the cueva czar. and when forced and when the hand was forced empowered them. a forementioned george bush. and drug czar and bush camp paged 19 8 against the idea of creating a drug czar. and when the law of passed president reagan signed it. and reinquiring that the winner of the 1988 election would have in the drug czar 1989 he would do a 180 degree turn.
would have this position. let's make the most of it. it became a high level of emphasis of the earlier months and years of the bush administration. and bill clinton campaigned in favor of creating a czar to offer see the nation's response to the aids epidemic in 1992 and then had he became president did nothing to empower any the those that held the position so there is a good implicate or that it would be a perfect indicator. and in writing the book. as any given czar's ability to lead and succeed is highly conditional. and it depend on the range of factors. the factors include of course the whether or not the position is a result of the presidential offensive or defensive action. and the czar's expertise,
and manager experience. and if they are a pioneer in the position or simply replacing a previous czar. the extent of which they have a relationship with the president and as they pointed out with respect to their project approximate imtoity president. and post 9/11 czars and a different experience here, with respect to the factors. and really quickly. let's discuss each. and ridge served as hom homoczar for about a year. and then he became sectretary of the department of homeland security in november of 2002. and served that capacity for two years and despite the congressional testimony, and a much lampooned proposed alert system not withstanding we are tenure that is in the administration that is well
regarded. he had an important voice if not the most important voice or not the level of the other central figures and he was responsible for giving shape to the department and helping to develop the national security strategy that was released in 2002. ridge did not possess a substantive experience in the area of hom homoand brought with him managerial disperse in the time as governor of pennsylvania and pioneering of nature and the opportunity that he of given as a nation's first lead official in the homeland security. and combined with president bush's commitment to the issue enabled them to become a successful czar. and negroponte's intelligence czar had a lot in common with the ridges and the creation of the position was a congressional initiative. negroponte was a well-known and valued bush team. and he again, did not possess the substantive experience in the area of which he was assigned the intelligence arena and he did have the significant
diplomatic being credentials and he newt political train inside and jon the white house well. and the relationship with and ability to personally to brief the president enhanced the prospect for success. and over time however, the institutional percentage would be eroded. various other leaders in the administration waged the turf battles allowing them to get beyond the preview of the information. and eventually. he would lose the important conflicts with the department of defense. cia. the fbi. and ultimately. will leaf the director of the national intelligence position and to move to a different information and the department of the state. politically, with he would say that he was unsuccessful. and the office performed well. and lost power. gradually. with the other key or other key agencies or two, within the administration. and the decline would continue after negroponte left with the czars having
decreasing amounts of power. finally douglas was the last successful of the three national security czars of the bush administration. and he was no one's first choice that the white house was not excited about creating in the first place. and as suches he came in the administration to face an uphill battle and his first months on the job were not note worthy. and it was not until the last several months of the bush administration that or president bush took advantage of his presence and he ordered him to prepare an exhaustive soup to nuts strategy review of what is going on in afghanistan. the report was a major effort. it was not presented to the bush administration's national security council until november 26th. 2008 so three weeks after barack barak defeated john mccain. less than two months before the bushes would move back to texas. and the report was well received and it went
nowhere. he would end up staying on in the position. un obama administration and also in the situation where he was relatively powerless and he stayed in the cap aity of 2013 and he was the representative of nato. and we cannot consider him a successful czar. he did not do very much to motivate the creative position in the first place. he could not be blamed for a lack of success and enthusiasm for the position and the lack of political capital. and nonexistent relationship with the president. assured marginalization. so to summarize, and to analyze the enresting lens of which we can view the evolution of the administrative dimension of the war of terror itself. and bush's post 9/11 czar has experienced different levels of support and success.
together they to provide approximation of the experience of presidential czars in general. and as we have seen in the past couple of series of centuries, and the stereotype is an unconstitutionally. and empowered super bureaucrat to operate with the support. and the reality is the experiences of ridge and negroponte and loot show that it is more complex and far less threatening. thank you. [applause] we have two interesting papers by those on the issues and we have moved on to the great discussion as well. and our first discussion will be thank you. i want to get only to the q&a as quickly as possible. as long as we are doing shameless advertising, i would encouraging you to go on amazon to get my book "beyond the storms" talking about this issue and the
context of the current historic and consequences and event. homeland security and the need of resilience. the enemy is persistent and patient among us and so the idea of pushing the borders further and further out trying to avoid that of which is inevitable is what we are facing right now. and this generating right now. whether it is a czar who lacks the budget and authority. jurisdiction or it is a structure that is uncertain. we will need for you to be versatile. and adaptive. and critical thinkers so i amen courage today see the younger group out here. for hofstra to host this. looking at the partnerships. i do like this. as a co-author i would like to safe. i appreciate this czar the analysis of ambassador negroponte's position i think that if he were here
he might have reactions to what you said. i less ended to some things. and very interesting. i think that everything that we hear and read and listen to will have to be taken into the strategic context where the post 9/11 war on terror an and conflict that will continue with a current version of the al-qaeda. isis and other threats, that there is a timeline in the history. historic times where we are trying to get a handle on things and we learn as we go so i think that the other factor that i would take from the papers is personalities matter. individual that's gain trust. and they have a habitual relationship with the leaders all of a sudden finding themselves to be thrust into an opportunity to lead an opportunity of when governor ridge was in harrisberg pennsylvania and the coast guard will show up and they will begin to talk about what a future department of homeland security look like? the conversation that's
would argue started in forums like this among the class wroomz and among your experience. so my encouragingment from the papers of the experience. with the individuals here is to go out and get operational experience to learn something that you can integrate your academic experience with. so that you will be the with understands that they will come to to set up the next future of the department the future czars. you will be the with understands that we look to to sort out the difficult problems. this is not a stagnant discussion, froze then time but rather apart of an ongoing ton context. when i worked for dr. rice and steve hadley in the national security count cynicism i was there for three months and i was asked if i wanted to shift inform to a position in the homeland security council. so i dl a little bit of poking around and i looked at one of the new guys on the staff of a hundred and senior branch in the military. and i came to the conclusion i wanted to hitch a wagon to the security council. when you look at the
homeland security construct that enterprise of did he line to be integrated into the national security. and if you read the book from the council of foreign relations he writes that in all national security. force projection will begin at home. and so national security and homeland security a lines are blurred. and we stood up the northern command in colorado springs. we told the four-star combat and commander to figure out the homeland defense and homeland security. it is very difficult much the issue of the homeland security is abroad enter pies that is designed by the national security act and the fact is that when you start to look at the threats and the opportunities and the moving parts, foreign threats and sri lanka of or jakarta, are ones that will because of globalization and issues of the day are really in the homeland as well so. we have to look at how do we get the structures that best
suit that. so there will be future changes to the u.s. government structures. and standing up. zars. what ever we will call them much the terminology could change. we will have to have a versatile and nonlinear leaders to be able to think on their feet. and to bring your experience and your approach your personality to get solutions to quantify and to help the leaderes to make better decisions gravitas and the reputation will only get so you far as a czar. you will have to put together a team and show the viability that the nonredundant unique contribution that the agency or the organization that you formed is contributor to the u.s. government. leaders like dr. rice and fran townshend homeland security adviser and steve hadley would ensure that you and your organization will find a place if you are contributing in away to the current issues dejour.
