actually did something we had not done before. instead of letting people come to us and waiting for the process to help them, we targeted families in shelter and people in shelters as a priority. hud sent caseworkers into the shelters and got people into housing. rather than letting this process work passively, we took elements of that strategy and engaged in active work to get people blagsed out of a shelter into a more permanent housing situation. ..

>> we begin implementing that to make sure that we're taking those elements that are in the drafts and actually running them in the event. so while distilling process we are doing many things that we have identified as key steps to bring stability to the committee, and children issues, stable home or stable housing situation we think is one of the key things early in any event. >> quick thought. the last thing i want to ask is i'm very interested in the denominator question. tennessee for instance, how many families need whatever the services were and how many got them. i know it's very, very tempting

in running an agency to talk about what has been done. quite a lot has been done as i acknowledge. the question that troubles me is what was the need and how far along to you get to take care of all the children in all household? do you know what the denominator was? i think that's how you would want to know and that's what we would like to know in terms of advocating for kids. any sense of -- >> i wouldn't be able to break it down that way. what i can get you numbers for is how many people were in shelters and how quickly were able to get him into a housing situation. and i think in this case just demonstrate that we did something we hadn't done before, which was having had go into the shelter with us and to case management and literally get people into a rental property versus allowing the system as we had done before where they would have to register, go through that whole process. we knew those that were in shelters have the greatest need. those that were not were probably at a hotel, motel or

friends and family. so we targeted shelters. this is something we started as early as last year in the georgia floods. looking at some of the more systemic issues we think compound children recovery, and that is get schools open, get day care open, get shelters closely people into stable housing. these are some of the macro type things we're trying to do at the response level but also at the policy level. i think that gives us a better way of addressing issues that as our other federal partners, then begin looking at specific, that children have individually. we have at least set the stage to provide a more stable environment to minimize that, or the duration of it. >> thank you. >> just want to change years for second. i want -- for the continued support of the medical committee. we really appreciate that that i want to turn to a minute,

dr. lurie, i was also on the call last week with the secretary rolled out the enterprise of life the review, and was hard to hear mentioned the children in her for five minutes of her address. i think that was wonderful. as others have said the devils in the details. how do we possibly affect medical countermeasure or possibly affect the needs of children in this country. to specific areas and more if you wish to address. this review is looking for, how do we sort of baking pediatric issues so that is constantly thinking about children issues? and the second and you may not have time to add office, but emergency use operation, how do we use that team -- tool that they got the biological task work or chemical to make sure that kids need our address? i think it's great there's an enterprisewide review. >> right. living touchy about a couple of

things that we have begun i think in this regard. i'm pretty focused on the fact that sort of the learning can't mess with individuals that it has to rest with the system. so the way we do the medical enterprise system and manage it going forward is i think a tremendous focus. we just completed a series of, and we're going to a series of industry and reviews of the major areas in our medical countermeasures like smallpox, anthrax, et cetera. three of the four have just taken place, and one of the -- we develop a standard operating procedures. one of the questions you got to ask, one of the boxes you have to check, what are the end-user requirements up front. and in there, you're, what is the anticipated population of children. it's not just children but as you know children of different

ages and sizes need different doses, might have life drastically came a all of us think this over and much more in depth look at what requirements process and then down the road in terms of developing what we call target product profiles. to be sure that we can have those end-user requirements baked into the process up front that i don't think you'll see that the requirements going forward that don't explicitly say what are the needs for children here. and as i mentioned, in response to the question, the announcement of the review we've already started doing a number of other concrete activities in that regard. one that i will highlight that relates very much to your question is one of the issues with current e.u. a is asked to do with the palatability of some of the current antibiotics if you just try to compounded and mix them up they taste so

terrible that kids will just get them out. so one of the things that we have now is work underway through contract with the developers, to the how to make this stuff more palatable. i would be quick to point out if you can do it for countermeasures and the stockpiles want to be able to afford a lot of other pediatric medicines, too. so the benefit will go way beyond simply the stockpiles. fta has committed to really working as a teacher from commissioner hamburg, to looking at its legal and regulatory framework as it comes to mcm. we are hoping their something that is in between in eua and a full license somewhere that helps us deal specifically with some of the very challenging issues about getting mcm for kids that will be using it in case of an emergency. who worked to develop the framework has already begun. i believe that when all is said and done, you will be pleased with that as well.

>> david, did you -- >> i have a quick question for administrator fugate. in your remarks you talk about silos, which has been a term that has been used for equally over the past year and a half with this commission. the chairman talked about the need for a strategy, and it seems to me that the primary worry you comes to is through information. one of the hurdles we've talked about is for challenges information sharing, so that agencies, with a federal state, nonprofit or otherwise have access to key information. we are very pleased with your staff a couple months ago to begin the national mass evacuation tracking system. i know that is a state-based system theirs i guess my question is, addressing this on a long-term basis, this code

will be expensive and complicated for a host of reasons. i'm interested in your assessment on where you ar are a moving toward improved information acquisition and sharing, and were busy the primary hurdles? >> one of the first hurdles is what information do we really need? there's always an essential reference is a bill and everything. and trust me, that isn't the solution. it actually is impossible. everybody says we need to track every individual, every person. what we need to do is track by exception to this kind goes back to something, it would be a shame if i don't bring this out. and that is as much as we're talking about the federal role, federal response to a federal authorities we are sacrament this always starts with the family. next month is national preparedness not month. and for many found that children, taking the steps to make sure that you have a family disaster plan, that you talked your children, explain this is a key part of helping them be

resilient. i think for those families who can, having that plan and explaining and sitting down with children, particularly if nothing else. mark touched on this. as chairman you talk about day care centers that one of the things we know from his everyday events and. it doesn't take the katrina disaster, to small local events that can disrupt a community. what children don't know what the plan is or school or day care centers know what the players, how to reach parents, family members, with the contacts are, you know, he comes back to do we have a good understanding of what we are supposed to do. so for those families who can't, they should be making those plans to include their children, talking to the children about this asses and hazard. as we were with our partners to increase our participation and focus on children, i think it's one thing we don't talk about is prepared as in schools and other things. the more children understand about the i'm a living, about threats and what we can do to minimize those threads, the more

in power they are. i think this comes back to resilient children of those who understand, have a sense of the committee as well as the family, have a plan. and that they understand what's going on. it's that unknown that is really challenging. so as we look at this, again like an evacuation, in trying to track every individual, that's going to be hard to do but i think their subgroups we got to track. i think a cf knows. our states need to do when they have this primary responsibility. children foster care. children that are either because of the payment status upon programs or because they're actually in the care of state, those populations in evacuations are extremely important to track. unaccompanied children, children who are separate or who have family members have lost. unaccompanied children of our national so here is because of treatment or evacuation. i think those are the type of populations that if we're going

to devote resources to come have to be the first priority. then as we get a better handle on that we can include more and more. but to track each individual, i think again, not possible. but focus on where the ones you need to track, what reason you're tracking the. those are the ones that are most one of our have a dependency that we had to make sure that we can connect those assistance and resources to win their get going, when they're moved out of their settings where they have that support network. >> i know we're wrapping up, and i just wanted to ask a couple of last questions, quick questions. david, there was discussion and you brought up, and craig is mentioned about the child welfare system. i would like to be able to talk to you about follow-up for recommendations in this report about the child welfare system. we have not made much progress with that approach within your department. so it would be good to get the other after this discussion and try to follow-up on that.

and i guess just following up on the, you talked about the progress that's been made on head start in other areas. just quickly because i want passionate made off with you, can you tell us what the wonder two things is, one or two things are that are your biggest problems and what you think should be done that this commission can follow up on? if you are on my see, what are the wonder two things things that you think the biggest gaps within your group, within your department? >> i guess i would say i really think the most important thing you can do is look at doing which is to maintain the focus on this issue. i think we have the mechanisms in place within hhs, across federal agencies to do the planning and application we need to do. the important thing is to keep the focus, keep the emphasis so that there is no urgent attention from the issues we're talking about here today. >> so there's nothing within

your agency that specifically we should focus on, or you're not going to tell me that? [laughter] >> i think you told them. i think you told us that and i think that's what we're moving on. i think you've set up the agenda. we need your continued support and focus to make sure that momentum continues. >> i guess, very eloquent comments about the fact that we are very impressed and supportive of the work you're doing, but frustrated at times. you've heard that from this commission and for me as well. having said that, dr. lurie come is there anything that you want to say or add on that? >> i want to say first that much i have appreciated the talks we have. and mike and david, i think they been very helpful in us stepping through a number of issues. and having really good communication about those. and again, i would say maintaining the focus i think it's important. the one thing i would like us

all to focus on i think is really having a look at children also as assets. in a response and any disaster. i think that there are many, many untapped ways to unleash, not necessarily within, but children of many other agencies have to offer and to help us manage through, recover from and helping families recover from disasters. and i'd like to see us but more focus on that in the coming year. i think of the events of the last year, plus all the other routine disasters that we deal with, i think it is given us a lot of good ideas about how to do that. that's a place to go i think for all of us in the future. >> administrator fugate, it would be very helpful to me and i think the other commissioners when you talk about the ability to use federal grants for

children's issues. you also talked a little bit about the grants, federal dollars they can be used for child care. i don't know whether there's any way to track whether that is happening. you know, you are very eloquently sang talk is cheap. is there anyway to see whether those dollars, and i know it may be off in the future, but assuming you're here next year or even if you were to go, are the systems in place that we could see whether those dollars were actually following the work that we're talking about in the impetus where getting to kids? and then i guess also whether there's one or two things that would like us to focus on or that we should focus on? >> mr. chairman, as far as the grant system, this would be our first grant cycle to see what the awards are. since those will be going out as a make those awards, one is discrepancy there's any difference. i wouldn't be too dismayed into first gear if you to respond to that because my observation having been on the state in was

when you guidance comes out it usually takes several years for groups to understand to be up to build in and get that up front. so this year is marginal. i would be more concerned if that didn't happen next year, that this would've been out for a bit longer. i would expect more groups to be aware of it. and be targeting funding for the. and i don't think of have -- even tennessee is big, i don't think there's been enough events to trigger some of these programs that we would need a large-scale disaster. i think we saw some smaller cases, but it goes back to irvine's point that i do have a day to say what the changes. i think from a social science perspective, response date is that usually any good. we have to go back a year or two later and see, okay, what with the outliers that were not addressed and go what happened, why wasn't that address. we are just not there on anything since then. i will give you three. first, day care center that even though we have identified that day care centers as being provide a local or state

government is adequate reimbursement. as you well know, many day care centers and communities are small operations, do not have substantial resources and large-scale disaster to reconstitute themselves. and i think as we put emphasis on getting schools opened, preachy at interest of going to be a significant issue. back to work, it's hard to get one community going. and two, we see the places where we bring resources to children more effective. and i don't think they're so much a theme as specific as relevant to the nature of the industry, but i still think that pre-k is going to be a challenge force in these catastrophic disasters. and that is again i think something that will continue to work with our federal partners and that their men to be additional programs that are delivered by state and local government until the private sector daycare businesses can come back online. i may have to take a form similar to what we have done with our crisis counseling where we do the casework. but i do have that concern but i

still think day care is going to be a critical gap in catastrophic disaster just because of the nature of the industry and how difficult it will be for many of those provided to come back online is the drunken countermeasure that again as we get new guidance from hhs is to incorporate that into our funding and to carve proved purchase list and archive and drug list because we provide the funding for the bulk of what state and local governments are purchasing in addition to the national pharmaceutical stockpile. so again this would be a secondary effect as these new countermeasures for pediatrics identified and signed on that they get built into the ground guidance and also into the approved equipment list so that those are eligible purses. last thing. this is again, again, mike lee. i think was mentioned here several times. might expect to tell me that the more we incorporate children, particularly in the k-12 range,

into preparedness activities, to more resilient children become to the effects of disasters. we continue to work with our partners at hhs but also with the department of education to look at how do we take prepared is just to all levels, but particularly to the elementary school, and to look at the k-12. and giving them information so that they are better informed about what can happen. again this is not about scaring people are scheduled are to shield children from and for the disaster to occur. it is about the parents of children that they have a role to play. as many of us know some of the best messaging that weekend change behavior come from children. so again, kind of this idea that we don't call them victims. we call them survivors. we need to look at the survivors as a resource, actually become a very powerful tool in public the message of preparedness which increases i think the more successful outcome in a

disaster, but also in paris children because they now have a role to play. and again as we've seen time and time again, people that have a participation in any event, have a positive influence, are able to address this dress and adjust to it much more effectively than if they are not included, are not aware of what is going on, don't have a way to contribute back. i think that again comes back to not looking at the public as a liability, looking at the public as a resource and recognizing children as part of that resource where appropriate. mr. chairman. >> thank you, administrator fugate. thank you, dr. lurie. many thanks to all three of you. you were here too long, so go. thank you very much. it's great to have you here. thank you for your good work. appreciate it. we're going to move into a discussion on the report by asking commissioners to give a brief outline of each chapter. there are a few outstanding issues that we need to discuss.

have a general discussion about the report, the next apps. before i asked larry to walk us through this disaster medicine recovery peace, i would clear on the process here? of course, do you have any comments you want to make? i think we're all right. all right, larry, you want to start us off on disaster management and recovery? >> mr. chairman, chapter one recovery, we will be reviewed the recommendations and then any discussion on the recommendations. recommendation 1.1.1 which is to say which company to integrate the needs of children across all inter- and intra- governmental disaster measure activities and operations and this is an overarching ration that we truly want to protect our nation's future. specifically under this recommendation, the president should develop a national strategy for children in disasters. the executive branch, congress and non-federal partnership should prioritize a -- children

separately from at risk categories. the executive branch at all levels of government should establish and maintain permanent focal point subordination for children in disasters supported by sufficient authority, funding and policy expertise. the executive branch and non-federal partners should incorporate children as a distinct priority. the executive branch and non-federal partnership incorporate education, child care, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems into disaster planning, training and exercises. the executive branch and non-federal partners should incorporate children with distinct priority in the target capabilities, preparedness, training and exercises with specific target outcomes to performance measures. and, finally, the executive branch and congress should institute accountability and progress measures to track implementation of commission

recommendations and capabilities improvements. the adage that is watched gates addressed. spent on any discussion of recommendation 1.1 in disaster management recovery? >> if i could, i just want to point out an amendment that was made to -- i believe the third of this section, which was made at the request of the chairperson. and more specifically, to the issue of creating focal point ordination. specifically at the headquarters level, and the senior agency level, but also there was concern that these positions should be concentrated at the regional level that hasn't example, acf been an example of the regional offices has a specific concern about children's issues. and to the question that chairperson shriver reads to chairman fugate, sort of a sub recommendation of this subplot

which is to urge fema to create a similar point of contact at the regional level for children's issues. i think as mr. shriver said, it's great news that theme is looking to create such a position at the headquarters level. but obviously there needs to be a point of focus and coordination at the regional level. so that is a suggestion that was made at the request of the chairperson. i just want to make sure that everybody is aware of it, if there are any questions. >> moving on, recommendation to point to. the president should accelerate the develop an and implementation of the framework within an explicit emphasis on addressing the immediate and long-term physical mental health, educational, housing and human services recovery needs of children. [inaudible]

>> recommendation 1.3, the department only to get and federal emergency measure agency shall ensure the information required for a time and effective delivery of recovery services to children and families is collected and shared with appropriate entities. government agencies and non-governmental should collect information on children and sales necessary to identify and support the immediate and long-term recovery needs. the department of homeland security and federal emergency management agency should expand information sharing with appropriate government agencies and non-governmental organizations to enable the delivery of recovery services. the department of homeland security and federal emergency management agency should be identified and credential additional local and out of state voluntary and nongovernmental organizations and networks to provide disaster assistance to children and families.

discussion on 1.3? >> did we ever discuss the questionable we mean by timeliness? i'm just coming back to it chairman pointed out in terms of when things happen or don't happen. my timing is maybe your unacceptable delay. so i'm just trying to -- that kind of wording lends itself to complete lack of clarity. and, you know, never ending not completion of eight -- of a particular task. [inaudible] >> i don't believe there's been a specific on. i think the issue was that good information is on the actual needs, promotes a an appropriate response, right resources to the right people in the right amount of time. i think from a metric standpoint to be promoted as with the

ongoing declaration of disaster, we wanted to see this information sharing as soon as possible. clearly there's been some movement on it, but, you know, as far as whether it is strickland down at the state and local level, whether that information is being supported amongst the local networks are supporting children and families, again, goes back to the overarching goal of to we have metrics and/or be able to measure the implication of the recommendations of the commission? >> i think with a friend and then the two timely become in the and effective. >> i guess what i would say is, mark, we're talking about the word and timely information. timely action. and i'm looking for a harder definition of what the expectation is. for example, i feel pretty confident in saying that the

longer the delay in getting some certainty established in terms of housing, for instance, for displaced children, the worse the outcome is going to be. and it was up to me i would say we have 90 days for any disaster on american soil to get children into some stable environment with access to appropriate services. 90 may be too little or too many days. i'm not sure we're prepared to answer what that is right now. i was just that something the commission might want to be thinking about in order to get some degree of a metric that we can look to, and this really comes from we all know about the situation where still five years and we have kids who are living on uncertainty and are not getting the services they need. so having some time to make sense which of the government point of view it and i just ask david, i can see the look on his face, he is not agree with me,

but -- [laughter] >> i guess the concern i am having is if we do everything that is recommended in his report, i think it will become timely. the issue is that it will be difficult to just go at a particular time period. the other concern is that if we do some parts timely but they're not in a coordinated way, we might action to undermine some of the other conditions that we have. so as a concrete example, when a discussion about in tennessee, sending hud k-swiss into shelters i thought was an absolute passion excellent example. but i didn't hear that we are sending acf case managers in. i heard we're sending in hud case manager. so if we haven't defined what case benefit services are, it may very well be that those families at risk of child abuse, domestic violence, are having of exacerbation, mental health

issues, are now appropriately removed from shelters and place in stable housing. we may have missed the opportunity to identify and address some of those mental health needs. so i'm concerned that we can, probably can't have the immediate services and immediate sharing of information. there will always be some delay. is not going to be in real-time. probably. so that i guess my strategy would be let's talk about really what other components need to be in place, get the right people there, providing the appropriate services. and then timely, we leave to them to try -- >> i am concerned that i think one of the roles of the commission is to provide expertise that says this bureaucratic complication or service of things that have to be done is interfering with appropriate placement of a child to that child's detriment. i don't think we have to be psychologists were bureaucratic problems, delays and issues when, in fact, we know that the

longest period of stability goes, especially for families who are not supported in general, the more dangerous it is for kids. i would take a more assertive view that that doesn't say what would be best for children even if we are some looking understand that it may take longer than where suggesting. although -- >> let me make one recommendation. this recommendation if i'm reading it correctly is on the sharing of information to provide services. so maybe it may not be that we need an amendment or a change to this recommendation, but we may have to again by other recommendations where that is most appropriate to make those changes. i was just referring in this particular recommendation. i'm not sure how we could, what change would make this particular one better. >> i mean, i could say going forward in terms of this recognition, sorted what is written would provide an opportunity for the commission

to work with dhs and fema to determine a reasonable perhaps evidence-based time period. unit, based on experience, based on the very needs of children and families. so we could sort approach it that way as part of an application strategy goes. 's. we have to recognize that they're largely isn't a system in place to do that now. so i think overarching this is that it's going to take time to build the kinds of mechanisms to share information with all the entities that we believe are what, appropriate in the language. so i mean, i think the recommendation is stated, is aspirational. but i think it's absolutely appropriate. the goal is to share information in a timely way so that services can be provided. in order to do that we will have to build infrastructure and

systems that cross governmental and agency platforms in or to share the information. i think that's what larry address is. as we talked early in our tenure, interpretation of privacy statutes and other policies, key people from sharing information. and in some cases even when people were contracted to provide services, they could get the information they needed to. >> so that some more of a sharing information to make sure everything is coordinated for the actual delivery of services. >> just one point. we have raised this as we've gone through this process. while we are talking about the system, we also talked in her committee meetings about the fact that the majority of our disasters are responses don't even make it to the federal level. so when we've had this conversation we talked about the fact that what ever that system looks like, and we're not talking about someone necessary building a database of a

hierarchy, but formalized policies and stuff that allows you to share information, has to exist so this happens at every level of the system. so, you know, the example i said was if fema doesn't turn a switch on, the system still works. it just works, information sharing this way. that's, to our which point, it's going to take a while for this happen. but we've heard some very positive things in phone conversations about the fact that there is forward movement on this happening. >> and a final recommendation, 1.4, the department of homeland security and federal emergency management agency should establish interagency agreements to provide disaster preparedness funding technical assistance, training and other resources to state and local child serving systems, and child contradict care facilities.