threats dejour. and the last comment that i would make. stimulated here as i mentioned the papers here. be circumspect. critical. and to be thought full. as you rethe papers like this. we did our best to chronicle what happened and we look back at it and we see the gaps. and prepareness. presidential policy directive in the executive orders will deal with the preparedness in the way that would kind avenue dress concerns. terry's concerns would focus and have affixation in the post 9/11 world on counterterrorism and the security to the exclusion of rising and emerging persistent and national disasters so the context of the work including mine is resilience that would you have to have an ongoing
posture of the readiness for that, which is inevitable and as they do in israel. other countries if we shut down the economy. and with if we are not prepared to flks in this direction the homeland security. whether it is a czar or any other structure. we have to be adaptive and scalable and flexible to that. which is inevitable from the natural disaster and man-made disaster or disruptive events. including extreme weather. and the resiliance will not care what the disasterer is. it will make us better no matter what. the solution for this is an example of the homeland security example and the zars. they are attempts by the leaders to face the investigationing problems with creative solutions. that is where i draw the encouragingment from the young audience and the students that are here. and the creative minds across the group. we have got to figure this out. and right now. as someone that is still inside of the beltway there, we will need your help. conferences like this. we will need papers to help
to us think through this issue. thank you. [applause] let's move onto the professor. thank you. thank you so much professor brink man and the panelists for the great presentations. i will make the very quick as well. i want to get to the audience questions. and i am looking at an organization like the department of homeland security. very much from the outside. i would be interested in all of your responses to what i am about to say again. taking this again from somebody very much from the outside. president bush was initially against this legislation before he was for it. and i have often wondered the extent of which the political pressures would be responsible for that switch i believe that it occurred in 2000. if i am not mistaken. an off year. an important off year election. my impression looking at the
dhs. he wish president bush stuck with the initial position. and it seems to me that there was tinkering that would need to be done. not this sort of wholesale and massive merging of the 22 existing agencies into one. and done hastily, as was pointed out by one of the speakers and looking at it from the outside, it looks to me like what the hs dchl the effect of this has been to create more bureaucraciy, and more red tape. more layers. arguably, the less presidential descretion due to the fact that there is oversight eninvolved and the testimony and congressman king was here. that would be a come complaint of his. this is a constant calling of the dhs officials up to the hill. and endless fashion. looking at it from the outside here it seems to me that would you make a case that the department of
homeland security is exhibit a of the federal government that is simply too big. too customer better son. and the arena involving a security striking something we should all be concerned about. has dhs or has dhs too important to fail, it seems to me, the track record of the past 10 or 12 years has not been an encouraging one. if you look at the damage that was done to fema and arguably, the damage done to the secret service, um you no ex-there was a real cost to some of these agencies in temps of losing their autonomy. so i want to be this sort of nath sears here. and ask you all to respond to the notion that what happened in this significant piece of legislation was not necessarily good for the security and the interests of the united states. thank you.
[applause] a slight correction of the timeline. and after 9/11 as we talk about the that on the paper. and the bush administration was against a large scale reorganization in terms creating the department of homeland security. something changed really in the beginning of 2002. you know. bush himself decides to rethink his position against it. and i believe that it was april 2002 that the secret negotiation left side take place higher within the administration i counsel everybody to read peter baker's book. and he has a nice description of the secret negotiations that go on with tom ridge as part of the small group. gonzalez. white house council. alberto gonzalez. andy card and their immediate deputies are in
the room. i think that the director part of it too. and they will meet in the room in the white house. presidential emergency operations center. and i believe that this is about three or four weeks of them secretly meeting. and the pock is a white house bunker that was built during fdr's time. when you know they were concern that had there was no bunk for protect the president and the event of the surprise attack. so in fact pock room became famous on 9/11. and dick cheney was lifted by the secret service and carried down the hall and into the room there that is unnaepth the driveway neither east wing. and the negotiations take place and they will unveil a plan of a complete surprise to just about everybody in the administration. took everybody off guard and the highest level of people in the white house did not know. regarding those involved.