any questions or comments regarding this recommendation? >> i think the point was brought up, in mark's comments, to follow up some of the testimony provided is that i agree with this recommendation, but we have to make sure it is also coupled with the requirements that funding be used and that the planning occur, where other funding may not be received. the concern that i have is we can offer funding for the planning purposes, but for some of these groups, particularly childcare as was talked about, a small child care center or home daycare facility, may not apply for that funding. or may not access that funny. but nontheless, it still needs to be prepared? we have to think of other mechanisms that will ensure that this actually occurs. and i don't know that we need to revise this recommendation, but

i would like to staff to make sure that it appears elsewhere in the report. everest even references back to this point. >> back to the metric and looking at the tracking of commission recommendations. >> if there isn't another section which i don't know the report as into the lake i think as the staff do, that talked about the fact that, for example, disaster preparedness plan and child care for silly such as day care, should be made and requirement for continued funding, according to revise health and safety standards. we might a reference back and say as recommended by the commission in 1.4, funding from dhs to fema might be used to help meet this need. so if we could somehow tie that back together and say both that is required, but we have also suggested funding mechanisms and

interagency agreement mechanism to assure that that occurs in an effective way. >> that concludes chapter one, disaster measure and recovery. >> thank you very much, lead. is there any other questions on this issue? hearing none, david, you're up on mental health spa and i would just say in summary that the mental health section recommendations, the only changes that i believe were proposed where in that format from the version that was reviewed by the commission that was sent to the commissioners. are fairly minor editing changes. and insertion of the names of agencies that have already been included as designated to take the lead in those efforts and a just concluded at the beginning of the sentence. is there a place is no significant change. file go through them fairly quickly. recommendation 2.1 was hhs should lead efforts to integrate mental and behavioral health for

children into public health medical and other relevant disaster management activities. congress should direct hhs to lead the development of a disaster and mental health concept of operations to formalize disaster midland even half as a core component of when disaster preparedness respond and recover average. this is essentially the same as what we had in our interim report. and now just designates hhs should nato's efforts to to do that. >> questions or comments? >> okay. recommendation to point to was that hhs should enhance the research agenda for children's this after mental and behavioral health, particularly psychological first aid, cognitive behavioral interventions, social support interventions, bereavement counseling and support, and programs intended to enhance children's resilience in the aftermath of a disaster. hhs should give any working group of children's disaster mental health in pediatric experts, to review the research portfolios of other agencies,

identify gaps in knowledge and recommend a national research agenda across the full spectrum of disaster mental health for children and the. this again is essentially what was recommended in the interim report, which addition of additional focus on children's resilience, and doing research to identify programs that would enhance children's resilience. as we entered in the testimony that this is an area of interest and need and also one that has not been particularly well studied today. any questions or comments? okay, i'll go to 2.3. federal agencies and non-federal partners should have predisaster prepared is and just in time training in pediatric mental and behavioral health include psychological first aid, bereavement support and intervention for mental health professionals and individuals such as teachers who work with children. again i believe this is essentially similar to what we recommend in the interim report.

comments? and 2.4, dhs, theme and other should strengthen accounting assistant and training program, to better meet the mental health needs of children and families. first sub vote is disabled by the immediate services pro-gram, or isp, grant application to minimize the burden onto mary's effective by disaster and facilitate the rapid obligation of funding and initiation of services. taken at the liberation of the commission we have proposed saying that they would be funding available for up to 30 to 60 days in the absence of an application, and through discussions with ccp and others involved, felt the best way to publish that would be through simplification of the isp process. so this is essentially what we have discussed before but it is worded slightly differently. sector was to establish the position of children's disaster mental health coordinator with the state level, ccps, which

was again recommendation that have come out of our iowa visit and to formally modify the ccp models indicate and promote enhanced services and that is a term that has been used by ccp. with the mental health impact is unlike we to be adequate by typical ccp services. this recommendation regarding the ccp and a sub boat under are new to the final report and reflect continued discussion with fema and ccps in particular about how we might enhance the mental health services provided after a disaster through that program. and the last boat on that which is on the next page was included support with this was particularly provide under the ccp. so any questions or comments on that recommendation, 2.4? okay, in terms of 2.5, we recognize that the funding under ccp would not be sufficient in order to provide funding for

direct mental health services. because they more coordinate services, refer services and build upon the mental health infrastructure already in place within the community. but if that were lacking or insufficient, it often is in commute as a baseline, it's certainly after a major disaster. we recommended that congress should establish a single flexible grant funding mechanism to specifically support the delivery of mental health treatment services that address the full spectrum of behavior health needs of children, including treatment of disaster related adjustment difficulties, psychiatric disorders and substance abuse. any questions on that or any other recommendations in this section? then i will move on to the next. >> thank you very much, david. again, there's some child's physical health and. >> i cannot say that this section hasn't undergone a lot

of editing since last time, particularly as doctor roy put out, that the secretary review of medical -- we modify 3.1. i do want to take time, it has five bullet points. we may need more bullet points. so for the commissioners on the table and for those following the screen, this is pretty significant different a couple of as. during the medical countermeasures again recommendation 3.1, congress and human services should ensure access to pediatric medical countermeasures, as a federal, state and local levels for chemical and biological and radiological, nuclear and explosive attacks. specific sub boat underneath there really hasn't changed a whole lot. provide funding for the development, acquisition a stockpile of mcms specific for children, and all federally funded as you heard dr. lurie

mentioned that in 2010 can be examining the sns for pediatric materials. number two is amended eua to allow the discretion of the hhs secretary, it authorizes pediatric education for medical countermeasures before an emergency is known or imminent. once again during the h1n1, sal euas were issued but we feel that based upon good scientific knowledge that the secretary may be able to use the mechanism to put other particular agents in the stockpile. the next which has been a little controversial, advise the secretary of hhs to provide expert consensus on issues for teens, specifically pediatric measures and countermeasures. i once again believe what the life of the commission is we have to have a constant presence at the discuss it when it comes

on measures, countermeasures when it comes to get. when i have heard him a bit of the downside of his, i still believe this is an important recommendation that the commission should stand behind. we also know they're a great agencies after such as bar to -- barda. designated study pediatric and the working group to conduct gap analysis and make research recommendations that and then finally expertise on the hhs enterprise governors board, or its successor that i want to delve into that for a moment, mr. chairman, and although groups pertain to mcms that these are the five basic bullets that we started with. if you delve into some great at is that chris and they can't mate, specifically on track changes, if we can go vicki into the body of it, there's a paragraph that starts with any simmer 2009, and goes all the way through, the report

recommends, the report once again that dr. lurie alluded to, reading from the second paragraph, recommends hhs identify senior leaders for the mcms the prize passionate enterprise. the commission recommended a partnership between leader and key stakeholders both within and outside government. you can read the rest, including the caddy and other ngos, and once again thanks for this could help us formulate. i believe that that new enterprise, this new mcms development leader will be a very important key person in the development of countermeasures for children. i feel that they should be able at under the recommendation that we talk about having pediatric leaders at the table, but we know the new enterprise coming out of hhs, so i would say for the amendment would potentially be unfortunately they six bullet, does this in cm needs to

partner with leadership. >> i do have two questions. one is that administrator fugate's belief that aspect going to stick with, i don't think there's any concerned to make sure that the funds that fema takes care of that. and then the other question i have refers to page 40, as i've argued was talking to you about, and that is the commission looks forward to working with ashford and its partners. if the commission is not extended, it's a moot point in that sense that we would be working with them going for. i need to make -- i think we need to make sure that there is forward movement in the capabilities to exist and it is not resting on us if we cease to exist. >> i think your point is well taken, bruce, that we need to make sure that succession planning is in place and i think

that the greater children's champion such as, should be listed there. when we talk about the commitment, we still have a lifetime, i think went to listen to the organizations their asthma. >> i don't know how to address administrator fugate, it's, about funny that fema controls -- [inaudible] >> you raise an issue at the end of his thing, i think the second point, that the fact that something to do with his funding and the medical countermeasures and making sure that gets into his grant guidance. >> the medical countermeasures for both the state and locals predominate are funded through theme, not to hhs. so that, the compacts that are available the local of all -- >> again, that's also part of the issue.

that i just don't know where it tied in, but he made a clear point that is one of his concerned. >> i would like to ask doctor garret if he would comment about this, and his role as what we're talking about. >> would you repeat the question? >> just talking about the long-term prospects of dealing with medical countermeasures, in a variety of ways with the federal government. specifically around medical countermeasures, how do we fund account would they come from, the commission wasn't here, minding that sort. we talked about creating a new position, is that correct? >> the secretarsecretary's report did. >> i would assign that to you personally, but perhaps, how would that relate to what you

are doing around medical countermeasures? would you be at a senior level responsible for the end of hhs. >> would you -- the court would ask you to rise please. laugh at. >> -- [laughter] passionate answer your question the question, barda has ownership of medical countermeasure development with respect to the agency. they collaborate widely with stakeholders within the agencyg and without. certainly in ourg role and weg collaborate with them in aoñoñó÷ board, what

i'm concerned about is the emergence, -- the evolution of multiple sources and pediatric expertise and authority in a variety of governmental agencies, which may or may not be working so well together. i think what i'll be looking for is a senior person overseeing or at least reporting to the secretary about all things pediatric that relate to disaster response. i don't know whether that is feasible in the american system of government currently, but in good thing, i think. >> sure. not clear whether you're asking my opinion. >> i am asking you whether the creation of a senior person as the secretary suggesting it, it's something we're talking about not getting -- is that what we should be asking? >> well, i can't answer that but i think having comic medical

countermeasures is a specific enough sides you need so who is well-versed in an area. or else you run this risk a given document that if you're asking my opinion i think it's reasonable to have someone who has pediatric expertise within the overall structure. >> okay. this is my point. i think this problem has potential issue for all of us as we're making recommendations with pediatric expertise around a lot agencies. that would've a good job there, but in terms of the overall coordination and overall watching the store as far as children's needs are concerned is what i'm struggling to find out how that happens exactly. >> thank you, dr. garrett. >> my only thing is i don't think we have addressed the great issues. >> let me go back, i think old number one doesn't talk about

funny government. at a high level i think bullet one under 3.1 addresses passionate is not into the weeds as much as razz would like on mr. fugate's point. but i do think it calls the equitable funding at all levels. federally funded cash. >> i guess my point is, and i don't mean to put it into a bullet but i think maybe somewhat of a narrative we need to be specific. he raised it as a very specific issue that he wants to make sure it is clear that his fema grant funding is tied into that. is the only point. he went out of his way to give us that as one. >> i think there's a small amount that would address this. so under the first bullet when we say providing funding for development acquisitions and stock market at the end we say and all other federally funded. could we say in clean those funded under the fema come and

in that way we would be calling it out in the bullet? >> i think the other amendment could be provide funding and appropriate guidance. >> that goes to this point as well. >> speaking from a state perspective, the importance of that unless it is authorized in your grant guidance, it won't be asking for it, or purchasing it. >> mr. chairman -- go ahead. >> the bullet .5 under 3.1, once again i would like his recommendation of dollars in new enterprises emerging with the mcm that i don't think the new bulleted, maybe this new mcm laid has to have a positive -- no matter what the commission becomes, i think that the mcm laid has to be tied, and i don't

know how, i just don't want that to be lost, that with knowledge don't have to work with pediatric community from day one on this important issue. >> it's a big challenge. and maybe not to believe it, maybe should and weigh in on this? is anybody else in the room i guess who might be able to weigh in on this? is at the an important point. >> dan, do you feel comfortable weighing in? [inaudible] >> i think we're trying to craft language, doctor, on the new enterprise review that a creation of a new mcm laid which we think is a great step in medical countermeasures for everyone, because the issues in pediatric is so unique,

transfixed, orphan drugs in development. into the issues well. we just want to make sure that this recommendation, not to belabor the point, but that new lead is number one, a pda -- pediatrician, or number two somehow tied very intimately into the pediatric community. >> this is for sub one here. [inaudible] >> correct. i think that's the of this recommendation. >> but keep in mind, within the report itself there's a recognition that i think to dr. redlener's point, there's a lot of folks with different policy responsibility for decision-making, acquisition and so forth. so the idea of medical countermeasure lead is to be a point of contact and leadership across the entire enterprise. it's not specifically for a

particular population. the language that has now been included in the text of 3.1 speaks to the importance of having such a position within the enterprise, and the need to have that position coordinate and communicate with the commission and other nongovernment organizations that have an active interest in medical countermeasures for children. so i think it is did did it pretty clear to in the text, to your point, my, you just want to see it stated clearly in the sub bullet point. so we can develop some light which to do that. >> once again i don't want to belabor the point. i'm sorry, forgive me, david. >> i don't know if there's an easy way to fix this. to concern i have is we've made a lot of recommendations that we have to have a spokesperson, an advocate for children's needs. so that might be one among many people. and we also have to provide some

funding for children's medical countermeasures. but often there's a tendency to get the low-hanging fruit, the items that are about ready to hit market that we can speed up a little bit and take credit, that we funded it. but i don't really see that we have created any mechanism to remedy the deficiencies that we have in the current strategic national stockpile. ..

>> i haven't heard about going back and filling in the gaps. >> well, david, if you recall, one of the language changes proposed in the section is to ask fda to as one of their priorities now going forward within the charge of what this report and the secretary is asking fda to do, so take a look at medical countermeasures that are currently in the stockpile and place a priority on getting them labeled for pediatric use, and i guess we could tweak that language slightly to also address other immediate issues you fell fda should be focused on. >> the concern i have is, yes, we're paying attention to it now and it may be a priority, but is

it a goal that it reaching parity that we actually eliminate the gap and that then we will judge whether we've been successful not if it's just been a priority that we made some effort, but actually that reremedied the problem. that's the concern that we have. i don't know that we state that. >> i think the overall tenor in that chapter does say there's gaps and we need to go in between to make sure kids are safe. i feel that's there. two, i believe the advisory body and we've been talking about since the first committee meeting current addresses -- addresses your concerns and there's all that clanging symbol and we've had disagreements about that body, but i stand behind it. third, the point is just about that. other folks had a question and i'll get to that. >> david, are you referring to

some benchmark across the federally funded medical countermeasure system? >> you know, we want the gap filled in for 25% of the population? >> correct. >> i guess the question becomes why don't we put the number in as a whole? >> whether it's in the recommendation or it's in the text that we stated least that only once we have remedied or eliminated the gap in medical countermeasures for children within the strategic stockpile and other sponsors or supported cashes will we have succeeded in the effort. maybe it's just a sentence you need to put in there. it's not okay to do more. we actually have to fix the problem. >> in the interest of time, i'll start to move on, mr. chairman, i'm sorry. on the edited pages, the report recommends, the rowrsz of

enhanced capabilities, quote have enhanced capacity to work with target areas in the hope that this develops mcm. in addition, the commission recommends that one of the targeted regulatory scientific enhancement initiatives reports from the secretary department talks about enhancement initiatives and pediatric labeling and i once again, it doesn't have to be a public form, i just wanted to acknowledge that that that's an important point to focus on. it's in the body of the recommendation. >> further comments from the group? >> david, we'll take that point

about the goal. >> 2.2, we should go faster now. capabilities of the disaster medical response teams through the specific training, guidance, exercises, supplies, and personnel. we've talk about this before with hhs and the ndms with the reserve pool for lack of a better term of health care workers, and that we have a health care coordinator on each and every disaster team. on the record, i think mds has done a great job on this, so i think minor edits, this one stands. comments from the commissioner? seeing none, 3.3. we have to talk about training 3.3 health and human services shows that health professionals who may treat children in a disaster have adequate training. we call for the president to work directly with a very, very

long name to prioritize the core competencies and research. we've build relationships with these groups from pediatrics to make sure they are part of of the federal response and the disaster education training working group would be an excellent addition. this is presimilar to our interim report and i think progress is being made. comments? seeing none, 3.4. we're now talking about regionization and the executive branch in congress should provide resources for a peed yat tick system of care to have the capacity during and after disasters. in many wakeup calls in h1n1 and a lot of facilities, potentially called upon to take care of children in a pandemic, and in northeast ohio, a lot of

facilities were not in any way, shape, or form ready to take care of children. this whole concept of regionalization this concept of this chance to continue further down the path of the commission, this is something we're going to need to spend more time on and emphasize more and this is the similar recommendation in the interim record though. comments on regionalization? sir? >> why aren't we focusing on it more now because that's such a major issue about what's out there in term of pediatric expertise in the medical community. >> that's a good point. i think this is a good start because we talk about two major things, funding in health services for the hospital preparedness program and hospitals through regulatory body like the joint commission should be prepared to take care of kids. i think it's a good start both

funding as well as regulatory bodies. i think with our been within the first 18 months of the commission, we have to the delved in this as much as we should which is why i think the committee remains very important. >> yeah. >> anything on 3.4? 3.5, prioritize the systems and disaster areas to be in the recovery section as well as the commissioner in the public know we had an entire day symposium on recovery from disasters and heard from pediatricians and mental health providers and how key it is to have the systems back online as quickly as possible and recommendation 3.5 had a couple tweaks talking about establishing sufficient funding missions to restore continuity of for profit and nonfor profit help to kids and

the executive branch recognizes delivery systems as a plan em pertive in the -- imperative as well as the national disaster recovery frame work and hhs should have medicaid and children programs were providers in disaster areas, and then dr. coding, a very cogent recommendation on adopting a code modifier for cpt such as taking care of a patient under all the terrible circumstances in an area recovery in a disaster and the funding to the practitioner. this is out of the workshop we had several months ago. comments on that? now to 3.6 #, epa should engage nongovernmental experts to develop national guidance and best practices on reoccupy and

the subbullet is hhs should expand research on environmental health department risks associated with disasters. we built some good bridges with epa and other partners. there are some guidelines out there, but they are siloed and not as well known as we think they should be. there's not as much research as to what is safe, what are particular agents and how little should there be in a home before it's safe to return to a home or daycare center or childcare area. we thought this was important next step with the epa. comments, complaints? little over time, but that concludes chapter 3. >> thank you, mike. any other final comments or questions? dr. anderson. >> very good, mike.