>> a terrible mistake incredibly shortsighted and really not very sophisticated and unrealistic. personally i think they certainly did in the case of ridge, average, the case of the people that were put into direct fema and your.is well taken about the secret service. as well we can see some of what is occurring today. the problem the secret service has which by the way predates dhs as well. >> very well. i think the irony is that in many ways the early structure was lean and mean and flexible but by replacing it with this 22
agency structure in many ways and validated the leadership. as we all know it has the lowest morale and the federal government. one of one of the reasons for that is these great people of great ideas and leadership potential are basically -- not all of them but many of them are swallowed up by the structural issue that continues including also the mission interest. and that you know, the mission natural disaster mission and some of the other missions have continued to be downplayed in part because of the bureaucratic inertia. >> thank you. dave i think you did a great job telling the story of how this 180-degree change happened in secret. and i think it was motivated by couple of things. i agree with your assessment of the consequences. one as colin egli and
o'sullivan paper indicated there was a lack of comfort with how well they were able to proceed with the limits on authority and spending that ridge and these otherwise been institutionalized individuals were able to have. and they saw -- they were going to need congressional support to do anything. and they saw the option coming down the road at them joe lieberman. and so i think they said we want to do a better job. if we want a congressional participation which we would need to my our choice will be joe lieberman's proposal all we can get together and quietly come up with our own. that is what they did. so i. so i think it was motivated
by politics but also policy desires. unfortunately by making that massive reform and creating this unwieldy organization that lost the sense of mission ends up undermining the very purpose of the initial development. >> i see the lack of morale. i see the damage. i see the challenges. i will take the contrarian view self-serving because i help standup dhs. career coast guard leadership matters. leadership matters. it is not necessarily the structure of the organization although that certainly has hurdles and difficulties difficulties, but i think the secretary showed us that there were high points. the revolving door for people coming and going is a symptom of a problem, not a problem. if you look at the current administrator for fema he would tell you there are good things that have happened to read
notwithstanding the challenges that i think are well articulated here be careful. i think with some of the leadership that we have out here and do some of the things are coming to this new generation i have four kids. the oldest one is an air force pilot. the war is not over. we have some sharp people coming up through the ranks, ranks, some experience we have learned from making mistakes and some experience we have to bring to the forefront. my secret service friends and fema friends i'm not sure they would say they were damaged. it was a significant challenge no question about it. but that is why we do things like this and say it is going to take courage uncommon leadership. my father's a world war ii marine. a generation was faced with nasty problems.
they made a lot of mistakes. that generation is called the greatest for a reason. to get patriotic or preachy, but i am encouraged by see this current generation of young people looking at this with a knife. these departments are waiting for you and people were educated have you degree come out and say we are not so willing to believe all, drink all cooling that is out there. >> thank you very much. one quick question. if you think about what has happened with homeland security it really was a change in the government structure agency level changes. and the federal government bureaucracy, university bureaucracy. i'm wondering if it serves as a model for this issue that professor egli spoke about. need to be adapted and scalable.
the department of energy and issues of energy the military's largest user what is happening in venezuela and the middle east. i wonder if you think that it serves as a model for radical change in the organization of the executive branch reorganization of homeland security serves as a model for other agencies. >> i think there are lessons that can be learned on both sides. i think what i see emerging is a unique approach which is public private academic partnerships the money is not there. no matter how much we put our policy, proliferation of doctrine guidance top papers and so forth, the needs of our nation are dwarfed.
so we can no longer throw large amounts of federal dollars at the. what are you left with? how to incentivize the venture capitalists' a private investors will own and operate the majority of our national infrastructure. and then academia represents a non- conflicted independent review honest broker who can look at it without the agenda in the polls of some of these politicos. a refreshing thing to me whether i agree or disagree is that it is stimulating the kind of thinking and solutions and ideas. there are lessons that. >> i also think that secretly negotiating the biggest transformation in our government since world war ii over just a few weeks in the basement and the white house is probably not the model going forward. it was just a unique time.
part of it was political, but part of it was the administration also did not -- they wanted it to be their blueprint. by meeting in secret and showing the whole world out they can make sure whatever was submitted to congress was exactly what they had in mind as opposed to having congress and other interest groups muddy the waters. >> the same thing. >> thank you. let's move on to questions from the audience. i would like to start with questions from students. a question from our student body. >> we can talk about the college basketball tournament. >> all right. it will take a question right here. one 2nd. the microphone. >> world war ii. what we really need now is
another greatest generation. for many of us how do we get this 1st? >> the 1st time since i was the optimist you know, i cannot address the percentage that voted but what i can address can address is what i see by those resumes i look at individuals, and turns i had my own for teenagers for members of my family are serving on active duty right now. one is an air force pilot the other is an apache longboat helicopter pilot, the other is a marine the other is therefore special forces. young kids that young kids that grew up playing computer games and the rest of us cost and left. they are leaving us in the dust. the generations patriotic motivated incredibly ready to take on the threat and answer the call to duty.
so i think in some ways the voting will take care of itself. i went through a season in in my life were was not as responsible as i should have been. all of a sudden something happened in my late 20s early 30s. a generation is in better shape than we read about. so that is just my perspective. the young man that is escorting me today right down here. and i think our country is in pretty good hands. young men and women working for me for four years. they saved my bacon more than once and i learned a lot from them. i have no doubt. this young man gave me a few suggestions. >> the statistics bear out his anecdotal experiences.
we know that millennial's plan on voting at the levels of older cohorts, but we also know that it is an extraordinarily engaged generation. they participate in civic life and a variety of ways that far greater rates than any of the process generations. they volunteer more. they get involved in protests. they travel to take -- to help refugees in response to the hurricane in new orleans and so on and so on. there is no shortage of academic work looking at differences and how this particular generation approaches the idea approaches the idea of being a good citizen and a different way.
the manifesto going for a variety of reasons most notably a growing distrust of major institutions in public life manifesting and lots of other ways. >> to some extent i appreciate the enthusiasm and optimism but the polls indicate that millennial's in many ways are disaffected by government. the government is bad and they see the dysfunction in congress and it is a very dysfunctional system, the worst it has been in many generations and i think that is part of the problem. there is a mixed message. i wish there were more but this antigovernment strand in the united states and the fact that also the us government is pulling out of funding our infrastructure i think it has led millennial's to feel as though there. count. recent political scientists
have demonstrated in many ways the system is falling toward oligarchy. empirically analytically possible. i would say part of what we need to do is to reassure millennial's that their votes will count as an and being part of government is going to be a useful thing because we have strayed away from is considerably. >> sorry. homeland security exemplifies that on the one hand there are basically two ways you can go when you have to do something. it's too fragmented.
tried to get that desire to pull everything together. did not work out that well. you did not have enough power and budget. ultimately something more was deemed to be needed. something more turns out to be an abomination of a few agencies. she the department of homeland security has not been highly successful and is not a model. the optimists to read what else can we do or have done? is there a 3rd model? is there some other approach that somehow transcends the limitations of both of these? >> it's a great question for the panelists. i think dhs is an extreme bad example.