to emergency medical services and pediatric transport. craig? >> thank you, mr. chairman. emergency medical services and pediatric transport provided the medical subcheat with a lot of work and effort mostly because as we delve into the issue that we identified that we couldn't really get to the base of the problem because we don't know who to talk to in the federal government. there currently lacks, and this is the imptous form, a federal agency responsible for emergency medical services hence recommendation 4.1 calling upon the president and congress to appropriate resource a lead federal agency for emergency medical services with primary responsibility for the coordination of grant programs, research, policy, and standards, development, and

implementation. the second recommendation or bullet there is to establish a dedicated federal grant program under a designated lead federal agency for prehospital e ms disaster preparedness. specifically including pediatric equipment and training. any discussion over 4.1? 4.2 speaks to what we identified were significant gaps in the capabilities of prehospital ems, and therefore it was to improve the capability of the ems to train port pediatric patients and provide pediatric care in daily operations and disasters. we understood very clearly without supporting the pediatric care needs of the prehospital care community on day-to-day operations, we cannot expect them to perform well in disaster. congress should provide adational funding and for

children, this was a long standing program run out of hrk hs that has done great work over the years in supporting ems for children care across the country, but it needs more support, and we kale for that -- call for that specifically. also a guideline for the center of medicaid and medicare services commonly referred to as cms. we request reimbursement to organizations who have medicare and medicaid that they be required to meet the msc good lines in life support equipment in the prehospital emergency response vehicles. hhs and dhs should establish strong pediatric performance measures within the role of federal emergency preparedness grant programs and should address the findings of the

msc2009 gap analysis of the related research. specific ems performance measures we've asked to look into and grant guidance was pediatric equipment on ambulances to expedite the pediatric transfer and pediatric education requirements for prehospital care provider and institution of the state and territorial government process, online offline as well as written pediatric medical direction for prehospital care providers. >> i think we talked about it in the opening comments, we're going to be better preamped as a nation for large disasters if we can take care of the one child really, really well. i think this is one the most important recommendations to make sure kids have good care each and every day. >> 4.3 --

>> dr. shone field has a question. >> sir? >> the first one is it may seem like a minor editorial issue. i suggested the performance measures for prehospital care and transport. now they are bolded and boxed which i didn't understand why -- i could understand in an article or chapter you might box things, but i thought we were boxing and bolding recommendations, so could we just put this into the narrative and say in particular we want to draw light to the contribute cam measures -- critical measures, but i don't think it needs to be drawn out that way because it's unclear to me why it is. >> is there any specific reason why it is? so often we have lofty goals, but this is rubber hits the road metric. the reason it's bolded is let's do these things, and it may be a

minor edit and should be in the text, but it was a bullet before, and because of that we put it over here. >> i would suggest we bullet it if we want to specifically meet these critical met trick, and -- metrics, and then within the text read what they are. in the text it's unclear. it's just there. it wasn't in any way trying to minimize the importance of it, but i don't think what you're trying to convey is conveyed clearly in the way the report is written. >> the whole thing is not clear to me. i'm sorry. i'm really frustrated about this. everybody knows the msc is valuable. it's unbelievably critical underfunded as far as i'm concerned throughout the united states of america. we don't have a regional system, and i think the same message i gave to our federal officials i give to ourselves which is let's get serious about this. what's the denominator we have not achieved yet?

if we need 100 times more money, then let's say that. it's going to cost a lot of money. this is just rhetorical. we need equipment on ambulance? what ones? what's the cost? how does the priority rank against others? i mean, you know, i think we are in a very privileged position of being able to advise the government, but if we advise them on rhetoric without specifics and recognizing the unmet need, we're going to be writing a lot of paper without having a lot of work for the recipients to get because nobody in their right mind in or out of the government is not saying we shouldn't have pediatric education for people who work on ambulances. what does that mean? that means we need $50 million of appropriations to support ems c, we have to get to that point, otherwise this is a shellble

document at the end of the day. i'm trying to avoid that. >> any other comment about that in >> well, we actually did have a number specifically put in but edited out. >> what was that number? >> 26.25 which was based upon the implication -- >> that's a nice number. [laughter] why knock a number like that out of the picture? >> it's an increase of what they currently have and certainly one of the challenges we faced in the determination process of what number we would recommend is that we don't have a good idea of the gap. okay. we struggle with actually being able to tell you how many blapses are there in the -- ambulances there are in the united states much less how much equipment we need on each one. what we do know is that the performance measures that emsc has developed and the pediatric

community supports would meet that need on each ambulance. >> i agree with you. >> how to quantify that gap is a big question. >> if i'm the receiving end of the information running an agency or congress, but why, i would be happy to get this because i agree with you because i thank you for the recommendations and that's that. if i'm running a congressional subcommittee that fields with the msc, i appropriated you $12 last year for this. what is it that you actually need? it's not actionable in this form, and i think that we have a limited life span, the commission, hopefully not individual numbers, but the commission is going to expire whether it's this year or two years from now, i think we need a very, veryheartedder actionable -- harder actionable set of recommendations in general. this comes to when the administrator fugate what they did in tennessee is great, and i applaud that, but did that solve

10% of the problem or 96% of the problem? if we don't know that, how do we evaluate information from a government agency saying he's a list of what they were doing. >> i guess the question is why was the money edited out? >> i think there was a couple reason why i suggested it. we hadn't discussed it as a group, and it was not clear how that number was ascertained. sorry? >> [inaudible] >> it may have been in the subcommittee, but it wasn't discussed and it was hard to asees was that adequate? was it even enough? i think there's the danger of saying we need, $26.25 million and we really need 100 million. that was part of the reason, but there wasn't any other place in the whole report where we specified a dollar amount for other funding that was a priority, so it stirred out from that perspective. now, what i suggested is if it's

out of an institute of medicine report, we could say it be fully funded in the bullet and say within the text the institute of medicine had recommended a dollar amount of $26.25 or whatever the number is and the commission in the absence of further data at this point support that or recommend funding at at least that level. i just thought it seemed odd to just say we want this exact dollar amount without -- >> the way he described in the text and in the bullets, does that make since to you, irwin? >> sort of. mark, i was thinking, you know, some recommendations we make there needs to be a pediatric expertise in the mix. that's a very specific recommendation. going back next year and saying this happened or didn't happen. we need to keep pushing on it. other recommendations are complex bureaucratic recommendations in setting up committees and whatever concrete, but if we just say, gee, it would be nice to have

better, more robust funding for emsc a there's not a number in there, i know it's hard and agree with david, and i wasn't -- this just got me started, but i really think the dollar amount would be that official in a lot of different areas of our recommendations personally. >> we're on this area now. >> yeah. >> so he made a recommendation that it be that 27 plus million dollars referenced by iom. is there an issue with that? >> put it in the language it was recommended to be taken out. >> which make reference to the budget proposed. >> i don't have fundamentally a problem with it. i think that one thing to help bridge your issue, and i agree is if we were to take the performance measures specifically identify them under subbullet one as that's where we want them to go. we want you to obtain this on

every unit that moves in this country. i mean, that's a very specific recommendation. >> yeah. >> emsc needs increased support and we identify that in the body of the report in the narrative, but now we have some i think clear benchmarks saying we can come back to in a year and this is how we are doing under a recommendation. does that bridge both the areas if we make those changes? >> putting the funding number back in is a great idea. >> can i clarify, this section is not about the iom numbers it's recommending they authorize the full amount authorized. i think at the very least we can recommend that. >> sure. okay. >> we don't know whether the full amount is authorized is -- what's the basis for the authorization? we know most congressional authorizations come out of the air, so i like david's idea of

tieing it to something. you know, if there's an independent, academic, or learned basis for estimating what the real number is, i mean, otherwise we're picking a number. >> agree with that too. >> in the absence of that, we could at least say that we need further study that needs to be done to determine the actual funding that would be required. on an interim basis, we would support funding at the authorized level. >> if memory serves correctly, david, the iom report that came out in 2006 actually recommends a specific dollar amount. i don't have memory, but i think it was in the interim report. >> i think the numbers that were expressed in this -- >> they don't sound dissimilar. >> they are better numbers than iom recommended. >> and i don't remember. >> this is a couple years later. >> we're trying to side with the

better numbers. >> i mean, these numbers are not necessarily scientifically based. >> no. >> they are numbered that are supported by numerous advocates pushing for greater funding for the msc program, so that's really all we had to go on. >> i'm happy putting back in what the authorized numbers were to fully fund it under appropriation and the performance measures we move those into a subbullet to give us something to go back and physically look at and say, okay, how do we meet this and what is the percentage? >> right. >> so, do we move it? >> i think we could add to the numbers add sufficient funding in following years to ensure all ambulances are perfectly equipped or whatever. >> all -- yep, yep. >> commissioner tan has found in the interim report that the iom recommended funding for the msc

to be increased to $37.5 million per year for five years, yes. >> for five years? >> yep. >> so that's the language we're using with metrics in there? >> we can certainly reference -- i think it's referenced. >> that's a better number than the reauthorization. >> right. >> so basically what we were doing is going to recommend much less than at the interim level. >> good catch. >> all right. good. keep moving. >> okay. 4.3 -- >> before you go on, i just have one other comment. this has to do with the recommendations related to the gap analysis of ems related research. the concern that i had about the section in the text was that it wasn't disaster specific. yes, i completely agree to have a good emsc system in place to

support children on a day-to-day basis, but i don't think we should advocate for good research in general that we should be talking about it needs to be disaster specific so as an example, we also talk about the need to increase randomized clinical trials. i don't know that that would be the best mechanism to do dispas-related -- disaster-related ems research. those were my concerns about that section of the text, and we also talk about the importance of having a center for research in the ems, but we don't say it's a center for ems research related to disaster preparedness. those are my concerns about the area that i think it's too vague. >> i think we can probably easily fix that by adding, you know, something along the lines with specific emphasis of

pediatric disaster research. if you go back and look at the gap analysis, you'll find there's a couple sections in there on disaster research, disaster triage for children because i know that's a big gap existing there as well. that's already in that actual gap analysis, we just need to highlight it. >> one option that i suggest, and you don't need to do would be the paragraphs that start that are actually up there and highlighted be edited down significantly to say we agree with the importance of addressing the gaps that were identified, but we also specifically would like resources devoted to research relating to disasters, and not then go into a lot of specifics of we need, you know, more randomized crin call trails because those don't seem to be directed related to that. >> okay. correct. any objections?

good. all right. >> 4.3, hhs should develop a national strategy to improve pe national transport and patient care capabilities with the subbullet of conducting a national review existing capabilities among the relevant government agency and the private sector for emergency medical transport of children. this recommendation was born out of our discussions with actually the department of defense as well as with mdms about the process of moving patients around the country in a vast environment and recognizing it's unclear we were meeting the standard we felt was important or had a good feel for what everybody's capabilities that would be part of this process and clearly there was a gap here that we felt was important to at least identify and understand to what extent does it exist? we know that dod has limited capability for managing children

in a transport environment. we understand that the national ambulance contract, there's certain requirements on them to meet when they dispatch their ambulances to a disaster area, but how does that all functionally work towards ensuring that children get what they need in the transport process? i think this speaks back to the recommendation of regionalization issues that during times of a disaster involving a lot of children, we're going to have to move a lot of kids because we have such limited capacity in the country, so we're going to need to be able to move the children safely and effectively. i think this is really an important follow-up for the commission as well as hhs to ensure that we understand what that capability is and where the gap is currently in that carpet and how to improve it. that would be the end of ems and

transport. >> any follow-up or last questions for gregg before we turn it to irwin? hearing on, irwin talking about case management. >> let review and 5.1 refers to disaster case programs needed to be resourced and should provide consistent services that achieve tangible positive outcomes for children and families affected by disasters. that's a fairly general recommendation which i think we all have discussed multiple times in the past. specifically the executive branch should deploy disaster cases management system with nationwide capacity, and that was touched on obviously by the administrator earlier today, and then dhs should clarify the transition from federal to state led disaster case management programs. a point that -- i just want to emphasize that

this is particularly important looking back on the flow of things post-katrina where the transition was is profoundly unclear and a lot of children fell in the cracks throughout that process and nongovernmental organizations should have volunteer consensus standards on the essential elements in methods of disaster case management including precredentially case managers and training that includes focus and attention to the needs of children and families. discussions, comments? >> just turn the page, and half of it was missing. irwin, here earlier, the first bullet -- >> yeah, same thing applies. same thing i said to bruce i'm saying to myself here. looking through this and hearing

this today, i think it's -- to say adequate funds without defining that is, i think, not sufficient, not going as far as we could or should go in my opinion. although, i don't know that we have the same sort of iom -- >> i agree with you i'm just -- >> very well taken. well, mark, how should we handle this if the commission agrees we should be more specific on a dollar amount, we happened to have the iom report and we don't have it nor does anyone else have it. >> the administration make a recommendation as to what they need to do to adequately? >> they have. currently the president's acs budget has a $2 million request in the 2011 -- >> 2 million? >> $2 million for disaster case

management capacity building. >> in total for the year? >> yes. >> the original request made a couple years ago was for $10 million, and now it's reduced to $2 million. >> has that money gone somewhere else in the budget, or they just gutted it or -- >> no, no, it's a new program, so it's a line item provided specifically for the disaster case management program. >> do we have any sense of whether the relevant executive branch agencies thinks that 2 million is adequate? are they not allow to say? >> it's the president's request. what we say in the narrative is that the commission is concerned that $2 million is not enough to adequately support a national disaster capacity building management program, however, we don't have the capability or the informing to be -- information to be able to say

what that number should be. you know, you could pick any number except to express that $2 million is inadequate and it needs to be increased. >> it just seems to me $# million for the united states -- $2 million for the united states -- you can pick any number, but not 2 million. i think that's the last number i'd pick. [laughter] i don't know -- >> 1 million -- >> yeah, or 500,000. to answer your question, i don't know what number. there's no iom standard here. what kris is saying that we expressed concern about it. ewe can put -- you can put stronger language in and say express concern or seems to be wholly insufficient or do we need to -- you want stronger language in there? >> you say on page 64 the federal government is not sufficiently funding the program. >> right. >> and then we tell a little about the history, the funding

history, and where things currently are in the president's -- >> the actual recommendation though, chris, i think we should beef up the language there to get a lot more assertive about the fact that the 2 million is not sufficient, and maybe could we ask for a documentation of how the 2 million was rationalized? in other words, we have the data, but where did it come from? was it just a number like it was 10 and now they are cutting back and now it's 2? >> are you ask what the plan was with goals and objectives? >> what are the objectives to be met with the $2 million national program, and how is that going to work? >> right. >> because it's -- >> their language is capacity building. i'm confident what they are talking about is developing a plan for -- our recommendation calls for build support and deploy.

>> that's a whole different -- >> that's a whole different animal. it seems to me their recommendation ought to be not just research and plan for how we could do it under the best case scenario, but actually develop a plan that deploys a case management system, so i agree with irwin. i think we can come on stronger. >> so instead of adequate funds, you want to say increase funds? >> we don't have the capability to say a number specific, but -- >> is it inappropriate? can we ask for an explanation? ask for a rationalization or rational for developing a funding target that involved planning and the deployment? >> yeah, i think if it really is what ernie is saying, a $2 million to develop the plan, what does the plan then involve

funding wise? coming up with a plan that costs $50 million a year because it's a national plan or what's going forward? >> yeah. i think actually what could be instructive is the justification language submitted in acf's submissions particularly in the year when they asked $10 million. i think that will give a sense of the breath and scope of what was con tim plaited, -- contemplated but within the normal course of budget negotiation and what congress felt they would appropriate, i'm sure when the number came down to $2 million, roberto had to find a way to make due with the plan intended to be much broader, but in reality was only provided with $2 million to make it work. i think that's what's trying to be expressed in this section that for a plan to work

adequately to do all the things here just beyond capacity building, $2 million does not appear to be a sufficient amount of dollars. >> well, the other is what i was trying to ask david hansell earlier. we are talking about case management here, not development of new drugs. we know what we need to know about case management in disasters. i just don't quite get what continues to be studied and need analysis. we had a study of the case management post-ike and that as far as i'm concerned was unnecessary. you could have put experts in a room, talk about what they got, and what the results were, and i don't think those things needed to be tested against one another. case management understood by people that actually practice in the field is not up for a five to ten year, you know, exploratory process that costs god knows how much, but at the end of the day doesn't end up in

deployment when we needed it was yesterday. so i feel like -- i feel like i'd like to see the whole picture of really what you are saying. what's 2 going -- what's it going to cost to deploy what is critical case management after a disaster? david? >> this is a general comment. it appears to me in finalizing this report, there are a number of gaps in terms of how its implemented in dollar amounts, and i think that would be what our commission turns to next after we release the report is to say, now, okay, it needs to be appropriate funds, let's get people in, testimony on this, experts together, and what is it going to take, and then -- we've come out with a recommendation and then define appropriate later. that may be a better strategy than grabbing at a number as we try to vote on the report. >> well, i agree there. for this one especially because

we don't have an idea of a number. the other one -- >> we've already talked about that one because we have data behind that. >> yes. >> so is the intention to change the word adequate or leave it there? >> change adequate to sufficient. >> okay. >> does that matter? is that rhetorically lame? i don't know. [laughter] is it enough? i mean, i'm just trying to be as serve as possible about let's get this going and adequately funded. i mean, it's a big issue. >> you want to see, irwin, the plan that they are rolling out for the $2 million appropriation? >> yes, i would. i would like to see how it's been rationalized. >> can you add language to that? >> again, that information is publicly available. we can ask that and work with july on that. >> ac. -- okay.