the example i kind of like to talk about the secretion of the department of energy. pretty much started as the energies are's over the course of the entire decade. the position gradually became more institutionalized. for. for a variety of reasons congress and president nixon were not able to work together to institutionalize a position. as general ford and jimmy carter became president the need for leadership was seen across the different branches. they were able to come up with a model that works for everybody. that led to -- and the last energies are because i believe the i believe the next person who would offend
the position would have been secretary schlesinger it was the 1st secretary the department of energy. and so it takes time to do that negotiation and to work out what needs to be done. as probably not eight months would have been the case. was the case with killing from tom ridge is homeland security is a tooth department -- to the secretary of the department of homeland security. i think the better evolution can happen. this one was a really fast and not well thought out one. >> let's go to the next question here. the think that the government would profit by helping graduates in school now that have very high loans to encourage them to
come to the government with some kind of a program to help them pay their loans off? >> i mean,, i think so. i still have lots and lots of loans to pay back. >> in the back there was a question. >> security is intrusive to the american public. yet when we compare press -- presidential powers over time from lincoln to wilson to roosevelt and others it doesn't seem like it's particularly intrusive. i wonder what the panelists think about the general idea
that having a security apparatus is a threat to the american individual the historical perspective positive or negative and security threatening individual liberty. >> affected jump in on this. you make a great. there are ample historical examples the president's engaging and what the american civil liberties union would call intrusive violations of privacy and so forth. there is a very long history of activity but george washington was an advocate of mail opening. i don't know what he would think of today's national security agency but he had no problem instructing his agents during the american revolution to open up the mail have suspected tories or americans who were suspected for some reason. in fact, not only did he favor mail opening, he provided instructions as to how to do it without being detected. so you go on from there.
certainly lincoln woodrow wilson, franklin roosevelt harry truman, so forth all of these guys had a security apparatus that was extremely intrusive. i thank you for raising that question because i think we lose sight of that. that does not necessarily make it right. we have certainly had pieces of legislation enacted in the post-watergate years that have changed the way that we think about these kinds of things but to historical roots of this activity they run deep and i think there is a double standard applying for particularly to this presidency, the bush presidency. it's. >> temper that perspective a little bit i think by saying that the revolutionary war and the civil war were uniquely -- uni crisis situations every one of the biggest problems we have today is that if we are to
assume this is a time of war and therefore the glove should be off in the protection of civil liberties lacks, i think we all know that the war metaphor essentially means that we we will always be a war. this is where we get into dwight dd eisenhower's admonition that we need to fear the military-industrial complex. i think the extension of those we need to fear the homeland security industrial complex. we become too much of a war country and that anything goes in the interest of that the big difference between washington opening mail and lincoln suspending habeas corpus is that the technology now is capable of complete surveillance of the entire population. i think the founding people would argue that that is a bad thing for her first amendment civil liberties. while certainly there is a certain amount of importance
to being able to do surveillance especially based on probable cause i think the system as it currently stands is set up such that if we get someone who is not well intended that they are going to have the ability to create a security state and authoritarian security state that is beyond human history at this stage. that is the biggest problem. it is not the well-intentioned people. the structure now is set up as eminently well for being able to have virtually universal surveillance of americans. >> what security -- and the american public feels vulnerable or unsafe we naturally are willing to accept as the security comes up willing to sacrifice our economic activity and civil liberties. what we need to do in my opinion is increased security maintain civil liberties, maintain our economy by having a
resilient society. this may not be well-publicized orwell understood but the snowdon accusation of us gathering information stockpiling it and having if there were a pfizer core would have to issue essentially a search warrant later was tested 32 times in the court of law and found to be legitimate. it was consistent with what the charters were. in a post- 911 world the patriot act or other things the american public was okay with certain degradation and civil liberties and the economics of it. my.is to be very good critical thinkers. thinkers. general alexander was at the nsa for eight years. he will defend is a great four-star general and american patriot that we were compiling information
securing it. if at a later date we felt we had reason to go after it we would go get a search warrant and argue that case in a rule of law civil society. a lot of the american public has not been given that two-story. some of this no question, there are vulnerabilities that we have to be cautious. by the same token there is a continuum where the american public is not willing to have -- they want to sleep tonight under the blanket of freedom and security. we have to be able to do that because we will face more were fighting in the homeland. the radicalized individual does not need to go to afghanistan. they can do it on the internet. we have a country that is vulnerable and we need to acknowledge that you read what do we do? raise security maintain civil liberties maintain liberties, maintain our economy, we shut down the economy or civil liberties the enemy wins. there is a way to do all three simultaneously. that is the next conference.
>> another question there. wait for the microphone please. i am older than all of you and remember the witchhunts going on. and so i think there is sort of a double-edged sword here the brother who went to check the came back. and they said by law we can no longer follow him. in the old days they would have said the state police and local sheriff this looks like a bad guy. you have to follow him. it might have been able to avoid. i'm just saying we do have
to find some sort of knew balance somewhere. i don't know what that is. i'm just raising that issue. >> anyone like to respond? >> i agree. i think in response to my fellow panelists i actually think that it is true that technology has expanded on a scale that would. i also think that at least since the 1970s a number of checks of been put in place. the courts are -- the courts are far more heavily involved than they ever were prior. so to some so to some extent i guess i would make the argument that the system has responded. it is not foolproof for sure but there but there are far more checks in place that used to exist back in the so-called good old days. >> i think we will have to agree to disagree.
many of them have been shown to not have much problem cause. >> we don't know that. >> we do actually. there has been good study on the fact. she can do saying i would i would say that i think the checks and balances have eroded significantly and it simply overweight somebody who has no intention to be using it for political purposes down the line. that is the big issue and essentially what the founding fathers were particularly concerned about >> i think you would be hard-pressed to say they have eroded. you have presidency use the fbi entirely for political purposes. >> sure.