>> there is a request how congress spends this $2 million on this program. they have to justify it in their budget. >> okay. >> are we changing the word from adequate to sufficient? [laughter] >> intense conversation, okay. >> anything else, irwin? >> no, i'm exhausted now. [laughter] >> i can't -- [laughter] >> all right. we're actually on schedule. we're supposed to take a lunch break here and come back and finish the last four chapters here or six sections, excuse me. i apologize. we have an hour skell yiewded for -- scheduled for lunch. do people want to do an hour or half hour? we have to address language changes and provisions that were addressed. that gives staff time to work with commissioners to get those

changes. it's now twelve o'clock and we'll take an hour and be back at 1. thank you all, that's it. we'll take a short break. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]/%@

>> it puts 06 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they are 16, and in a time of cut, that's lewd chris. education is not for everyone. this motion doesn't just ngd education, but training and apprenticeships as well. however, it must be said that with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due to the cuts announced last week, it's harder than ever to find the placements. the work connection to get young people into training is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of the lack of support to young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth funding unemployment will

rise, and these people who would have found a job at 16 will forced to be a school and maybe become a disruption to the classroom. there is a boy in my area and the boy helps out his father in his shop and has done for generations before. when he turned 16, his father was taken ill and could no longer work. under the motion before you today, he could not take this business on. do we want to see this family sweet shop and other family businesses old out because at 16 he's required to be in education and not mature enough to run a business? nownowadays they need work experience to do the job. by writing the age to 18, you have two years left work experience compared to someone who left at 16. for what? a few extra qualifications not

always relevant to your prefertion when life experience is more valuable than anything. extend this to the university, you have six years less years experience of the what does the graduate have? a degree in clingon and a 40,000 pound debt and oh, i'm unemployed. how does keeping a young person out of the system for six years solve our nation's unemployment crisis? the answer? it doesn't. [applause] >> you can see more from this british youth parliament debate that includes sex education in schools and the rising cost of university tuition fees tonight here at 8 eastern on c-span2. after that a form up on the ethics of war and instructors of

armed forces academies. that's here on c-span2. >> the national children's alliance president spoke on

reshaping criminal justice strategies in child abuse cases. he's the prosecuting attorney. this is just under 45 minutes. >> i am right now going to turn it over to our esteemed colleague, matt heck, born and raised in dayton, ohio, attended the law center, a career prosecutor and worked as an assistant prosecutor after law school and later elected in 1992. in november, 2008 he ran unopposed as the fourth term. mr. heck is a wonderful resource and able to reflect on ways in which his jurisdiction had to evolve and grow to better meet the needs of victims.

we all struggle with institutional change, how to reshape our criminal justice responses, our institutional responses, how do we do better? how do we protect victims more? he is a member of many professional associations in addition to being the president of the national children's alliance and a member of the board of director of the national district attorney's association, and i would like to welcome him here right now. [applause] we're just taking there no -- [inaudible] >> i want to know who the dogs are. okay, mary, good.

thank you. well, good morning again to all of you, and it's a pleasure to be here. you know, we were talking about finances and about how it's a challenge to be here with the budgets the way they are, and i'm sure all of you are faced with the same budget constraints that we are in ohio. they cut my budget 7% last year and another 3% in january, and it takes a big bite out of what we're able to do, and we just got doing more with less people. they talked about whether, about the crimes and about who is here representing what jurisdictions, and it didn't surprise me at all there's no u.s. attorneys here because we know who prosecutes all the cases. it's the local prosecutors prosecuting all the cases, and especially these kinds of cases where you don't have something

caught inside the bank, you know, inside with a gun, and then gives a full statement. you know the u.s. attorneys are not going to take those cases. we know because we are the ones in the trenches doing the work, but i want to welcome you to the strategies for justice. the other thing i want to say is if anybody of you need to know how to make money or to raise money, i want you to see this guy right here. gene kline. he raised almost $10 million since february of this year to build a brand new children's add vo advocacy center, and it's just fantastic. okay, he's my hero on raising money. i'll hit him up for some of the x's he dpunt -- doesn't need before we leave here. some of the ideas he has is just incredible, so talk to him sometime about that. [applause] there you go. you're the man, see. well, welcome you again.

many of you here are on the limited budgets that we have and able to attend this type of a conference. one of the ways that we handled our budget crunch in ohio from the state level when they were having a lot of the budget cuts, they said, how are we going to cut and still have enough money to handle in these department of corrections? what they did is on the weekends now instead of feeding all the prisoners, and we have the largest inmate population in the united states is instead of feeding them three times a day, it's only twice a day. personally, i thought that was a great way to save money. i told our jail, they ought to serve two meals a day. it's one way to save money and allowing us to do our jobs. this is a joint effort as you already heard from the national district attorney's association and the national children's alliance and the national children's advocacy center in hundredsesville.

i'm matt heck and born and raised in ohio, the birthplace of aviation of the wright brothers, and we are also the home of the flip-top beer can. okay. it was actually born and raised in dayton, ohio that invention was, and i know everybody here is familiar with that, so i'm glad to be here as a prosecutor, as a career prosecutor. we have a population of 650,000 in montgomery county ohio. i have, right now, about 80 prosecutors working for me, we're down about ten, and we do felony cases, about 5,000 felony cases a year. we do not do misdemeanor cases, and we're a full-service law firm as i like to say. we do criminal cases, juvenile

cases, but also civil. we are the lawyers for all of the area's elected officials in our county, so how large is the problem of physical and child sexual abuse? we hear so many times, and it kind of makes my blood boil after i hear the thing in the paper all over the country just several months ago how child abuse was going down, how child abuse was less this year. well, we haven't seen it in our jurisdiction. you can see from the headlines there violence against kids is rising alarmingly, and this was just in august of this year, and so, again, in my jurisdiction in 2008 ring we had -- 2008, we had over 4,000 cases of abuse and neglect including 400 victims of abuse. we have a population of 31,000 young people, young people under the age of 18.

that means one in every five children is a victim of abuse. now, i don't have to tell all of you that research indicates that very young children, 3 years and younger are the most frequent victims of child abuse, and also child fatalities, and children younger than 1 accounted for over 40% of fatalities. children younger than 4 years accounted for more than 75% of fatalities, and obviously, these children are the most vulnerable victims that we see for many reasons. they are dependent, their size, and inability to defend themselves. it's interesting because we see it on both spectrums, not only on child abuse, but elder abuse. we handle those cases, but it's unbelievable the similarity that we see between those victims. it's just incredible, and you don't think about it until you see those cases and the

dependency of those victims. sometimes it tears your heart out, but i don't have to tell you that. last year we had 1.8 million cases of abuse in the united states. i think so many of us prosecution or children's advocacy work we hear so many times about numbers, but every number is a case, every number is a victim, and we realize that. when the press accounts and we hear press reports about the numbers of child abuse or numbers of victims, they don't really see that, but when you are out somewhere or in the bar or out having lunch with somebody who is not in our field and talk about what you do, you know, as i do, everything stops. they want to hear what you have to say because they can't believe the things that you see and the work that you do, so how

do we successfully investigate and prosecute these cases because this is a tough nut to crack in many times. you know, the thing that i have found in doing this over, i hate to admit, over 35 years, is that we handle so many cases, and as i tell my lawyers, that the vast majority of cases there will be no problem, but you always have that one case, and if you haven't had it yet, you will have it, and i'm sure many of you have had one, two, or three, but that one or two cases, some people never forget, and so the challenge is how do you prosecute those who abuse children? these are difficult cases, but i have found, and there's no question about it, it's only through a team effort. you talk about teams and prosecution in cases in the homicide cases, death penalty cases and all kinds of cases,

but i have found there's no question about it in child abuse cases, team effort rules the day. why? because there's so many agencies and disciplines and perspectives involved. you see it all the the time. you know, you have all the different people involved in the multi disciplinary team with ail their different function, but it's when they come together and work as a team, and if they don't do that, we're never going to be effectively or effectively prosecute and protect our children. so, how do we do it? well, not only as president of the national children's alliance, but as a district attorney. you do it through child advocacy center, through multidisciplinary teams. ours in dayton is called care house. it's a colocated child advocacy center located at dayton children's hospital, and we have medical prosecution, police, medical, everything is right there. children services, i have two

prosecutors there, and two victim add vo calculates a-- advocates assigned there. working in this field for so many years, you can really see a difference of how so many years ago we didn't have that. we didn't have a cac. we didn't have an mdt. these children were being just going from one place to another being interviewed, asked different questions, and there was no coordination at all, and you can see the difference it makes, but you know, it's surprising how many places in our country do not have children advocacy centers. there's so many places in our country that i didn't realize until i became so involved not only as a distribute attorney, but through the chirnl national alliance of children who do not have access to a cac. that's one of the goals that we have at the national children's alliance, to ensure that every child has access to a cac.

it's especially interesting, i think in some parts of the country that in order to get to a cac, in order to get the medical treatment, they have to spend hours on the road to get there. it's just incredible. again, you have all of these different parts of the multidisciplinary team. you have the police, the prosecutors, the child protective agencies, the medical, the social workers, and zimbs there's a -- sometimes there's a challenge to prosecute the cays because of the different perspectives, and even though we have different views, the one thing we have to do is keep the eye on the ball, okay, on the ultimate prize, and that is to protect this child and also to hold the abuser accountable, and we have to set aside our differences, and that's not always easy to do, and when i talk to prosecutors around the country, when i talk to cac staff members around the country, it's just interesting

to hear the challenges they face, and we all have them. .. >> we all know many times the perspective is, the thought is that the police investigate their case. they want to come in and what? in my jurisdiction, they cannot charge anyone with a felony crime unless they come to my office and review the case with

an assistant prosecutor. i have prosecutors assign to the intake division. they meet with every police officers on every felony case. if they come in, they review the case. many times we are just reviewing them. we are trying to help them from the very beginning. what's going on here? what evidence have you found? do we have enough to charge? and they may have arrested somebody last night and they may have to release them the next day because there's not enough evidence in our opinion. and as you can imagine, that's not always wonderful news to hear. when we tell a police officer you have to release that suspect. and i want to talk about some of that. because like i say, they come to our office. they ask if there's sufficient evidence and we can approve a felony filing. whether someone can be charged with the crime, and the process beginning. but i want to talk about a couple of cases. the first one is my alicia davis case.

the case where the abuser would have been never been prosecutorred for this terrible, terrible crime expect for the team members eventually, not at the beginning, eventually putting aside their differences which you are going to hear about in a minute, putting aside the egos and communicating. that's half of the problem, communications. i tell my lawyers, in all kinds of cases, homicide, child cases, whatever it is. try to talk. tell them what's going on. explain so that everyone understands what we are faced with. you have to understand what the police officer is faced with, or what the med car provide is faced with. we just had a case recently where there was a big argument, fight more like it, between the doctors and our children medical center and the coroner's office. doctor said child abuse. coroner said natural causes.

they got a separate opinion about it. which they did not share. two years after that, another sibling of the same first child who died dies again. now we have a second sibling. same family that dies. and when the parents took this child, they have a third child also. when they took the child to the hospital and the child died, everyone in that hospital is saying these are child abusers, they should have been prosecutorred, -- prosecuted, they should have been in jail. they went back to the coroner's office. again, they ruled natural causes. and we knew nothing about it in my office. finally, it coming to our attention when one of the grandparents calls me and says what's going on here? is my daughter a child abuser? a baby killer? and there was a lot of problems between and the relationship between the coroner's office and

the childrens' doctors. we started investigating it. we found out another expert opinion that had been received by the childrens hospital two years before found out there was no evidence of child abuse. there was a natural cause. a congenital type of problem that was never shared with anybody. never shared. and when i called the president of the hospital and said, you know, you've got to relay this type of information. the doctor should have told the coroner's office. it did not support, surprisingly, did not support the doctors who first saw these children at the hospital. and they said, well, we're not going to give that out. we are not going to share those reports. and the family of these two children who have died, who have now a third child who's starting

to get sick, they were not going to share that report with that family. and i said this is just wrong. and the police thought it was wrong. so it's surprising what a grand jury subpoena will do to get that report. that's what we had to do in order to get the report and share it so that everybody was on the same page. i said, look, we've got to meet. we've got to get the coroner doctors, the doctors at the childrens hospital, and we've got to get over that. and we've got to air what the problems are and so that everyone understands there was no child abuse here. and so that doesn't happen again. but it's not easy. so we have the lisa davis case. another interesting case. saturday august 14th, 2004. and this is a case that happened and where there was multiple injuries at one point they said i don't know how this child had

such an injury on the top of the child's head. they just couldn't figure out what happened. the mother says, well, it must have happened because the child fell out of something or fell off of the bed. and, of course, everyone said there's no way. it could not have happened that way. so what happened? police come in, they talk about the case, they want charges filed, and they meet with all prosecutors and our prosecutors say there really isn't sufficient evidence. there's not enough evidence to charge. you see the mother there, and you see the young child. but they say there's not enough. the headline says no charges in death of child. mom is freed. prosecutor wants more information from the police. so in april 2005, the detectives come back and meet with our prosecutors again about looking further into the case. there's got to be a way to

charge the woman with the death of elizabeth. this goes on from 2005 to early 2007. there's several meetings, there's meetings with the family, the paternal grandmother, and they are very concerned. and, of course, what happens is everything is put on the prosecutor. and we have a police officer who is upset that there's no further investigation is being done. he says that the police and the family -- the police and the family -- are very upset with the prosecutors. what does he do in his frustration? because we won't accept charges. he goes to the press. it's interesting. he goes to the press and he releases various reports and privileged reports to the press and to the family to try to put pressure on us. so these are the types of things that we see. first of all, the person was released from jail.

and then the girls unsolved death torments grandmother. you see the grandmother at grave of this child. you can imagine people are not happy with my office. we are trying to work together. we are saying it's nice that we charge somebody. if we can't convict them, what good does it do? the investigating detective bell said there's little to discover. all we have to do is take it to the grand jury. this is what happened there? here's a picture of the grandmother. shows the grandmother. is this a case where the system failed? and, of course, people love to weigh in on this. but there's a problem with the justice system. people forget, even though we were taking a hit at that time, i told my staff, mum is the

world here. we can say a few things. we're working on the case. we're not criticizing the investigation. we're making no criticisms at all about the case. we always take the high road; right? that's what you learn. you take the high road in cases like this. the point is if you are doing the right thing, you don't have to worry about that. so the lead detective have met with him five times. as far as police are concerned, the investigation is pretty much done. that was his opinion. it was done. and so we go on and they meet. low and behold, i said look, this is just getting us nowhere. eventually in the spring of 2007, we regroup. i talk to the police chief myself and say this is just getting nowhere. because in the mean time, the other thing that happened is this grandmother who you saw a

picture of at the grave of her grandchild. i get a call from one of my investigators who says this woman has been admitted into one of the hospitals. a grandmother. because she's having suicidal as well as homicidal thoughts. the homicidal thoughts are about me. because she's so upset. i know. she's so upset that no charges were being filed. for over two years. that she is now having these homicidal thoughts about me. i've never met the woman. so we're thinking what are we going to do now? and i said one the things we're going to do is call her in. i sent one of my investigators to talk to with her. to explain, look, we are working on your grandchild's case. these are very important cases. have her come in and talk to her and explain what's going on to

her and the challenges involved that we did not forget about this child. so then they put a different group together. they meet multiple times. and the detective who made some of these bizarre statements, who released these confidential reports to the press was fired from his department. they substituted a new lead detective. they started meeting with my staff again. but the evidence still available was simply not enough. so the direction of the investigation turned. and this is about being innovative. and this is the thing that you have to remember. you have to be innovative. your staff, no matter what discipline you are in, and think outside of the box sometimes. so the direction changed, and the police began investigating from the perspective of charging this defendant for failing to get medical attention because we could show that this child was

visibly ill. so my staff started dealing with the coroner, the doctor of the childrens hospital, the police found numerous witnesses to come out and say we saw that child. and that child was sick. that child was ill. because we knew there was just not enough evidence to show that the mother, the boyfriend, and other people who were with the child at time, we couldn't show who actually gave and who actually death the final blow to this child. so we were able to meet with them, we were able to reconstruct the case, and in october 8th, 2008, four years -- four years after the death of this child -- we approved charges of homicide, endangering children, and also two counts of corrupting a minor with drugs because they also found that lisa davis was also doing drugs in front of this child. so in 2009, they were able to

actually indict this person for the child's death. of course, then, things started to change. much of it depends on how you handle, i believe, the relationships. because again while 90%, maybe higher the cases there are no problems, it's always that one case or two cases that everybody remembers. so what we did in this case is i commended the police department. i told my staff that we had to commend them for the determination to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of this young child. it's funny how things change at that point. the chief, the chief comes out and he talked about how the case is handled with the highest priority. it's funny how before we were getting the tail end, okay, of the horse. now we are talking about how this was a team working in concert and collaboration with

prosecutors. working as a team and putting the pieces together to get evidence that could be presented to the grand jury. so then what happens is that as you can see, on february of this year, the defendant because of the evidence that we were able to amass pled guilty in the child's death. and after that, you can see what the chief said. it's been a long time coming. he attributed the lengthy but untimely successful investigation to a good working relationship to the prosecutors office. a lot different than the headlines two years before that that said all you have to do to- all the prosecutor office has to do is take the case to the grand jury. remember at the last there, you can't put a timeline on any investigation. when it involves young children, it can take a long time.

then march 11th of this year, she received 10 years in prison for the death of her daughter. so it's interesting. because you can see how things turn around at times. and what can happen. so this little case of elizabeth davis, to me is a prime example of a team working together. prosecutors, childrens hospital employees, the cec, the investigators, everybody working as a team together. which is so important. i want to talk about two other examples of child abuse cases. also from my jurisdictions, that shows how working together at the very beginning after case can really make a difference. in the next case is state of ohio against teresa joe lynn ritchie. teresa involves a case of 4-year-old samantha richie.

she was missing in 1995. this was shortly after the woman in north carolina that drowned her children in the car. this little girl comes missing. and the mother teresa joe lynn richie has a press conference. she says i ain't no susan smith. my daughter has been kidnapped. there becomes an intensive man hunt for the child. tore the whole and soul out of the dayton community. man hunts, fire departments putting teams together. for weeks on end. then it came to light there was just something wrong here. this was collaboration between the unvest -- inveighs -- investigators, between my staff, between the staff at the cac.

what was being said didn't take a lot of sense. what happens is they found out that, look, something else happened to that child. there's something wrong here. it's just not adding up. so they finally found a neighbor, june bug, you know, those of all of us in the case, there's always a june bug in a case. as soon as you see a june bug, you know everything has gone to hell out there. you know? there's just no question about it. june bug, who's real name is vernelle, i can see why she uses june bug. june bugs comes forward and tells you how this little girls mother and he had sex that evening because her other boyfriend was in jail on another crime. and she didn't want to be alone. so obviously she takes june bug to have sex with him in this

roach infested basement of a house. this little girl, who's picture you see there, she was looking for mommy. and she came down the steps, looking for mommy, asking her to put her to bed. and her mother, who had broken her arm had a cast on her arm and reacted violently because her daughter saw her naked with june bug. and she was afraid her daughter would tell the other guy when he got out of jail. so she violently approached the girl and hit her repeatedly with the cast on her head and fractured her skull. then picked up a tire iron and beat her. and then with the help of june bug, deposited her body in a local, vacant, industrial site where there was a pit that was a

cesspool, and put her there. and i do have a picture how she was found. if you don't like these pictures, obviously, just turn your head. this is what she looked like when she was found. obviously, not very good. and so we ended up charging a case that i prosecuted myself, and charging her mother and she was found guilty of murder where she still is in the penitentiary she just filed for parole. in these cases, things happen. i call them defining moments. all of those have been cases and players in cases. you know what i'm talking about. especially the prosecutors. but in this particular case, when this woman was arrested and again it was on the news front page of the paper on media every single morning and night.