>> there is a track record. i think there are more checks in place today than they were pre- nixon. >> it was secret for a reason. >> a question there. >> i have a question about what you were previously discussing. and you spoke more about red tape and how that affects it i was wondering if you could talk about the sharing of information between agencies and how that has changed. >> we had a hard time hearing that. >> you spoke to efficacy in the department of homeland security in terms of red tape and leadership. could you speak to the
better idea. secret service could have been use used as an opportunity to split secret service into two different agencies. right now we have a dual mission which is confusing for people. monetary investigations and protecting the president. those are two unrelated missions. other things could have been done that were maybe not quite as extreme as well we got. >> i'm sorry. we are out of time. we had a good discussion. there is no doubt this is an important issue. the way that we look at government has changed. you heard you heard a challenge to today. if you don't like what you see get involved. thank you for being here. we appreciate you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> david mccullough on the wright brothers. >> it was the mystery of it was that had wilbur in the teeth with a hockey stick knock down all his upper teeth that he was 18 and sent him into a spell of depression and self-imposed seclusion in his house for three years. was not able to go to
college, which you plan to do. he wanted to go yell. instead he stayed at home but very seldom without all reading and providing himself with a liberal arts education for the kind most people would dream of having on his own with the help of his father in the local public library. but he swerved the path of his life in a way that no one had ever had any way of anticipating. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> to food justice advocates discuss the concept of access to healthy food is a basic human right. the keynote speakers. the food literacy project. this is about an hour and a half.
>> when i turned that way. >> hi everyone. i think we will get started. if you could if you could please turn off your cell phones we would appreciate it. thank you. as you. as i hope you are all aware this is one of our keynote talks. we have two wonderful amazing speakers with us today. the 1st person who will be talking today is molly anderson currently at the college of the atlantic.
she teaches about hunger, food security and food sovereignty system dynamics, food power and notably food justice. she anticipates moving to middlebury college the summer where she will be starting a food studies program. she is especially interested in how communities can achieve the right to food and nutrition, sustainability metrics and how industrialized countries will move to a post-petroleum food system. part of the international panel of experts on sustainable food systems organized by olivier the former un special rapporteur on the right to food. also prepared a film for the conference which will be showing tomorrow as part of the keynote talk and will be putting outline for all of you. we are also joined by francis mylan, the author and co-author of 18 books including the 3 million the diet for a small planet's. named by gourmet magazine as one of the 25 people whose
work is change the way america eats. her most recent work won a silver a silver medal from the independent publisher book awards, cofounder of three organizations she lives with her daughter. they have also cofounded the small planet fund which channels resources to democratic social movements worldwide. please join me in welcoming i speakers command we will get started with molly anderson. [applause] >> thank you. good afternoon to all of you it is a real honor to cope present. i see her has one of the pioneers of food justice. she brought our attention a long time ago to the policies and eating patterns in this country affecting the prospects for justice of people in poor countries.
and what we can learn from people in other countries. so i am delighted to be here i want to start with a few observations about why food justice seems to be rising to the four right now wide is on so many people's minds. people's minds. i think 1st it is the growing awareness of racism and racial inequity in this country. ferguson certainly was a flashpoint for that but with ferguson came the realization for many of us that black youth were being massacred by state forces with virtual impunity. the seven going on for a long time continuing an idea -- only legacy of lynching. i think that food justice she also has benefited from the attention to global inequity and access to resources. eighty people have the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion in the world. in its many incarnations
around the world been raising awareness of the problems of global inequity. the attention to food justice also reflects the maturation of effort in this country to address multiple problems with food systems and to a small extent it is related to a global upsurge in demand for food sovereignty. i we will come back to food sovereignty at the end of my talk. first i want to go back a little bit to talk about what i mean, by maturation of the conversation how has the conversation about food justice changed over the last few decades. when i worked here in the boston area local food was exploding onto the national scene and many people saw localism and direct marketing farmers market csa, they really saw it as the pathway justice because
finally farmers would stand a better chance of getting better economic return and customers would be reconnected with farmers. the conversation moved on to healthy food as people realize that local food is not particularly accessible due to its cost and availability. the interest in local food was based on a desire to improve the well-being it is quite well-intentioned but sometimes dwell going astray it is a kind of colorblind policy. hardly anyone in the united states is eating enough fresh fruits and festivals. better accessibility to healthy food is going to help everyone. then people said wait a minute. it is not just healthy food affordable food, green food
humane food, food raised with human practices. and we saw the conversation moving on to real food and good food. i think there will be a presentation that i'm not sure but talking about real food tomorrow. then we set up a more systematic attention to the barriers and the underlying causes the food system problems and these are some of the reports that were coming out in this timeframe over the last decade. we were looking at the root causes not just the symptoms like lack of access to healthy food. and this shift of the conversation and issues of food power the concentration of wealth and power in the food system nationally and why corporations have increasing control over what we as well
as how they have greater control over -- and if i can get -- let me try to take from that. more control over the international food system as well. we're seeing this play out in free-trade agreements. with strands from food sovereignty the discussion now is moving into issues of food governance for democracy, and who decides what people eat. this is a recent publication from the good people at the institute for agriculture and trade policy on deepening for democracy. going back to my title, how is food justice connected with the right to food? what does food justice really require? as i see it food justice requires 1st of all attention to the history of structural violence and oppression in our country.
these are the words of policy length. slavery of africans and native americans, but that the land and water from native americans ad sordid history of racial is nation that continues to play out in substandard wages and working conditions for people of color. that is the reality. current food systems have been shaped by historical practices and policies that systemically oppressed communities of color. doing doing food justice also requires greater transparency about economic and social consequences food system practices. this goes back to those 80 people that will fit on one bus. food inputs and the cell food. the requires accountability to those who have not been well served.
this accountability is demonstrated by 1st cost of reflection and learning about the root causes of food injustice. second internal work to understand the many ways in which we may benefit and continuing to ignore those were not well served. he requires active work to ensure the right to food for everyone especially those who are vulnerable and politically marginalized. fourth, it means making opportunities for meaningful voice and engagement by those who have not been heard have borne the most cost and have not received for benefit and finally, he requires partnerships of mutuality and solidarity with low income communities and communities of color. i'm not talking about charitable services or providing what we think they want.
am talking about engagement to truly learn from impoverished communities and communities of color and to support the. in 2,008 i tried to envision an alternative to market-based solutions what seemed to be sucking the air out of the room at that time and talk about food system alternatives and to some extent continue. these market-based solutions included direct marketing but fair trade and new ways to give consumers more choice so that they could but with the forks. it seemed obvious to me that the market was never going to deliver justice as obvious as that local foods were not necessarily environmentally beneficial or fair. i wrote a paper. the basic idea is that our current food system violates human rights on every front
farmers, workers, citizens hungry people. and food system reform means a transformation to the conditions under which all human rights are respected protected, and the film. those of you who study human rights will recognize recognizes language. of course the rights of animals and the rights of nature are already being violated but there is not as clear an agreement about what these rights are. human rights in contrast our agreed-upon international goals. ever since 1948 and the universal declaration on human rights which our 1st lady at the time was instrumental in helping to craft. human rights are just a show. for example, cases have been brought to national courts to protect the right to food successfully. human rights are indivisible and inalienable. because of this it seems to me that rights -based food systems might have the
potential to be a unifying goal across different food movements to bridge groups that were fighting each other working in isolation for their own independent goals often fighting with each other for funding and legislative attention. i wanted them to be working together better. but rights -based food systems did not get much traction in 2,008. it was briefly considered to revise the food program around this concept but otherwise it did not even seem to report the waters which got me thinking about why not. the 1st thing that i went to is the lack of comprehension economic, social, economic social, and cultural rights. the united states is where we isolated from other countries and its failure to ratify the covenant on economic social and cultural rights and the non- -- the
eight other major human rights treaties and conventions. this goes back to 1966 and the cold war when two covenants on human rights were developed in the united states took the position that economic social and cultural rights are best met by the market. the united the united states want to distinguish itself from the socialist countries over. reimbursable and political rights but not economic social and cultural rights which reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the inseparability of human rights. you can't just cherry pick. we retained this perspective despite abundant evidence that the market does not work in this way. it has to be directed by andrew indent but public policies. and unlike most other countries in the world we lack basic public policies to ensure economic social
and cultural rights. for those of you in the back this method showing the countries that have endorsed in the countries that haven't. you will see that the united states the only industrialized country that has failed to ratify the covenant on economic social and cultural rights. in terms of food the united states still uses a charitable approach. primarily federal assistance programs which are how wonderful stopgap but these are doled out at the whim of congress and congress is pretty mean-spirited right now. ngos have pioneered programs to increase access to food that range from buybacks and boston or other voucher systems to better school food options to better school food options and healthy food prescriptions that are underwritten by
health insurance plans. recently there seems to be a lot of interest in redirecting through that would otherwise be wasted. these are decent programs. they are well-intentioned poor people need and want exactly the same for the rich people want. they really don't want her food waste. poor children in particular -- [applause] they need guaranteed access to healthy food in order to grow and healthy adults. yet according to the latest usda data that is available for one in five children in the united states lives in a food insecure household that does not have guaranteed access to healthy food at all times. and half of these households children as well as adults are food insecure.
while local programs can definitely improve access to healthy food from limited populations they will not result in a result in the elimination of hunger and food insecurity. the right to food at the national scale and are using rights -based approaches to improve there food systems has shown dramatic results. dramatic increases in food security even when the country is far less wealthy than the united states. in the united states household food insecurity rates have remained static or actually increased since reliable measures were 1st implemented in the mid- 90s. unlike less wealthy countries brazil a great example with its program the united states does not have federal programs to eliminate hunger and food insecurity but only to dampen the most corrosive.
this is not right. this probably occur to you folks already. the other obvious reason is because it did not have the support of people on the ground. it was my idea. she social change does not happen that way. does not happen because some academic comes up with an idea. happens because a group of people find common cause. that is where i want to focus. the place i see this happening most visibly today is the global level in the community on world food security. security. since 2009 the community on world food security has become the premier international forum for discussion of issues of food security. the cfs was reformed in 2009 2009 so that the people who
were on the frontlines of hunger the people who were working with civil society through social movement made up of small-scale workers fissures farmers fishers, farmers, women indigenous people the urban poor, youth, landless people they are all working together and speaking on food system issues in his goal form. they have full participation in every activity up to voting which is reserved for member countries of the community on world food security. this is appropriate because it is the national governments that are responsible for implementing policies to protect hungry people. all all of the decisions and recommendations of the community on world food security for speaking through it with the right to food. this was part this was part of the reform. the decisions must consider the best evidence which is a symbol to a high-level panel experts with equitable gender and regional representation and with people from civil society organizations.
every every year participation in the community on world food security is ground. in october 2014 this was the breakdown nearly 800 representatives of community on world food security stakeholder groups governments, civil society, the private sector, international organizations, nearly 800 people showed up for this big weeklong meeting in rome. it included 223 individuals from 127 different civil society organizations and academic institutions. i was i was there. i brought a students along a man wonderful time. the civil society mechanism which is an organizing body for civil society had 151 individuals from anyone organizations. the private sector had 91 individuals from 71
organizations. again, their representation is growing every year. and you are probably wondering, what do they talk about? some of the things they talked about you can find this report online on the fao website but some of the things they talked about what progress that has been made on the right to food in the ten years since international voluntary guidelines were created in 2004. they talked about monitoring for accountability of the community on world food security. they talked about the critical importance of small-scale farmers to feed the world and they are the people who are feeding the world now. they talked about the kinds of investments that are needed in agriculture and how that investment should be regulated. they talked they talked about the role of fisheries and that culture and achieving food security and what can be done about food waste?