but when she was arrested, they took her into the jail, took her in, walked her in to be booked in, and the press was there. they asked her, why did you kill your child? so this woman turns around and typical fashion for this person, turns around and giving them this. and following by the expletive. they capture this. and i heard about this. i said i would love to have that picture. and the newspaper says we're not giving anybody the picture. but the reporter on that paper thought it was interesting. and he said i'm going to get you that picture, one way or the other. so we got the picture. i had it blown up. all of the pictures, the slides when they were found, when the body of the young woman was found by cadaver dogs and pulled by fire hook out of the kiss pool, -- cesspool, we had all of

the pictures not on the screen but blown up and hand to every juror. i wanted everybody on that jury to see those pictures. don't get me wrong. i'm sure all of you do the powerpoint and are very proficient with it, get up there and use it. i tried this case against people who weren't using powerpoints. they got all messed up. pictures everywhere. wrong pictures. i like to use it the only fashion way, i have them blown up. i'm able to take that picture and hand it to each juror. they have to look at the picture. they can't very well turn their head away. i had this picture blown up too. because i knew even though it was very prejudicial, but everything we do in trials is prejudicial. that's the point. it's adversarial situation.

it's wonderful to civility. we are folks in an adversarial situation. you have to fight for your client. you have to fight for those who can't represent and defend themselves. you know, they call people who represent defendants, publish -- public defenders. we are the publish defenders. we represent those who cannot help or represent themselves every single day. i had this blown up, i knew not only prejudicial, it was probably over the edge. but defense council who are two excellent lawyers, from a big law firm, who were appointed to represent this woman, i use the woman term lightly. they were worried because i set that picture face down right on council table. so any time i would get up, i'd walk over to the picture like i'd going to show it to the jury. they could go bizerk.

crazy. of course, by the end of the trial, the jury is saying what the hell does he have there? what does he have there that they don't want him to show? so i never got to show the picture. but it was just as good having it because believe me, at the end, at the end of the trial, after the jury rendered the verdict, they all asked -- i always try to talk to the juries after the verdict. i like to do that outside of the defense lawyers. okay, judge, that's fine. let the defense lawyer go in first. we'll go in afterwards. am i getting time? >> close. >> okay. well, i got to hurry up then. we went through there and talked to the jury.

one question what's the picture that you had? they got to see it. very quickly, another case is the china arnold case. a case that happened in august 30th, 2005, the victim is paris tally. we indicted the individual with the death penalty. she was found guilty as charged as aggregated murder and all of the other charges. she was given life without parole. in ohio, life without parole means life without parole. doesn't mean when you get 1/3 done or any of that nonsense. life without parole. this is just a terrible case that the woman comes home from partying all night, child is cry, she's upset about the child crying, and she decides to put the child in a microwave. this is our microwave baby case.

28 days old. puts them in a microwave. when we solved the case originally, we thought what in the world happened? we started batting it around. the team approach. what do you think happened? we've never seen anything like this. one of our members said go back to the scene and get whatever you can around there. that's when they found the bucket of water that the mother took her child out of the microwave, put her in a bucket of water to cool her off, and they still found tissue in the water that was there and that's what led us then to say what in the world happened to this child. so again, why work together? well, we have to work together to reach a common goal. that's to protect our children. in some of the cases that may start off on a real rocky start but there's no reason that you can't turn the ship around and

get back on the right course. and to keep your eye on the ball which is to hold the person responsible. you know, you got to remember. there are persons who make things happen, there are persons who watch things happen, and there are other persons out there that simply wonder what happened. but you are people who make things happen. we see it every day. we see people on the sidelines. we see people in the stands. how many times do we go to the ball game and see the people who are content to it there, very content to sit there, drink their beer, have their hot dog, and watch the people and most of the time criticize the people on the court, in the court, on the field, in the trenches doing their job. i want to thank you for what you do. you are in the trenches. you are fighting the good night. you are not sitting on the sidelines, criticizing, but you are in the field, in the trenches, in the courtroom, protecting those who cannot fend

for themselves who cannot protect themselves and you are giving them a voice. and you are also holding those people who do such horrific, heinous crimes responsible. believe me, i want to thank you for what you do for your community, for what you do for the children in your community. because if it wouldn't be for all of you doing what you do without any thanks whatsoever, normally, every day of your life it would not be such a wonderful community that each of you have. thank you very much. i hope you enjoy the conference. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. >> okay. we said we'd keep you on time today. 15 minutes. we will see you back inside this room.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> here's a look at some of our programs tonight. first over 300 members of the british youth parliament, ages 11 to 18 gathered recently in the house of commons. the student debated topics, including a proposal to raise the school age from 16 to 18 in order to lower youth unemployment. we'll show that tonight at 8 eastern. here's a look. >> nobody should be forced into education against their will. that's the presumption that frankly originated from the dark ages. it will cost 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they are 18. and in the time of cuts, that's ludicrous. education is not for everyone.

and i appreciate that it's been said already the motion does not just include education, but training and apprenticeships as well. however, it must be said with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due to the cuts announced last week, it will be harder than ever to find the placements. what connections did to get young people in training is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support for the young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth unemployment will rise. and these people who would have been found a have job at 16 wile forced to stay in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the classroom. there was a boy in my area, nice little fellow. his father is the owner of a local sweep shop. the boy helps out with his father in his shop and has done for generations, as generations have gone before. when he turned 16, his father

was taken ill and couldn't work. under the motion put before you today, he could not take the business on. are we saying we wish to see the family sweet shop and other businesses sold out because at 16 he has to be in education and clearly not mature enough to run a business? :

>> the answer, it doesn't. [applause] >> you can see more from this british youth parliament debate which also includes sex education in schools and the rising cost of university tuition fees. tonight at eight eastern here on c-span2. after that at about 940 time at a form on the ethics of war with veterans who have fought in battle him and instructors from armed forces academies. that's here on c-span2.

>> now to the congressional black caucus foundation's annual legislative conference. in this portion, the forum on race and the 14th amendment to the constitution. it's just under an hour and 40 minutes. followed by a discussion with emerging young professionals, some from the obama administration. >> good morning. my name is kennan keller. i'm counsel to the house judiciary committee come and chairman john conyers. we have the pleasure of welcoming all of you today to our panel on the history and neutrality of the 14th

amendment. we would like to start the panel today by introducing india geronimo who was a recent law clerk for judge of the sixth circuit, who is a histone with respect to the 14th amendment and his foundation, support education on the amendment as part of the civic understanding of all americans. so i would like to give the podium to ms. geronimo to give us an outline of the key exhibits. >> good morning. i am india geronimo, director of the law collection of african-american legal history. on today's panel, market for justice, the centrality of the 14th amendment of the constitution, u.s. constitution is the key collection and congressman john conyers junior. today's panel commemorates the

march towards justice exhibit at cbcs annual legislative conference. the march towards justice exhibit is he not going exhibit at the law collection which was started as central repository for african-american people's history. a march towards justice exhibit focuses on the 14th minute to u.s. constitution and the struggles the united states a democracy. the 14th amendment was established in 1868 but it was not in important for the african-american stuff like 20 century. it was established to define what it means to be a citizen of the united states. our distinguished panelists will discuss the historical significance of the 14th amendment, especially in light of recent, at the conclusion of the discussion, there will be hordes of exhibits which are currently on display at the l. street bridge between this

building and the building adjacent to appear before we begin the program i would like to thank our sponsors of the program on the gaming council which helped sponsor today's program as well as thanking the contributors to the march towards justice exhibit which includes the gm foundation which has enabled us to travel all around the country. i would also like to acknowledge the curator for the march towards justice exhibit, bob smith, who created the exhibit and was the brains behind the exhibit. bob is with us, raise your hand. [applause] >> now please join me in welcoming laura murphy, who will be serving as today's moderator until we expect mr. juan williams to arrive. on figure eight, 2010, laura murphy return to the aclu washington legislative office to serve as its director. prior to doors return to the aclu, she directed her own firm, laura murphy and associates,

where she utilized her 30 years of policymaking and political expertise to guide and advise corporate and nonprofit clients at the national, state and local levels. murphy is well-known for her legislative advocacy on human rights and civil liberties. she has been as high profile legislative and communications campaigns on criminal justice, first amendment, equality and national security issues. she has been a frequent guest on pbs new hours with jim our, "nbc nightly news," the today show and other news programs. please join me in welcoming ms. murphy. [applause] >> thank you very much, and i was asked right before i walked in if i would agree to moderate the panel. and i couldn't be more honored to moderate instead of present. i want to weigh in on the 14th amendment, but what you have in front of you is a tremendous --

really, civil rights icons. and i'd like to start with william t. coleman. many of us know secretary coleman asked the secretary of transportation in the ford administration, but what many people don't know is how instrumental he was in the naacp legal defense fund's legacy. and he was also a member of president dwight d. eisenhower's committee on government employment policy from 1959-1961. what i'm trying to say to you secretary coleman is not only does he practice law, not only has he served in government, administrative positions, but he is an architect of the civil rights laws that we now enjoy your i want to move to mary frances berry, who is also another icon. she is a geraldine professor of

law at the university of pennsylvania. and you also, at the university of michigan, where you received her ph.d in history, and joint j.d. from the university of michigan law school. she has written so many books. her most recent book is on the history of the united states commission on civil rights. and that will just give you the in's and outs of how we ended up with the dysfunctional commission, but doing her error and prior to her arab, she made sure that the u.s. commission on civil rights did the job it was supposed to do, which is to oversee the state of the nation's civil rights issues, whether it was dealing with voting, employment, health care, immigration, native american rights, racial profiling, she was instrumental in holding hearings all over the country, some of which led to

legislation. i have to also take a personal privilege in introducing dean kurt schmoke who is dean of howard university law school, but for many years he was my mayor of my hometown, baltimore, maryland. and what he was known as, as one of the most thoughtful mayors in the nation. and he really changed the face of baltimore. he is a given adequate credit for all of the people he put into place in the leadership of the city who are still serving in key positions in baltimore, and he has been a transformative dean at howard university law school, bring in national leaders, refreshing the faculty, keeping it fiscally sound, raising money. so it's with great affection that i introduce mayor kurt schmoke. juan williams, i will introduce later on. but i also want to introduce michelle alexander, because she

has a special history with the aclu. i got to see her in her days as an aclu attorney heading the racial justice project of the aclu of in california. she was quick and smart, and piercing in her analysis. and as soon as we all matter we knew that she was going to be a national leader. and now she's moved to ohio. she said children. she's gotten married but she has come out with a blockbuster book on the problems with racial profiling and race issues in the criminal justice system, the new jim crow, and she's also teaching. she's also a mom, and she is very much missed by the aclu, i have to say. we will be also joined by, i think, charles ogletree. and now let me get to mr. mack. kenneth mack is a professor of law law at harvard law school where he taught since 2000-2001

academic year. is also a member of the 2007-2008 class of senior fellows sponsored by the fletcher foundation. he teaches in fields of property, american legal history, and the history of the legal profession. he's working on a book right now, tentatively entitled representing the raise, creating a civil rights lawyer, 1920-1955. so excited about your upcoming research. so please give our panelists a round of applause for their even agreeing to be here altogether. [applause] spent i hope there are a lot of pictures taken, because this is the past, present and future of the movement. so i'd like to first call on mary frances berry to talk about the 14th amendment issues. you don't want to go first? okay. >> i can do whatever. [applause]

>> all right, thank you very much for coming. and i am honored to be on this panel with such distinguished group of people. sad from the exit is in in which i've been engaged all my life, i am a historian. and a lawyer. and i believe in the importance of history. in terms of trying to forget what to do right now. and it's not because i think i would've happened before is exactly like what's happening now, but i don't think you can figure out what's going on now if you don't know any history. and you can't figure out what to do. i said that to someone this morning who asked me, that they said they were puzzled by the reaction from some of my neighbors. i live in an integrated community, to the election here

in washington the day before yesterday. and i said, well, why are you puzzled? the history of cities, you read about the history of cities, and any of you who come from another city, you want to think about this, another big city, that people who had money and were wealthy, lived in the city's first because it was convenient. then he moved to the suburbs with the cardigan black people fall, middle-class black people fall to the suburbs. now that is not convenient. they want to move back to the city. and they are. which means that there are certain things that are required to happen for them to be able to move in and have what they like to have, whatever it is, in the city. well, if you understand that and understand how that process goes, you're not surprised by anything that happens. anyway, let it get to the 14th amendment that i think the most important thing about the 14th amendment, historically, and i just thought of this theme last night, thought about yesterday

in my seminar that i teach. and i thought about it last night and this morning. that when mr. justice miller wrote the opinion in the first supreme court case on the 14th amendment called slaughterhouse cases, we are always quoting, and black people quote, and i quote them a lot, the part where he says that the one pervading purpose of these amendments was to correct the history had taken place right before that with black people being insulated and then freed, and then finally made citizens of the united states. and to do with trying to have equal protection, due process and the like, african-americans, negroes as he called them, negroes, under the constitution, and that was what the 14th minute and the other amendments were about. and i used to say that all the time comes they love that one pervading purpose wind. now i have decided that the most

important language was not that. it was the part where he said it doesn't mean that the negro is the only one who can use this amendment. the fact that it was the one pervading purpose, because since the 14th amendment was put on the books, it has been used positively by people who are not negroes, more than by negroes. and, in fact, it has been used to suppress the rights of african-americans. if you look at the whole span of history, since the 14th amendment, as often, or more, that it was used to do otherwise. that's just the reality of it. what does that tell us? it tells us that figuring out why something was passed, or why or why it was added to the constitution doesn't help you. you've got to know what happened after that, and then you've got to get some way to use it for you, even if it was designed to be used mainly for you in the beginning. now, what i mean when it has

been used against you, usually in history courses we talk about after, the reaction that took place is african-americans after civil war and reconstruction. and how corporations use the 14th amendment to get their way and to be protected from government regulation and how blogs lost cases going all the way through let me come all the way through, you know the cases, plessy and all the rest of them. and we finally get to brown. we say glory hallelujah. now they decided something for us. the 14th amendment. i encourage you to you that since brad was decided, and after a case that was decided in the early 20th century, incorporating passionate incorporate the rest of the bill of rights into the 14th amendment has been the source of more litigation and more cases and more protection for people, not that some of the issues that were involved didn't protect african-americans, too, but it didn't have anything to do with

black people really. in fact, the whole agenda of the aclu, from which laura works, the entire edge and wouldn't exist. well, your first amendment cases against the federal government would, but all those cases out there in the states where violations of civil liberties take place, and all the affiliates, all across the country and all the naacp chapters in all those people around, but all the organizations, the lgbt issues, human rights campaign fund and all those organizations, all other cases, all of the rest of the cases that you hear about, none of them would have existed without the 14th amendment and in corporation, and definitions of 14th amendment, none of which any to do with black people. when justice harlan who wrote the dissent in plessy, and i will stop in a minute, died in black people crowded into his funeral. as well they should have. that's the history of it. and cry because he has dissented

when plessy turned its back on blacks. another thing that has happened is that the lawyers, like bill coleman, and the litigators, and charlie houston and all the rest of them, and the civil rights lawyers who tried to use the 14th amendment to increase opportunity and equal justice for african-americans, and were successful in many instances, are under attack in the history profession by some historians. not kidding, he's not one of them. i do know, are you one of them? no. whose claim that they didn't do the right thing. they never should have brought brown in the first place because it was all about education and teachers, it didn't help working-class folks which we know is not to because we know about policemen and firemen, and, you know, all of it. and we also know that the use of the best legal strategy they could come up with that would win at the time. and that legal strategy is about

coming up with what you think would win. at the time that you're using it and what your constituents want. keeping all that in mind to become to today. we have a lot of people talking about using the 14th amendment for things. there's this debate about birthright citizenship, the first section of the 14th amendment be somehow modified because i'm document or a illegal workers, people, come into the country, or somebody said to him as some right wing person, by the scum and have babies or something, and they become citizens and we want to outlaw that. so they are talking about, you know, can we change the 14th amendment. even though the 14th amendment has had the limited, limited ability to help the situation of african-americans, compared to all these other issues, it still is important and is the bedrock of any possible opportunity that

anybody, all the statutes that we use, civil rights statutes and the like, are based upon it. so whatever the passionate people start talking about opening the 14th amendment, debate on the floor, that would just be like saying let's open up the 13th amendment, and whenever in lisa's that, i say i might go home and be a slave after that because by the time they finish with a you never know what they would do. so it is as important as it was at the time, but i just thought that a few words of history might make you understand some of the things that are going on now, and that it is relevant and be able to figure out what to do next. thank you very much. [applause] >> the reason i called a mary frances berry first is because she's a historian and because she puts things in a historical context and what i'm going to do with the rest of the panel is go a little friendly on the that i'm going to pose to you a series of questions come at so we won't have a preliminary

opening statements. but one footnote, to footnotes that i want to put on white mary frances berry said. number one, she is right that the 14th amendment is under discussion. there will be hearings in the next congress, at least in the senate, may be in the house, probably not as mr. conyers has anything to do with it, but there will be hearings and this will be an opportunity for a history lesson that a lot of african-americans, the nation needs. and so why is a 14th minute so relevant to this panel? it's because the people want to open it up, want to deny citizenship to immigrant children who are born within the united states because immigration is a huge issue. but just to put a second note of what mary frances berry said. there was a debate in congress during the creation of the 14th amendment. the framers intended the a minute to resolve not only the status of african-americans and their descendents, but members of other alien groups as well.

this reflected the exchange between senator trumbull supports a 14th minute and the civil rights act, and senator cowan, a strong opponent of both. senator talent expressed his reluctance to amend the constitution in such a way as would tie the hands of the specific state so as to prevent them from later, mary frances, later giving with the chinese as in their wisdom to see if it. the supporters of the citizenship clause responded by confirming their intent to constitutionalize the u.s. citizenship of children born into the united states to alien parents. senator talent, i really desire to have a legal definition of citizenship of the united states. what does it mean? is the child of chinese immigrants in california citizen? is the child of a gypsy boy in pennsylvania a citizen? senator cardin, the proposition before us relate to the children begotten of chinese parents in california and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. we have declared that by law now

it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. i am in favor of doing so, and he was also in favor of doing so for african-americans. so i want to give you a piece of history because the immigration issue did come up during the discussion of the 14th minute, although it was largely designed to deal with the problem of rights of african-americans. but secretary cohen, in your litigation career in civil rights, doing the warren court it was my understanding that you had much more latitude to declare things more of a 14th amendment violation, because you did not have to prove during that era so much intentional discrimination that you could show the effects of discrimination and the court in the years afterwards have narrowed our ability to use the 14th amendment effectively. can you tell us a little about

the effect is to the effective use of the 14th minute in any case as you work with? >> i always take the vantage -- i always had the advantage that there was a gentleman named thurgood marshall who led the team. also a guy named no hasty, and one named charlie houston, and i would think that those three had a lot to do with the result that we came about. frankly, i thought that the 14th amendment really applied and meant that there after people who had been slaves before were american citizens, had all the rights of american citizens, that you couldn't coud discriminate against them based upon race. i actually wanted are you, not in the court wants, but any meeting of the cabinet when president ford, when boston

wanted to say that it didn't have to bus children of color to where they could get an education, and the best school, integrated schools, rather than in roxbury. and so i, you know, we were successful. i, you know, really, i really did know but i was supposed do today. i guess i just supposed to show up. [laughter] >> so you have to suffer. but you've got to know all the cases. i think that everyone here, mr. justice breyer published about four days ago, where he says how do you handle issues under the constitution which will take care of the fact that we are a modern nation now. and i think it is worthwhile reading, because if you read that, you all should admire

justice thomas in the case in chicago where he finally said what the second amendment really meant, which meant that blacks could have guns and keep all the white people from taking them out of the house. one other instance, the plessy v. ferguson case, person of color, although he looked white, i was always amazed of the fact that anybody in his family was white except for one person. but he really looked white. and he tried to get on the train in new orleans to come north. and they said no, he couldn't because he was colored. and that the 14th amendment didn't cover that your about him team years later i took a course from the harvard law school, and the issue was a new statute

which a lot of the states were saying that when a freight railroad went through its stake him it had to have certain safety commission, safety provision, which meant that every railroad had to stop and do it. and this had nothing to do with race, but the end of it, you know, this case might well be applicable in race matters, as you probably could use it. fortunately, that we go the next week, who should be up there at harvard but charlie houston and bill hasty. and i told him about this argument, then he had a case in the fourth circuit and that's what they did. they had sense enough not to get on the train in washington. but they got on the train in new york. so, therefore, from new york they could ride discrimination and they said you can't change it now if you go further south.

so really, it would've required a great imagination and, you know, you have the court now, new challenges and i think you just have to work with it. i hope we can talk about something other than just my feeling that we reached a new challenge and we had a great american citizen and we have to apply that and get the opportunity to have the jobs where you can make a difference. >> thank you. mr. mack and mayor, dean schmoke, you all are legal lions in our community. mr. mack, how would you frame the modern-day 14th amendment and its usefulness to pursuing a quality in the united states?

>> i think that at fort hood everything is at play. as you mentioned earlier, there's a debate now about whether or not the 14th minute is what it appears to say is that all persons born in ashland and the that state is subject to the jurisdiction thereof and our citizens. there's a debate about whether or not being bored make you a citizen. it's surprising that that is on the table. civil rights lawyers actually civil rights lawyers in the era before brown actually encountered that same issue. in 1943. there's a case called reagan versus king in california, had to give with a challenge to japanese voters in san francisco. and the ability to vote for

japanese citizens, children of citizens who live in the united states, was challenged in courts, went up to the ninth circuit. the contention was that the 14th amendment did not extend to all of those who were born here. and i'm proud to say that one of the lawyers who filed an amicus brief in that case was a gentleman named laura miller, a black lawyer in los angeles, and was a civil rights lawyer at this time. but still the question remains open. ..

>> the question is what does that mean? a lot of people have contended is that congress didn't intend to make the children of illegal aliens citizens. i should point out that congress actual knew that many illegal aliens lived -- >> we are going to need you to speak louder because of the room. >> i should point that out congress, in fact, knew that illegal aliens existed at the time they drafted the statute. in 1862, congress passed another statute that criminalized people who brought china laborers here. they knew illegal aliens existed when it passed the 14th amendment, it appreciated that fact, and it framed an amendment that appears to apply to them.

that's not a -- that's not an issue. i think that's an issue that if -- i can't speak for people like thurgood marshall, people in the room knew him, if he and others were here today, they would be quite surprised it's still open. >> that we are revisiting this. >> yes. >> before you speak, i want the audience to know that william hasty's daughter is here. it's a family tradition. mayor? >> speaking of icons, i wanted to do a promotion. we had the the howard law school separated the 20th anniversary of the law school. we put together this book on legacy of defending the constitution. it's essentially a history of not only the arguments around the 14th amendment and making it

a living, breathing document, but some of the individuals including judge hasty who was a former dean of the law school, and charles hamilton houston, and many others that we have mentioned. i want to also pay tribute to congressman conyers and congressman scott for the work that they've done. [applause] >> it's been just tremendous. i thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> there is a little provision in the 14th amendment that ms. murphy referenced about framing the arguments of one little section in the -- section two, i believe, the 14th amendment it seems to recognize the rights of state to disenfranchise people who are engaged in rebellion against the country, and it said or other crimes.

that little provision of or other crimes have been read by many to support the disenfranchisement laws that we have in the states. and i know that congress, and people in the black caucus in particular, has been leaders in trying to over turn some of those laws. but again just to let you know how these various provisions in our constitution are before us and cause a challenges even today. this happens to be -- this is the 17th, i believe, today's constitution and citizenship day. and so i wanted to also encourage you to read the little constitution. you can get this one from the constitution center. i get several copies every year for my classes. but it's worth the reading because it is important to note. i simply wanted to emphasize the

importance of the institutions and the individuals who were involved in these fights. and it is very important, i believe, to understand the history. professor mary frances barry has written some wonderful books. one you didn't mention was reparations. and my face is black, it's true. it's a wonderful book. one the things that i remember most about that book, it reveals the work of a guy named edmond petus. people say i know that name from somewhere. where is that name that i know? those of you who follow the career of john lewis and the civil rights movement remember walking over a bridge called the edmond petus bridge. we think of that symbol really as something that was kind of a

horrible moment in the history of black people and in the history of the country. then i read mary frances barry's book, i found the old senator was a leader in trying to get reparations in the 19th century. for reasons that were not the most uplifting. the bottom line was that after the civil war and during the whole reconstruction here, he figured a good way of getting money to banks controlled by whites in the south was by having the federal government give reparations to blacks who would then have to bank them in his constituents bank. that was quite an interesting insight into history. so history, i think, is important. but also understanding these provisions of the constitution and recognizing that you had some tremendous giants who fought to make the 14th amendment real viable for us.

and these challenges tonight as professor mack said, they continue today even though they are in a slightly different form. >> can i make one comment? >> sure. one second. i want to say we've been joined by the esteemed journalist and writer juan williams who is a news commentator, 21-year veteran of the "washington post." yes, mary frances berry, then i want to go to michelle. >> i wanted to say i was telling michelle when i first started doing the caucus judiciary things, john conyers used to sit up here when he was on the other committees too. even though somebody was moderating, he would end up moderating the whole thing. i'm not used to john not moderating, and congressman scott too. anyway, since the dean told you about the history of howard

university, i want to tell you that i do have a new book coming out this year in october. it's called "power and words" it's the back stories behind all of obama's speeches for the first time he ran for the state senate based on interviews with his speech writers, staffers, exchanging with him and why they did everything that they did. you may find it interesting. it's coming out in october. what i wanted to say, i do not believe dean, unless it was ken that said it, that thurgood would have been surprised by somebody trying to use the 14th amendment for whatever they try to use it for today. i mean i don't think -- i think they had an awareness. people use constitutional amendments and law for whatever they can. i didn't know bill hasty, i did know thurgood. not as well as some of you. i don't think he would have surprised. it's one the things. life goes. doesn't mean only a negro can

use it. everybody can use it. subject to the jurisdiction thereof, we may think that the whole story is clear. but depending on what the supreme court, who's on it, okay, and there's some guys on it now that i haven't, you know, think would be -- i don't know what they'll do. anyway, including clarence. but subject to the jurisdiction thereof. there's the 1608 case called, you know, kalvin's case, about the issue of citizenship. which they used in the debates too. owe allegiance too, the words some people think mean the same thing as subject to the jurisdiction thereof. they are going to have to decide when the case gets to supreme court whether undocumented people or aliens who are the united states are subject to the jurisdiction of the united states or allegiance to. i would think they would decide

yes, based on some cases decided in the '50s. but i don't know that. and i want not operate on the assumption they are going to do anything. i'd just get as prepared as i could get. >> we are getting prepared. michelle? >> can you bring us fast forward to the state of the new jim crow with regard to the criminal justice system and it's relationship to these discussions about what we thought was an underlying support system in the form of the 14th amendment? >> yes, well, -- >> bring your mike closer please. >> the full title of my book "the new jim crow: mass incarceration in the age of color blindness." the title is meant to be provocative. most people in the era of so-called era of color blindness don't believe that the racial

calf system exists in the united states. i argue that, in fact, there is a system that funks much like calved system that we supposedly left behind. the mass incarceration of poor people of color in the united states operates as a system of racial control that manages to relegate millions of poor people of color to a permanent second class status by law and custom. now the 14th amendment clearly intended to eradicate racial cast in america. the 14th amendment didn't manage to have prevent the rise of jim crow, and it hasn't managed to prevent the emergence of mass incarceration in the united states either. most people that are prison population in the united states has quintupled.

due to crime rates. we've gone from a prison population of 300,000 to more than 2 million in a few short decades due to crime rates. it's not true. it's not true. nearly all sociologist and crimologist today will acknowledge that crime rates and cars ration rates have move independently of one another. regardless of whether crime is going up or down or the nation as a whole, the incarceration rates has soared. today crime rates are at historical lows. incarceration rates are at all times high. crime rates and incarceration rates have relatively little to do with one another. the mass incarceration of poor people of color in the united states has been the result of a war. a get tough movement and a war on drugs that has been declared on poor communities of color.

even though studies have consistently shown now for decades that contrary to popular belief, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites. but the drug war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color and law enforcement with the supreme courts blessing, has gone about stopping and searching millions of, you know, young people of color, sweeping them into the system for primarily the same types of crimes that go ignored on college campuses and university and middle class predominantly white communities. now the 14th amendment could have been had something to say about this. many people ask me, you know, if the bias and the criminal justice system is as bad as you say it is, why aren't there more lawsuits filed? why don't you bring a class action suits, challenging racial

profiling by the police, prosecutors, judges, why don't you buy a lawsuit. dun the 14th amendment guarantee equal protection of the laws? well, the problem is most people don't realize that the u.s. supreme court has held in a series of cases mccleskey versus kemp, no matter how severe the racial disparities might be, unless you can produce evidence of conscious bias, about to an admission, the kind of evidence that's nearly impossible to come by today when virtually everybody knows not to say the reason i stopped him is because he was black. the reason that i gave him the death sentence is because he was black. law enforcement and public as a whole has been trained not to reveal. and many times, law enforcement folks and rest of us hold unconscious biases they couldn't

articulate if they tried. the u.s. supreme court has closed the courthouse doors to racial bias at any every from stops and searches to plea bargaining and sensing. the criminal justice system is essentially off limits to judicial scrutiny for racial bias, of in the same way that slavery and jim crow were once protected by the supreme court in their day. so we have got to, i agree with all of the members of this panel, that we have got to protect the 14th amendment. but we've also got to breathe new life into it. and as we've seen throughout the course of history how the supreme court interprets the 14th amendment has everything to do with the political context of that time. so we have got to create a political environment in which the members of the u.s. supreme court and the federal judiciary feel they have no choice but to

acknowledge that equal treatment under the law means not that you've managed to find someone who's admitted to racial bias, but that everyone is in fact in reality treated by law enforcement, treated by all of our institutions and agencies on equal terms no matter what they race or color. >> but michelle, here's the thing, if the courthouse door is closed, we work for 17 years to get equality in treatment of users of crack cocaine versus users of powder cocaine. 17 years we brought examples of horror stories, grandmothers, people with no criminal record getting 10, 15, 20 years terms. we brought that to the congress repeatedly. mr. conyers and scott were huge champions getting the legislation that's true to president obama's desk. but it was so disappointing.

because other than a band of advocates and a few leaders from around the country and a few families victims, we've had a problem in the african-american community in particular getting them to talk about crime and drug policy with the vigor that we need as if it were brown versus board of education. because it is a civil rights crisis. it is the new jim crow. so if the courthouse door is slammed in our face and congress won't even make one to one the standard, they made 18 to one instead of 100 to one the standard between powder and crack sentencing, what are we going to do -- where are our options? where does the movement come from? because that very same movement needs to be informed that they also will have to defend the 14th amendment? >> well, you are absolutely right. i think we've made the mistake too often of just expecting, you

know, our elected officials and our policymakers to kind of do this work for us. you know, this change isn't going to trickle down from the top. it has got to come from the bottom up. and that's, you know, in large part why i wrote the book. i acknowledge in the introduction there was a time that i thought comparisons between mass incarceration and jim crow, or mass incarcerations and slavery were gross exaggerations. i thought people who made those kinds of comparisons were doing more harm than good for the work of racial justice advocates like myself. so i think a -- an awakening is required. a period of consciousness, and movement building has to -- consciousness raising and movement building work has to take place. nothing short of a major social movement is going to end mass incarceration in the united states. if we were to go back to the race of incarceration that we had in the 1970s, you know, a

time when civil rights activists thought they were high. if we were to go back to the battle days, 1970s, we'd have to release four out of five people in prison today. more than a million people employed by the criminal justice system would lose their jobs. you know, prisons, you know, located in predominantly white rule communities that are now providing economic base for many communities would close. you know, if we were talking about ending the cast like system that we have in the united states today, it's going to take much more than kind of the tinkering with, you know, a handful of laws by courageous lawmakers. it's going to require an awakening within the communities most infected by mass incarceration. much like during the jim crow era. where many african-americans shrugged their shoulder.

this is the way it is. we have too many people that shrug their shoulders say this is a shame. we need that kind of awakening and movement building in order to change to political climate and create the public consensus that's right for the kind of law making that has to occur. >> thanks. >> just for a moment. i wanted to go back to something that secretary coleman said about -- i absolutely agree that everything that professor alexander commented on. you know, i spent a fair am of time when i was mayor trying to change drug policy to more humane. >> and got skewered and would not retreat. >> let me say, the one thing that i learned from my experience though in dealing with trying to make sure that people believe that the war on drugs should be a public health war, rather than a criminal justice war was that when you go

before voters and explain the actual impacts, and give alternatives, the people often -- even if they disagree, they will respect you. you know, i was re-elected twice after being skewered by folks for saying that we should, you know, move towards a more public health model. but, you know, i want to get -- we can talk about that a little bit more. i wanted to emphasis something that secretary talked about earlier, regarding the 14th amendment. and he talked about the fact that marshall and hasty, and bob carter, and judge carter and others picked a strategy. they had to have a theory of the case in order to move things forward. right now we are seeing various organizations particularly right wing-funded groups use the same strategies that marshall and hasty, and others did.

to try to have actually reduce the rights that had been granted. we are watching a tax on the voting rights act. where organizations are picking the cases, picking the jurisdictions, coming up with unique theories out of the -- again trying to use the 14th amendment to roll back the provisions of the voting rights act. and they are doing it small jurisdiction by small jurisdiction. so we've seen this before. so we have to be prepared, recognizing that we had for a number of years, 50 years or so, an expansion of the definition of rights under the 14th amendment. now there are others trying to shrink those rights using the strategies that we've seen before. so i just hope that we can continue to do what our former dean charlie houston, he once said to a group of students at

howard law school, he said a lawyer is either a social engineer or a parasite on society. we need more social engineers to stand up with the -- under the banner of the 14th amendment fighting for these issues and the types of matters they were talking about. >> i want to ask juan williams, you've written the biography of thurgood marshall, his name has been invoked repeatically. -- repeatedly. you have a tremendous attorney general and a tremendous president now, but they can't do everything. eric holder is not getting nearly enough credit for how he has revitalized, completely revitalized, added 100 new positions to the civil rights division, how many fair lending cases, how many employment discrimination cases he's brought, and how repeatedly

throughout his testimony on criminal justice issues, he's said we've got to repeal the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. so the aclu is honoring eric holder on the work of that issues. we have disagreements on guantanamo and other issues. but juan williams, you are seeing these black leaders move and navigate through a very hostile, political environment. and so when i look at you, i kind of want to ask, what would thurgood do? ho do -- how do you think he would advise the leaders to not only of restrengthen the 14th amendment, but to make civil rights more a reality and avoid the segregation that michelle alexander is talking about. >> i'm sorry i missed mr. coleman's statements. i'm taken by the idea that

justice marshall, when i was looking with men like bill coleman, was quite the pragmatist. he was hard nosed about the political realities of the day and a great believer in the law. he was not a political animal, but very much aware that politics influenced the law, influenced judges, juries, members of the legislature. but he was always about exactly how you debt -- get something done so it was written into law. it was something that the legislature could approve and the courts could deal with as a permanent part of the -- well, political, but more important the legal structure of the country. it's why he was not in the forefront of any great marchs. he was always one who believed if you wanted to create change, be is in education, housing, elsewhere, what you want to do is get it put into law.

to that extent, i by the way can't speak highly enough of what mr. holder has -- i know you have what he has done. if you look for example what he's done on the case with louisiana, people coming across the bridge, despite the concerns they are being expressed in the civil rights position over the new black panther case. think what you are seeing is a revitalization of the justice department as an enforcer of civil rights law in the country and moving away from the theory that you really have to look for of individuals as opposed to classes of people, race as a consideration, in the treatment of americans.

what would justice marshall do? i think lawyer marshall would have been looking for ways to get into court and appeal the 14th amendment. on this basis, people are having their rights violated. >> i hope i gave the attorney general appropriate props. >> no, no, i know too much about how active you are. [laughter] >> professor mack. >> yeah, on the question of half marshall would be doing, i think juan williams was right. he was a pragmatist. he knew how to get into court. he was also an organizer. and a book i'd recommend is by patricia sullivan, called "lift every voice." it's the complete history of the naacp up until the 1960s, published last year. one the points she makes in the book is that marshall traveled a lot. he would travel 25,000 miles in one year. he was often not in the national

office. he was out speaking to communities, organizing, getting them behind the cases, and he was organizing them to resist jim crow. and we think about lawyers we tend to think about them as not being organizers and it turns out that thurgood marshall, who was a super lawyer was also super organizer. and when i think about where is the grassroots organizational, improvisational energy today? it's in folks who are -- let me say -- not at all put off by what michelle alexander has described. and one of the things i think he would say to us today, we need to get organized. we got to organize to get an african-american-elected president and we need to get organized again. >> i want to say that everybody

agrees with everybody else says. i agree. not only was thurgood an organizer, so was charlie houston. any good lawyer who is litigating cases of this types knows the importance of organizing and getting the people behind it and the importance of public opinion and everything else in the case. you can't organize without reading the details about how he organized the public to get people interested in an issue and also to promote and pack up the litigation while he was doing it. what i really wanted to say was as for the book and the work that you do on incarceration, it is my impression that from traveling around and talking to people and reading books and articles and teaching this tough for years, a lot of african-americans especially those of us who have -- call ourselves middle class and educated still believe -- don't

believe that most of the people who are in jail are there for -- shouldn't be there. they don't understand that most of it is about the drug problems. now and in some way connected to it. and that the racial profiling and all of the other issues are important enough. it's not that anyone is making excuses for anybody going to jail. that's not the point. if you don't understand the context and how this comes about, then, you know, that the people of profiled in terms of getting even arrested for a drug offense in the first place and the social and economic circumstances and the neighborhoods in which they live and the things and options that they have get people caught up in it. we know this visorly. but when it comes to try to organize people or legalizing

drugs. when they were trying to do something about making drugs a matter of social policy rather than a matter of criminalization, as he said, he was skewered. when what was the name of the woman that was surgeon general, joslyn elders. she and i were in the green room. i said when you go out there, why don't you suggest to people that legalization of the drugs ought to be studied. and she said are you sure i ought to do that? i said you and i agree it ought to be studied. make sure you don't say legalized, just that it should be studied. so we agreed that she should say that. she went out there and said that, all hell broke lose. i kept saying, study, anybody is willing to study. and the study part never got, you know, that and whether she believed in condoms in the schools, you know, she had, you know, kicked out. that's all right.