most fundamentally, the community on world food security the on the separate topics that are discussed it allows conflict and worldview. conflict and how people interpret the evidence. scientific evidence is not all that cut and dry. it allows those conflicts to be aired and discussed with the people who are suffering from hunger able to say here is how we see it and here is how we are impacted by these policies that you people are important. food sovereignty is one of the banners under which civil society organizations organize as a community on world food security and around the world. food sovereignty is an international movement started by small-scale farmers but increasingly is being adopted by other groups. advocates include millions of small-scale farmers and
fishers joined by proponents of women's rights and indigenous peoples. right to food for the 1st principle of food sovereignty. detailing what food sovereignty means in practice is rich and exciting. there were two fantastic conferences over the last calendar year. one in yale and one at the institute for social studies in the netherlands. i think this was the poster they used that brought together practitioners activists, academicians practitioners, activists, academicians and there was also a very recent conference on agricola g that came out with the declaration on an archaeology as the preferred practice agricultural practice for the small-scale farmers who were being world while many of the details are still being hammered out food sovereignty provides a vision of the kind of food system that people want from
a vision that in harmony with nature and that is in harmony more people are in harmony with each other. this is beginning in the united states and may eventually result in an enlightened food policy such as the one that has been developed by our neighbors in the north in canada. this is resetting the table, and there are several other examples of people's would policies that have been developed that are in wonderful contrast. i would love to see that laid out against the farm bill. i think it would look extremely different. before turning before turning the floor over to my want to leave you with a few thoughts. first, the united states has much to learn from other countries and their approaches to food justice, in particular the united states would benefit from studying how other countries
have implemented the right to food. it is no mystery that steps of it laid out clearly in many documents including guidelines voluntary guidelines on implement the right to food established in 2004. it is simply a matter of political will and national priority. as we work on food justice we need a clear vision of the kind of food system and society that we want. this vision can draw from the concept of food sovereignty as it's unfurling in many places, but our vision will be unique. it will be distinct for us. the vision and action to make that vision real must be shared across different races kinds of people and interest groups. we simply cannot we simply cannot afford to be split into factions and to fight against each other. the struggle for healthy food is joined at the hip with struggles for debt-free open access higher education
for affordable housing, climate change mitigation and adaptation health, living wages top of the transportation women's rights voters rights campaign-finance reform. all of these movements are inseparable. what this means practically is that you need to find people who share your values your passions, your heart and figure out what you can do together to make a difference. ..
square number one asking just what is this problem the extension of the problem we are hoping to solve? then, i would like to take you with me to a delightful moment in my life when i actually got to see and taste food as a human rights in brazil. then briefly i want to share with you personally the lessons i've learned, how they've changed me. so my good -- are you having trouble hearing me? okay so should i give up on this? thank you. all of you on c-span watching this, i hope you forgive me.
so how do we define it to know whether or not we are ending it. part of what i think of as a very wonderfully comfortable international starting in 2012 society of people who found ourselves incredibly disturbed by the realization that humanity still had a measure of hunger and we felt there were messages coming through the media through the organizations that were generally so positive. basically we were hearing that we are well on our way to meeting the development goals and if we do an uptick we will be there. we learned by 2014 dot developing countries had cut the
share of their hungry people by 42% in the developing countries compared to 1990. it sounded like amazing progress so yes true still 800 million people hungry but amazing progress. but we felt like something was really off and so we dug deeper and we realized it is measuring by the number rather than the percentage of the population which i personally feel is a more real measure. you tell a smaller person you are a smaller share of the total it's nothing to make them happy or less hungry so if we took progress measured by the number of hungry people in the relevant percentagecome at the drop since 1990 is not 42% but about half
of that, about 21% then we ask is it widely spread over the world and we said if you take out of china from the picture and remove it mostly the progress in the 1990s the actual chalk and a number of people in the developing world since 1990 is above 7%. yes it is progress but not nearly what the world received in this single measure of calorie deficiency. so this is what we realized is that if we look at the measure -- and this is what we really looked at healthy food and agriculture organization un defined under we realized that even now they say that it's very strict. you have to be below a very low minimum for more than a year. now think of what that means.
for one you can be below the minimum for the entire season between the harvest and you are not counted as hungry. you can be pregnant and go through your entire pregnancy below that level and you still would not be captured in the measure of hunger. so it seemed entirely but in fact it was way too strict because we know even short-term hunger can have devastating effects on the developing fetus or anyone compromised were anyone compromised by disease and on children and so we realized, too there is another reason why the standard measure that is used by the food and agriculture organization is limited. it is strictly about calories. and as we know and is to strongly advise included to, we know that calories and nutrition
are disconnecting in the world today. i recommend a study that looked at this globally and said worldwide they are outpacing any improvement in most of the regions of the world. so what is happening to them is a calories and nutrition are separate things. one can be eating more than enough calories and not have to nutrition that we need and of course that is true in the united states for something like 40% of the calories our children eat our nutritionally empty but now that's look at the implications. but if you look at nutrition and think for a minute it's almost
unbelievable, four in five children under the age of two are anemic. half of all with incredible implications in childbearing or any mac. until i talked to a doctor who observed a big change in the last few decades he said now i treat about two patients a month and the amazing thing is most of them have enough calories but 60% of them are either diabetic or suffering heart conditions. so what i'm suggesting is a world desperately needs a more useful and meaningful approximation of the extent of the crisis. hats off for continuing to expand its supplements to this
measure that is mostly what people here. they included and you can find on the website of the indicators and news about the voice of hungry but nonetheless there is only one measure so i'm taking a radical stand with you this afternoon. because the world lacks a meaningful comprehensive measure i am arguing for a standing that weekend around right now that gets us a lot closer to the actual extent of the crisis of nutrition. i am arguing that there is one already and it is stunning. today, one in four of the world's children are stunted.