she's better off. in any case -- in any case, i just think a lot of us in the african-american community jumped on the bandwagon in opposition to the legalization even though the impacts of members of this august body of the house of representatives and of the congressional black caucus jumped up and down and screamed and yells about not doing it. when we first started talking about changing the penalties for crack and powder, differentials, they were against that. they bought into the argument that our crime problem, which came mainly from the right and promoted by some figures who's names i won't mention was that all of our major problem is black on black crime. remember that? black on black crime. and while there is black on black crime, what it did was made us not see this whole picture that she's talking about. and the impact

intergenerationally. i know families, i don't know about you, where grandmothers are taking care of kids because the mother and the father both in jail. they got hung up on some drug thing, deal. and we all know about the money going out to the prisons out there instead of staying back in the neighborhood. we finally know about all of that. i think we need to educate ourselves better so understand that you can be against black on black crime and you can be against high incarceration rates and getting people in the drug thing and making sure that people have jobs. when they don't have jobs, it may not have anything to do with crime rates directly, but more people are caught up into the drug selling, drug dealing all the rest of that. so i just wanted to point out that we sometimes are our own worst enemies when it comes to the issues. >> secretary coleman, you reached for the microphone. >> i want to make an observation. which probably will get me kicked out of the room. this country from it's beginning

had depended upon at least 50% of it people that made money and owned businesses. and if and when you have that, that's when you get more power to get political people to do things that you want them to do. and it really concerns me to the extent to which we talk about the other end of the problem. in a book that i've written, there's a footnote which says as of today there are hundred corporation listed on the new york stock exchange that have as their chief executive officer or their general counsel, a person of color. now i can speak about a lot of them. i know one of them finally came to me and said, bill, you are a lawyer, you will do everything from the annual meetings. i assure you, it made me very proper. but i really beg you to look at

the other end. the school system is lousy, and unless you do something to change it, our next generation is not going to be where it has to be. if it is there, it'll get the job. my luck was the day i entered the harvard law school, the guy that bumped into me sitting next to me was elliot richardson. we got to be good friends. when i finished harvard law school first in my class, no firm would give me a job. well, i got my first crack because elliot richardson's uncle called paul weiss and that's where i ended up. and i just think that you really -- you know, everybody else is push to shove that way. and i, you know, i've done it. and my three kids, two of them are lawyers and one of them is dean of the school of education at boston university. and i really beg you to look at

that part of the act. because that's, you know, it's amazing how much people like you if they think they have more power than they have. i really think those are the things that we ought to to -- at least as much as we are about the other issues. now when you talk about housing, i'm a republican, so i shouldn't say that. the reason why you have such a screwed up with housing is that no president starting with roosevelt would do anything about it. and so, therefore, it was the whites that went to the suburbs. they got the good mortgages and everything. and it only changed when bill clinton and george bush came along. they sent a lot of people that didn't have the money to pay. you got the banking problem now. but, you know, nobody says that. but that's why uv a banking problem. because of what those people did. i was lucky because in 1952, i

was married to my wife and dwight eisenhower was running for president. and my father-in-law, dr. harden was a republican delegation to the national convention from louisiana. and he and john minowisdom led the delegation from taft to eisenhower. after that, eisenhower would take my calls. i beg you, you have so much power and ability. you got to know how to make a difference. i, you know, the other day, a gentleman came into me from the arabian country and said, you know, saudi arabia that 99% of the oil is owned by six families. they are very angry because people that used to do the

investment haven't done well. they want to get somebody new. if i can pull that off, i don't have to come to the god damn meetings anymore. [laughter] >> i'm serious. look at the people. are you board of chase? chase now has an american charge account. every month they bug me. but i stay with american express. i think it's running a good company. i just really get looking at the company, what are they doing and get people at the top. i think that'll make a lot of difference. i realize i shouldn't have said this. >> you can say anyone that you want. you have earned that right. key -- kennan, i want to ask you to bring us back to the 14th amendment. this is a great discussion. what you have is a group of great minds here. what you are going to be responsible for doing where democrats are in the majority or minority, is compiling a record

to make the case not to amendment the constitution. what do you need? what do you need from these people? and they don't have to give it to you today. but what would you have dean schmoke tell his students? mr. mack, what witnesses do you need? >> well, i stood and walked back to congressman conyers and congressman scott. this is a making of an excellent hearing. i'm glad that so many people have been able to come in and hear this and understand what the challenge that we face right now. one of the opening comments was that most people don't understand the fact that the 14*9 -- 14th amendment is the

bedrock of our discrimination laws. the channels that we faced from the current make up of supreme court in the changes and interpretations of the 14th amendment. when you then put the the layerr immigration and it's relationship to the 14th amendment, then you add a level of flexibility and political volatility that if we have certain kinds of changes in the country are going to put members of congress under a great deal of pressure. and the difficulty that we face is that most people don't have a good understanding of our constitution. it's difficult to engage the public in many ways in many kind of dialogue. we have a great group of lawyers here today. we start talking about cases and history. for a lot of us, this is really exciting. it's great for me.

the question then becomes how do we make this accessible to members of the public so that they understand really what's going on in our political sphere and understand what people are trying to to to their constitution? i think really the thing that i like about the work that, for example, that michelle alexander has done, is that in our prior panel, we had someone stand up and say you got to read this book by michelle alexander. not knowing that he was about three people away from michelle. the importance of that, she's now taking an issue like this and is making it accessible to members of the general public. i think that's really a lot of what we need to do. the work that mr. williams has done. historically, around the civil rights movement. one the things that you started off doing law is connecting up the immigration debate to the 14th amendment and showing the breath on the importance of the 14th amendment not just to

african-americans as former slaves, but to everyone in this country. and we need to figure out how to take this dialogue and part of this dialogue and make it accessible to the public. when we have or if we have a reading in the constitution subcommittee hearing on this, we need to be able to reduce this to a level that people understand in their day to day lives. that's really part of what we're talking about. that's why the books withing that's why the research is so important to us. okay. kennan, here's what we need to do. we need to ask these law school professors to notified by you when the hearings come up to send their students to pack the hearing room. it's an enormous effect when the hearing rooms fill up and they look like this. mr. conyers, mr. scott? [applause] >> what happens is these debates

take place at 1:00 in the middle of the workweek isn't the afternoon or 10 a.m. in the morning, and nobody is there. some of us nerds will watch it later on c-span. but we need to pack the hearing room. so that's number one. you need to tell us kennan, when this is going to happen. number two, there's no real limit -- maybe the rules have changed somewhere in the judiciary committee and i'm not aware of them. we need all of the panelist to put their name on testimony to be submitted for the record. right, mr. conniers? -- mr. conyers? we need to back scholars to rally and help make any discussion about amending the 14th amendment to weaken it radioactive and make the discussion about improving the 14eth -- 14th amendment and talk about how the courts have weaken the real intention of the

framers of the 14th amendment. we need to pack the hearing room. we need to get people together to put testimony that mr. coleman can sign his name. it's just like we do in the supreme court. we needs friends of the court briefs. we needs friend of john conyer's, you know, testimony. the other things that we need do, we need to make sure that people are made aware that the 14th amendment is under assault. that means the bill of rights is under assault. if they will go there, they will go to the 4th, and maybe 13th. not likely, but they will go to other amendments. they certainly have repeatedly tried to pass amendments to circumscribe the first amendment. whatever you can tell us to do, this is the dream team. and so i want to now open up questions from the audience of -- for the panelists. do we have a microphone? if not, -- if you say it, i'll

repeat it. yes. no microphone. okay. >> i'm the exec tiff director in the united states color troops to celebrate those of us who served in the civil war and ancestors. i'm also chair of the d.c. dream for college task force. i'm pending u.s. court of appeals gordon versus biden, it started off a gordon versus cheney to enforce the second section of the 14th amendment. it is targeted towards five farmer -- five former confederate states, georgia, louisiana, tennessee, arkansas, and texas. it is simple, these states award their presidential electors on a

winner take all basis. but there's no winner take all state statute. so my self-action says in those states without a winner take all stature, without you to be second section of the 14th amendment, title ii, usc section 6 reduction of the clause, you must apportion your presidential electors on, you know, proportional basis. now my question is this: will the black caucus consider, i'm playing the dirty cop. i'm saying that you are going to have to lose representation and argue original intent of the framers of the second section 14th amendment in plain text which has been reduced.

that's a mandate. there's no option. i'm playing the bad cop. if you do not accord these presidential elector, allocate them, when there's no winner take all statute in those states, you must reduce the representation. i'm asking the black caucus. you played the good cop. according to the supreme court rulings that we already have baker versus carl, williams versus sim, every should count given the equal rate. >> wait. i want to make sure that people are allowed to answer your question. so i need the tight question for one of the panelist. i'm going to ask dean schmoke to respond. >> all right. i'm just asking -- >> in closing. >> in closing, in those southern states where there's no winner take all statute where the black caucus consider contacting their presidential electors in those states and say you should vote and insist on voting the

percentage of your vote? if you do that, obama and the next election you will have 30 presidential electors of the democratic vote as opposed to zero to 75. >> i think we have the gist. the question was really directed forward mr. conyers and mr. scott, i'll let mr. schmoke comment. then we're going to go to another question. then we'll let the members of congress have a few closing remarks. >> i'm sorry. mayor berry, thank you for your writings. i want to say that. >> because i can't speak for the caucus, i would like if you have your suit, a draft of the electronically, i'd love to see it. we have a civil rights law clinic and see if that's the type of matter that we could give you some support on. >> thank you. yes. >>my name is quasi.

i've been pushing the issue about addressing coon hunting. what people call racial profiling. the issue about 14th amendment. i have a different take. i'd like the panel to respond. when we are enslaved, we weren't looking to become citizens, we were looking to become free, liberated. and after the war, they enacted the 14th amendment. they didn't consult with us. it says that it makes a citizens and says we are entitled to certain rights and privileges. then we had the black colds and all of that other stuff. we are dealing with that. the 14th amendment says we are citizen. that's a violation of our human rights. oh, you are a citizen now. you know, but you'll be prime star of the stuff because you are not going to be subject to our authority. that sounds like slavery in continuation. >> what's the question?

>> the question is do you feel that the 14th amendment actually is a violation of our human right to self-determination? i mean, you know, -- >> okay. thank you. anybody want to take that? >> i think the 14th amendment is an enhancement of the right, a peace meal restoration of our rights. there were some people who wanted to be returned to africa. there were some people who did not want to become citizens. but most people wanted to be treated as human beings. and i think the 14th amendment was a very, very significant element in having african-americans treated as human beings and as citizens. it was never and no constitution and no element of the bill of rights is an end all, be all, to our basic duty as humanity. they are not self-enforcing.

we have to make sure the laws are enforcing. that's why the groups like naacp and aclu came together. >> i wanted to mention talking about people who were involved in the movement, there was a woman who graduated from the howard law school named pauley murray. he's an jut standing lawyer, and became an minister and writer, she was the cofounder to the national organization for woman. to your point, she suggested that we amend the constitution further and adopt the u.n. declaration of human rights as what she called the human rights amendments. so there are people that wouldn't say it's in conflict. but in order to make it clear this is about human rights generally, to adopt the u.n. declaration. that was her proposal. some people are thinking about along those lines. >> kennan -- i'm sorry.

go ahead. mr. mac. -- mack. >> in response, african-americans thoughts they were citizenned. they voted in many northern states, and voted in southern states until 1830. they exercised the right to citizenship. those rights were taken away. and in particular, the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was designed to over rule the -- tony's opinion in dred scott which said that no african-americans, free or slaved could be citizens of the united states. from the perspective of the black people in the 19th century, they believed they were st. s. they -- they were citizens. they voted, did everything that citizens had done. the 14th amendment stored what had been there before. >> mr. conyers, mr. conyers, mr.

conyers. >> john. >> well, he won't be available to close out this session, i guess. so, you know, reverend jackson rules all. [laughter] >> before we ask one of the members of congress if they can return, i would like to ask mary francis berry whether or not the human rights framework gives us any help in talking about these issues, especially the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination? >> right. that's an excellent point related to the question that was asked. human rights and civil rights in terms of how we define them are two different things. human rights is a broader concept. okay? and in human rights, you don't have questions like does it fit

under the 14th amendment? or does it fit under title vii. you asked about u.n. conventions, such as eliminating the race discrimination or discrimination against women. the united states is signatory to the convention. one the results that i have made on the civil rights position and having it gutted, we set up a united states commission on civil hand human rights. so that the human rights aspect, which is broader, can be taken into account and monitored in this country, including all of those u.n. conventions that we signatories to and haven't done anything about. if you want to work on poverty, for example, straight up, nobody says you can't do that because the constitution does not allow

poverty and it does say anything about class. it's a free -- we have capitalism. unless it fits under the 14th amendment, you know, you can't deal with that. student loans. you can't deal with that. that's economic. you know, so that i think that we should have a human rights approach. but that is not in conflict with which is going on with the 14th amendment. it's just as pauley murray said, it's a different approach. >> i would like to give the panelist any opportunity that they have for concludes observations. if there's something they had burning that we want to make sure we think about as we leave. michelle? >> the one thing that i would add is i think this debate about the 14th amendment creates an opportunity for african-americans and particularly the latino community to do better coalition building. it creates an opportunity for the african-american community

to say we are not going to allow to do to you what has been done to us in the past. which is to deny citizenship to your children and to your grandchildren. and we are going to stand with you in solidarity. and i think that, you know, as i describe before, i think, you know, organizing and movement building is absolutely critical right now to developing the kind of public consensus and support of equal treatment under the law. meaningful equal treatment under the law that's necessarily today. one the most important things that we can do is build better coalitions amongst poor people of all colors in the united states and working people of all colors in the united states and that this debate actually creates, you know, an important opportunity for us to open up that dialogue and begin that kind of joint organizing work. >> i would like to thank the congressional black caucus for continuing to convene these

kinds of workshops so that we have a chance to talk about important issues. i would like to thank the staff of -- charles ogletree. hold on one second, i'll take care of him kennan. the staff of the judiciary committee who is here besides you kennan. i want them to stand up. i want -- these people are some of the hardest working, most under paid people. [applause] [applause] >> dean schmoke. all right. we've just been joined by professor ogletree. we were about to close out and thank the panelist. thank you mary frances berry.

please give her applause. and we in the last three minutes of our session and by the way, you were brilliant at the center for american progress last night talking about your book about the beer summit and even further, much deeper issues. you get the last three minutes and then we're going to thank our panelist. >> wow. >> charles ogletree. >> i've been in session, i'm glad to be here before you close and see my great hero bill coleman. he has a people coming out, we are going to be hosting him in october. a remarkable book about his life in the last eight decades of the civil rights movement and other issues. i hope you'll get a chance to see it. and judge, i wanted to say something about him. i'm just happy to talk about the issues that are so front and

center that you have the great scholars and practitioners here. i've talked about the challenge in terms of civil rights. we've never been, ken is the historian, more enviable position. we have control of the congress, white house, you would think we have a movement that would address the issue of civil rights. but in reality we don't. :

health care limitations. every area we took for granted with citizenship is being forfeited any time of opportunity and a ton of resources, a time of celebration. and so, i was in a session two weeks ago in boston and they talked about the civil rights era, 1955 to 1968. they started much earlier than that. started with frederick douglass making noise about lavery. instead of at the civil rights movement dealing with the issue of jim crow aggregation. and so, the reality is much as we try to combine and tying it to you. or a time, the reality is people have been making noise about right and human rights in a very, very long time. karen, great, how are you? the final point is that if. my sense is that there needs to

be a new effort to talk about civil justice on a much broader context. i hear ron williams and see them on the air all the time trying to defend basic right who don't believe they don't exist. they shouldn't apply to everyone. once defending immodest position against people who have an extreme position -- they haven't read it. i mean, that's the scary thing. they haven't read her constitution. we don't pay attention, they will take some of the most fundamental rights we have. having settled that, let me end with this. one of the ironies here and i'm not asking you for your going to vote for. the irony is there's no support amongst african-americans. that's absolutely clear. it's not going down, but if you look for november 4, 2008 to september 17, 2010, what is striking about it is that he still has the same level of support for him, but in fact,

enron will tally at this and other people to panel that if you look at every other major election, virginia, new jersey, delaware yesterday, massachusetts, washington d.c., we support the president, but were not voting because the thumb on the ballot. it becomes interesting that he made has since been disenfranchised because we're just saying we're going to vote for him when he runs. he won't build about a few dozen of the congress and can accomplish some of those goals. this is a point of urgency. we have so little to show at this critical time. and so, my senses in terms of civil rights are absolute and unequivocal goal is to get out on the streets to talk to people about voting and tell them it is important because the people who died, bled and were tortured in jail because they stood up so we could vote and be citizens. and now, it's our turn -- time

to do the same thing. so my urging is very simple. we have to stand up and be counted and we have to talk to her neighbors and talked to are enemies, not just our friends about the fact that civic engagement is the key to all of this. but damon keith has done with the wonderful exhibit about the 14th amendment is the reminder of all the blood shed of the 13th and 14th amendment we can't take for granted. they don't mean as much in 2010 if it's in the 1800s, were all failures. it's time for us to say thank you for what you did to us. and believe me, we're going to stand and make sure we do it for you as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> and mr. scott, you came back into the room and if you are a member of the esteemed house judiciary and chairman of the crime subcommittee, is there anything you would like to say in closing?

and we should give them a round of applause for all of his work, especially our crack powder. the >> thank you, fred finally for a very exciting conversation and bringing out the important issues. one of the things that we keep dealing with on the federal level and congressional level in one of the things are the solutions to complex problems. we talked about the 14th amendment and defining citizenship. well, try to apply that to an 18-year-old, shy 18 euros now trying to register to vote. they have to prove not only their birth certificate, but their parents birth certificate. what are we going back to the grandfather clause and the grandparents are voters, i can't

prove the parentage of the citizenship of our parents. exactly how complicated is that going to get? to go into areas where there's a lot of immigrants, a lot of people would be essentially disenfranchised, the federal uplifted change took place. there's a lot of things that can get rolled to the back of people don't vote in this election. you have candidates running on the ideas they're going to repeal health care and they can do it. some say we have protection because obama would veto the bill. there a lot of things they can do if they have control of either the house or the senate. they can defund everything because you have to vote in house and the senate to fund the health care bill, the subsidies were purchased, the subsidies for preexisting conditions for the insurance. the administration has to be funded.