it's caused by little food the mother and the child, poor quality food for both coming and it's also caused by unsanitary water because if you have bacteria they can interfere with your body's capacity to absorb the nutrients so that even if you eat nutritious food you can't get the nutrients. now of course if we think of it as just a childhood condition that seems pretty white gold to say that this should be the stand-in for the extent but in truth, it affects people from lifetime typically. it's a condition that his leading to a immune system to impairment and for females severe reproductive problems. so, because it is afflicting the generations and caused a brief lifelong harm i'm arguing any
person designated as a child is stunting should be counted from other lives along those suffering the effects. what i call nutritional deprivation is part of this heading of nutritional deprivation in other words if you look at it this way, one quarter of the world's people are stuck on nutritional deprivation, 1.8 billion people. of course as a proxy for the extent is still incomplete because to those they are among the 2 billion of us that lack one essential nutrient and so the term for example vitamin a deficiency means blindness for about a quarter of a million children every year and iron deficiency is linked to one in
five maternal deaths and all of those are definitely not captured in this but it's still closer to what we have now so i am saying that with the term, the concept of nutritional deprivation it seems useful particularly because it captures a good portion of those both calories and nutrients deficiency and a bit suggests the problem isn't just being efficient as a passive state of deficiency but actively deprived to power in equities in the world. so that's where my journey has taken me on what is the extent of the problem and i would love if you disagree with me and wanted to argue with me and show me another way but it leaves me be leaving the extent of the problem is at least twice as big as the official number that we
here. so the world desperately needs a better tool so now i'm going to move to the second stanza of my song today and i would like to take you in a place in the world that has taken to heart the reality of making food and the key to that in brazil the language and framing of it is always stated as being food and nutritional security recognizing the disconnect that is growing throughout the world so as many of you know, brazil after the right to adequate food in the
constitution as of about two dozen countries and this was a result beginning in the 1980s of the social activism that created during the period an estimated 7,000 committees working on everything from income generation to support for the reform as a social mobilization which observers say is the essential trigger to the policy commitment that names the right to food began to. it symbolizes everything that the rights approach that they
were talking to us about. so before i go into the good news i want to acknowledge if you are following this there is a big opposition to what i'm now going to describe those that are privileged and feel very threatened. but please, as you hear this news do not despair. november the first lecture that was told to us democracy is never finally won its one, its essence is an eternal struggle so i want to tell you what i saw firsthand so changed my life. my daughter and i traveled for our book coming and what i'm and i'm going to describe could have been in any city. for example it happened because
a mayor ran on the platform as food of the right and he was elected and his officials had basically to the citizens look if you are too poor to buy enough food in the market, and still accountable for you and i'm going to make the market work for you. what he did is put together a city agency that was then advised by the civil society council that represented everyone from farmers to universities to business and religious leaders and labor and they came up with literally dozens of initiatives, so for example you can walk outside at the bus stop and like many spots throughout the city you will see something corporate from the countryside where the city has made available a corner of the city & for free to a farmer if they will come in and sell their
great produce at prices that were people can afford. so with no little person to take the big cut, the farmers are delighted and as they told us beaming, they have many more customers and is so they are making a much higher profit even though it was at a much lower price that was called the correct from the countryside and on the larger side of the hit abc market which is translated as food four less basically a and there are three dozen of these. the city says to the grocer if you have this for a reduced price if you will keep 20 items that are essential for health at a lower than market price that people in your neighborhood can afford and you can charge the market price for anything else and of course they loved it and
radio. they often have the highest prices but this is the way to push against that kind of price gouging. in the city in 12 years they cut the death rate by 72% of that to be in of the historical rate of the social change. 72%. and how much did it cost? it cost about 2% of the city budget. i calculated it. don't quote me it was about a penny a day.
so this courageous innovation i believe currid is definitely contagious and so people have been visiting and most recently the delegates from african mayors to see how they can take lessons from to africa so one of the lessons we need to take to heart i want to take you to the final conversation that my daughter and i had with adriana who when she visited she was the coordinator of the programs information and than she had been passionate about food justice and what did she say to us that would never leave me ask she said behind all of these
changes. a new social mentality that good food for all of us, just like education or healthcare it is a public good and a shift in consciousness. she said secondly that people because we in government are behaving the way they are committed idea that the government is some incompetent interfere or is diminishing and people are realizing that the state doesn't have to provide everything come it can actually be a convener setting the rules and convening and allowing citizens to enable citizens to come up with their own solutions but then she kept going and going and going to portuguese and i was trying to be patient until her eyes tear up and she
just kept going and i couldn't help myself and i said what made her tear up and she stopped her and he said she said it i knew how much hunger there was in the world but i didn't know and what has upset me is how easy it is to end and you can imagine because i'm still tearing up but i had that i had been thinking about this word ever since and trying to figure out what she meant and i feel like i know. i want to go back to her and see if i'm right. but she wasn't saying her job was easy or that the things that happened overnight because they hadn't. what's she was saying is that ending hunger is doable. it's possible if we create communities where the city feels
accountable to all of the citizens and the citizens feel accountable to themselves so what is that called? i call that democracy and i also realized that we don't have one. i call it the privately held government which should be an oxymoron but unfortunately it isn't. in the international ranking, the project carried out by the by the professor at the kennedy school of international ranking of electoral integrity. the u.s. ranked 35th behind mexico. so the key lesson from brazil for me is about democracy. what is democracy.
what made it real is the 1980s and onward in which the food movement joined forces with labor, with religious leaders and land lines and others to create a powerful political movement when the strong enough that they were going to elect a president that created the zero hunger campaign. so the lesson for me today is this to succeed at ending the outrageous nutritional deprivation in the world of food abundance we must and we can build a broad political movement would i love to call living democracy not something we have to do something we do this is
where my heart is heading to me and if you want to integrate the commitment of people already have into this, i would ask you -- i would let you know if you want to talk to me afterwards or contact me in the small institute website i would love to talk to you. i will close again with the lines we have on the first screen which was the lesson that we brought back from our journey that took us and it's simply this. hope is hope this and what we find in evidence. it's what we become in the action together. thank you so very much. [applause]
thank you so much. we are going to take questions and if you would like to ask a question we would ask you line up in the idle there are two microphones and then they are just going to call on people and take questions as they come. >> iem brad wilson in iowa farmer. my understanding is that it's the farmers were others in the farming economy, the right to talk about land reform how about the farm share reform or we get peter lee all over the world.
i just wanted you to comment on that. my look at the history at the food movement today and the history is that it hasn't done much on the issue for the africa group is a price floor instead of writing a check just like we have a minimum wage. i just wonder what you thought about that. >> i would agree completely, and the right to decent compensation for your labor. >> i heard that without talking about is that fair for farmers. >> i think that there is a session on the tension between affordable food and good prices for farmers. i'm really looking forward to
seeing that specific question explored in a session but thanks for bringing that up. >> you are focusing on one of the problems that is the most important so thank you for that. i have a question about the right to food that you discussed. i suppose it might be a little bit different in the sense it often requires the government not to do something or interfere with something whereas the right to food seems like it would've required the would require the government to do something so i wonder what significance if any you would attribute to that distinction. >> i can start to answer that and i'm sure frankie has something to add.
the right to food is the right to respect, protect and fulfill. so first of all, simply respecting and protecting people's ability to grow their own food. the government isn't obligated to feed people. if it backs off and prevents a. if they are interfering with people's ability to eat at the food that they