if it's not funny, the programs collapses. we have to get out to vote as professor ogletree mentioned, people have to wait till two years from now to be a lot to vote again. a lot of what we have been able to do in the last two years in terms of the lilly ledbetter, in terms of the americorps extension, in terms of the stimulus bill to try to save the jobs the last couple of weeks. all of the things we've been able to do, health care and other things we might be able to do will just be sabotaged if people don't get out and vote and elect people appeared when they start talking about repealing that, really it's a wake-up call because you've seen what has happened in last year's elections and the kind of people that are getting nominated on one side.

we need to get out and vote. anybody who thinks will have to be voted for these extreme people. to get back 30 years ago when all the democrats were just absolutely delighted for a sunbeam made it back there through is so conservative, no one would pay attention and we're just so delighted that he got nominated, we didn't know what to do. we have no idea he would serve eight years, and the supreme court to the point where a lot of the decisions we make today a result of some of the judges that he and the people after him appointed. so we have a lot of work to do. laura, thank you for leadership and for all of our panelists for an excellent discussion. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> nobody should be forced into education against their will. that's the presumption that frank lee originates from the dark ages. it will cost 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they're 18. and in a time of cuts, that ludicrous. education is not for everyone. and i appreciate, it has been said that this is not just include education, but training and apprenticeship as well. however, it must be said with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due to the cuts last week, it will be harder than ever to find these placements. the work connection stood to get young people into apprenticeship and training is invaluable and

will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support to young people, job opportunities will be lost in youth unemployment will rise. and these people would've found a job at fixing will be forced to stay in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the cursory. there is a point in my area. [laughter] his father is the owner of a local sweet shot. the boy helps out with his father and passed on for generations and generations have gone before. they turn 16, and could no longer work. under the motion that was taken before you today, he could not take this business on. are we really say we wish you see this family sweep shot, but other businesses sold out because 16th he has to be in education and is clearly not mature enough to run a business. nowadays, employers increasingly prefer to take on workers who have ample work experience needed to do the job.

so by writing the age to 18, you will have two years plus work experience compared to somebody of 16. for what? a few extra qualifications, not always relevant to your profession. when life experiences more valuable than anything, extending to the end of university, you will have six years less work experience in a graduate of the same age. eight to two-degree in klingon, a 40,000 pounds at and they're unemployed. how does keeping a young person out of the system for six years serve our crisis? the answer, it doesn't. [cheers and applause] >> you can see more from this british youth parliament debate, which also includes sex education in schools and the rising cost of university tuition fees. tonight at 8:00 eastern here on

c-span 2. >> at the congressional black caucus foundation's legislative congress, one session featured a group of young professionals including some from the obama administration who talked about building successful careers in politics. this event is just under two

hours. [inaudible conversations] >> i know you guys in the back or grabbing food, so if i could ask you to do it as quietly as possible will go ahead and start our program. let me thank you guys for getting up early after there was a lot of partying and celebrating last night. we will have the engaging discussion. and david jones, director of development for impact, and organization data to be connections between young professionals of color. i had the pleasure of introducing her and see for the evening, a dynamic and amazing young man, andrew gillum purity of the city commissioner in florida was done so many great things would take probably the duration of the panel to talk to each of them. one of them is a beautiful young lady sitting at the table here, but also responsible for leading a bunch of initiatives that work to improve work to improve the lives of color, people who look like you, come from our communities not in florida but across the nation.

be sure any given a welcoming round of applause to andrew gillum. [cheers and applause] >> good morning, everybody. come on come you guys set up early for this saturday morning session. good morning. fantastic, we're going to look at 10 this morning in turn make sure that this session serves the purpose of getting your questions answered to this very diverse, talented and very accomplished panel that impacts in the cbc have have assembled this morning for the purposes of this. first i want to give an impact for having the insight working diligently to make sure this program is brought to you to contribute to the cbcf every year. so let's give a round of applause. [applause] i'd also like to, before i continued this morning's presentation, bring up

dr. marjorie innocent, who happens to be the director of research and programs at the congressional black caucus foundation for some opening remarks. if you would all welcome her to the stage. [applause] >> thank you so much. good morning. okay, take three. good morning. there you go. how is everybody doing? you look alert. it's saturday, europe, you're here. that already says the law. thank you so much for joining us today and again a thank you to our colleagues at the congressional black caucus foundation and to impact for putting on the third annual roundtable for young elected officials, policy professionals and representatives of the obama administration. this event is part of the work that the foundation continues to do to develop leaders.

of course those are the words we are probably most known for at the foundation. in addition to the fellowship come internship and fellowship programs we have, the young people at the foundation in collaboration with impact and other young policy professionals in the city and throughout the country really have been very, very committed to bringing your voice, the voice of young people, young african-americans around the country to discussions around policy. both in terms of engaging you an understanding with some of the critical issues are, talking about what makes a difference to you and really helping to bring your voice on identifying solutions as well as building networking opportunities, building your own skills and really helping to launch the work that you all do. and so it's really out of that spirit that this event was born and i cannot begin to tell you enough how pleased i am to see how much it has grown.

whenever farmer collects the foundation, mr. cobb, who many of you have met said to me as i came here, i must've been a little silly this morning because i was actually at the prayer breakfast when i was literally got a tap on my shoulder. hi, we need to do, therefore the branch, for the roundtable. and i said really? really, now? you want me to do this now? chris might mean something to think is very important. when they align with impact first type about bringing this event to the annual legislative congress, there was some skepticism at the office on how well it would actually work, how well it would be received. i was pretty clear that if it was done well, that over time it would grow and i certainly had a lot of faith in them and the work they continue to do. evanescence, i hope to create space for them to put together this event and get a chance to thrive.

and literally, the room size -- what would you say it utterly tripled, quadrupled? and so is very, very gratifying once again to see this event clearly serves a purpose for many of you and we really, really hope you will have a tremendous conversation today together because ultimately the work the elders have done how to continue and you better believe you guys will be the ones to make it happen, i'll write? so you've got to make sure you're well-equipped, got good information, that are well prepared to be able to move the work forward. so we certainly look forward to hearing about a tremendous conversation here today, chaffinch each other and build yourself. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you, dr. innocent. how many of your enjoy your breakfast this morning? backpack? how many of you are enjoying your breakfast because i want to

bring up the person who is responsible for having sent us this morning, the people who pay for. if you'll indulge me a moment of thing yesterday was mr. henry hank jackson, who is the president and ceo for the society of human resource management, the world's largest association devoted to human resource professionals. prior to holding this position he served as a society's chief global finance and business affairs director officer. hank came from howard university in washington d.c., where he was saying at one time for howard. [cheers and applause] and it's a few new graduate, we love to treat him as our smaller brother and sister in higher education environment. [applause] i digress. i'll get back to the bio. he held several positions at howard university including controller, deputy controller and assistant accounting. before becoming senior vice

president before joining howard university, hank worked in public accounting with her than me and kpmg as senior auditor and comptroller audit specialist. for several years, he is also consulted for the southern association of college and university offices where he provided general guidance and technical advice to educational institutions desiring to grading computerize their management systems. and for those of you who have experience, you know how important it is to update and institutionalize our computer management systems. hager is bachelor of science degree in accounting from stonehill college in massachusetts and he is a certified public accountant. ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome, mr. henry jackson. [applause]

>> i'm going to say good morning, but i'm going to deviate a little bit because coming here is like coming home to me. i've run into so many people from howard and again howard was a fantastic experience for me. but i want to tell a little story that's going to embarrass one of the guests. when i was at howard university of comptroller, there was a student there that was always very, very act is, a student does sometimes i liked what he said, sometimes i listen to what he said. [laughter] but as a testament to -- and thank you famu come as a testament to what howard university does, i want to say that i don't know if i have any measure of success for any measure of what i've done except

that i believe that i did contribute to some students that can seem worried -- kasim breed was a comptroller and i said the university there. [applause] but i want to say good morning and welcome to the emerging leaders roundtable. the society for human resource society is a proud sponsor to this event for the congressional black caucus legislative conference. we have been a supporter of the conference for several years now. this is an just an historic event for us. we believe this is one of the most important gatherings in washington. on behalf of our 250,000 members, resource professionals around the world, we just want to thank the caucus and congratulate them on over 40 years of leadership, 40 years of that greasy and 40 years of promoting policy. and i really believe this, promoting policy that has made

this a better nation. in august, many of the sure and staff took part in the caucuses conference in tunica, mississippi. i want to tell everyone in here, if you haven't been to that event, i highly recommend it. we were impressed with the caliber of leaders, the informed sessions, access to some of the best policy ideas that i've ever heard. and of course, the food. everybody loves the food in tunica. but what struck me most about that activity and what goes on here in washington is the caucuses vision statement. and i just want to take a minute to read it to you. it says, we envision a world in which the black community is free of all disparities and able to contribute fully and advancing the common good. in many ways, this is the

problem of shrm. this is what we work for every day. you see h.r. professionals are the front lines of every issue that affects how, when and who we work with. we believe in a work place for all people are treated with dignity and respect, it worked place with flexible worklife balance, one that benefits employers and employees alike. a workplace free from any discrimination of any kind. a place where workers have a sense of pride, sense of connection as to the passion. but most of all, we believe in a workplace where everyone feels this is where i belong. in other words, a workplace where every individual can achieve his or her goals and work him in life. ipods because shrm and the congressional black caucus foundation share something else also. it's the reason we are here this morning. it's investing in tomorrow's leaders.

developing leaders is a priority of both organizations. it's because leadership is essential for a more just society, a more vibrant society, a better way of life. i shrm, we hope more members and leaders that create this kind of work life. like the caucus, we also advocate for public policies that support the workplace we envision. we know that some leaders believe what we know. we know this because of what they do. and if you succeed because of who they are. but the final test of any leader is that they leave behind, and other men and women, the convention and the will to carry on. if apple lisa and the promise of progress and lasting change that link's shrm and the caucus. we know the importance of investigating leaders who can bridge the gap between our nations experience and our nation's vision. that, my friends, is our common

goal. and it's what african-american leaders have done throughout the decade. and it is what we expect of the people in this room. it is a pleasure to welcome you this morning. i'm truly looking forward to hearing and learning from the impressive leaders we have assembled. and thank you and please enjoy the breakfast. sponsoring this event is more for shrm and for people here. thank you very much. [applause] 's thank you again, shrm for sponsorship and support. now to the meat of the program. and i abayas for each of the presenters this morning, but i always think it's much more befitting with the words actually come from their mouths and you get a taste of what their experiences like and what got into this place. and so make a few comments on each of our panelists and talk to each of them for a two-minute

introduction of themselves in a little bit of their background. i understand that we've gotten in the audience some folks from the naacp who are part of their leadership academy. you all are student body presidents and psu president of the campus leaders. we will just raise your hand so you know the future is right in your hands? awesome. like many of you, the panel that you have assembled before you is a collection of young people who've also made their mark on campuses and in communities around the country. and as you hear their stories, you'll see that many of them come from similar backgrounds who now find find ourselves in. i hope you reflect on them is the possibility of where you may be in a few short years. i'll begin with mayor kasim breed, the mayor of georgia, having been recently elected. [applause] mayor, you have some constituents here. key, prior to becoming mayor was representing the 35th district

of georgia as the youngest democratic state member of the state senate. a kasim was first elected 1998 as a representative for district 52 and was reelected in the year 2000. ladies and gentlemen, mayor kasim reed. [applause] next we have representative alisha thomas morgan, the made history at the age of 23. [applause] alisha. just see you all feel obliged, all agreed through them and that will give them a collective round of applause to save time. much love for all of you. representative morgan, among her many attributes is recognized state wide and nationally as the foremost leader of our time. you always hear more from her, but she's a personal mentor and a colleague and a graduate of spelman college. [cheers and applause]

i should also mention that she is a book that recently just got published and will be up for purchase and you should buy it online. she'll say more about that. michael blake is associate director for the white house office of public engagement. his portfolio includes phoenicians county official, state attorney general, state financial officers and the african-american community. melanie roussell was a graduate of the mechanical university, is a secretary for u.s. permanent housing and urban development. secretary sean donovan is 2009 comics used to make him in crisis management into medications. this roussell has spent nearly seven years inside the beltway crafting messages.

mr. jamaal said then, you'll recognize them as a principal at the boston group in washington d.c. he emerged in 2008 during the presidential election at the cnn commentator. he's worked for the likes of bill clinton, al gore, general wesley clark, senator bob graham was from the state of florida and is now increasingly rising star amongst our generation and were pleased to have him with us. jennifer stewart has more than seven years of public policy and government relations experience with a focus on health care, education and trade. prior to joining, she served as a senior manager at the government affairs department for astra seneca pharmaceutical. ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome you achiness panel you have before you. [applause] and now, i went for my two mayor

kasim reed and i ask that you will make your comments around two minutes and then contextualize it in a way that gives a roadmap for these young people about where you started and how you got to where you are. so mayor reid. >> first of all, i want to say good morning. get the energy up a little bit. i started really where you were and i went to school down the road you'd have a double graduate of harvard university for undergraduate and law school. so on many mornings like saturday morning dweller here, i have really taken dcn and imagine what i like to be. graduated from the law school in 1995 and i went home. and within two years, i decided to run for the georgia state house of representatives, got elected in 1998, about three years out of law school and became the youngest member of the georgia house. i spent about two terms in the georgia house. we had two terms there. and in 2000, when i was 30 years old, a woman named shirley franklin who was running for

mayor knocked on my door and asked me to be her campaign manager. so i ran on shirley franklin's campaign and then she won, got elect to it and then i ran her transition team. at about the same time, i was practicing law and became a lawyer with a law firm called holland and knight that has offices down there. so i think it's very important that you develop your professional games and your political game so you have options. certainly newer generation in space, a strong professional career is really going to be the benchmark, if you will, for launching yourself into a public career later. after i ran franklin's transition in 2002, i ran for the georgia state senate, got elected to the georgia state senate and became the youngest democratic member there. served four terms in the georgia state senate and then ran for mayor of the city of atlanta for

about 10 years after getting elected in 1998, i became the mayor of the capital city of the state of georgia. so it's been a fast 10 years. [applause] but it's been pretty good. so, you know, the thing about the panel you are looking up at all of us and my colleagues are very accomplished. but you should leave this room feeling that everything you see in front of you is completely doable and more. i mean, you really have to feel like all it takes is for you to make a judgment, sacrifice, do the hard work will fall in love with the grind and don't listen to people who don't understand or aren't willing to contribute to your vision. so i'm delighted to be here this morning and thank you also much for having me. [applause] >> good morning.

again, my name is jennifer stewart. i'm with flying cave. i am a lobbyist. i'm sure we'll get into that. there is than descriptions of what a lobbyist is and i'm sure that we'll talk a little bit about that and implementation of policy and how i can help as we move through today's panel, i just think if there's one message i can have for each of you and not something you have to figure out today or next week. but know what it is you want to do. i believe that it is hard to achieve your goals if you don't know what your end game is and to make sure that you have those around you who can support that endgame. so with that, i'll move to jamal. >> i'm not going to make you all

say good morning again. i need renaming fried chicken and collard greens all morning. the thing i basically want to say to you is there are. accomplished people appear this morning and very often people look at us in a seaside of what we've done in our lives and they say well, these people really got everything right. they're young or younger, young ash and they have made this place. so the one thing i want to tell you is don't let the smooth taste fool you. there's a lot of work and trouble that often comes into this. i'll just tell you a quick story. i was 19 years old at her house i was in the car with a bunch of friends and we got pulled over one night and arrested by the police. and in the car, they find a gun that one of the guys in the car has. so which one of us gets arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. i'm now in the atlantic county jail, 19 years old for what i thought was patricia tree.

and i get very fortunate because i go to court and there is a judge in the courtroom who sees the four of us standing there. he says, let me get this straight, i got one, two, three, four gentlemen in front of me. i've got one weapon. for someone to explain how i carry for guns? he says one, two, three khmer dismissed. the person you have a license to own a kama sutra in more trouble than the rest of us. we all got her case dismissed. fast-forward two years later. two years later i get -- i've been volunteering, got her to work on bill clinton's campaign for president. eighteen months later. and i am traveling around. i've got this great job when traveling around the next president of the united states doing handling baggage and just what the press requests and manifests on the airplane and four cities today date inside this bubble and i get tapped on the shoulder one day by this woman who said i need you to

come and talk to us. we go back to her room or secret service agents are sending anyone have a conversation with the about something that happened a couple years ago in atlanta. so here i am after one night of hanging out with my friends and the greatest job opportunity of my life about to have this trouble. at the end of explaining the story of what happened, i didn't get in trouble. they throughout the case, the whole thing. there was a guy standing there, billy small-company secret service agent, avis lavelle, african-american woman who was one of the press secretary for bill clinton at a time. the two of them sat there and said, don't worry about this, we're going to take care of you. this is not going to disrupt your career. there's two lessons from a story. first his life is short. if you make some mistakes, life can be very long. so be very careful about who you're with and what you're doing, even at a young age

because those things can pop up again. and the second thing is when you get someplace we can help somebody, stick your neck out from time to time. you can't stick your neck out for everybody, but stick your neck out from time to time because you'll be able to open the door for people who might not have a chance do the things you want to do. before you close, i want to tell you a very important lesson. you're here with a lot of people who are friends or new people you've met. make more friends than enemies say your rage. the people sitting here -- i've known a lot of these people, some of them for 10 years or more. and you will find that she will run into each other over and over again in your careers and you will be helpful to each other or hurtful to each other in ways that you can't imagine today sitting where you are. finally, the last thing i'll say is people asked miller time you're in television, harder to get their? i want to do what you do. the first is to be substantive. reality tv, you can twitter 140

characters, whatever it is. it's hard to be substantive on one television. he went to get hard things. to the work, give substantive and the rest will begin to take care of itself. [applause] >> all say good morning to you again. i'm alisha thomas morgan and it's great to be here with all of you. it looks like they're standing room only and that's pretty amazing actually. i know it's not because all of these people up here are great, and they are, but it is because this room is filled with incredible people who could very well be appear as well. i am originally from miami, florida, and i grew up in the naacp, shout outs to the naacp. [applause] and it's really there that i developed the audacity to believe that young people are not the young leaders of tomorrow, but in fact we have the responsibility to leave

today and not to wait for what i call the annoying team for the appointing, to step up there and lead now, particularly when we think about some of the most pressing issues that we face. for me, i am working primarily on what i think it's a civil rights issue of our times and that is a quality education for every child in this country. and so i want to say to you is very few things that i'm sure we'll have an opportunity to talk a little bit more, but what i want to leave it to you is to stay connected with each other as jamal just mentioned, as i look at the folks on this podium, i could literally go down the lines talking about relationships and how we've been connected either directly or indirectly. i want to give a little shout out though to those people in the audience. state representative or shot taylor, stand up, please. [applause]

and deron johnson who is also here. please stand out. [applause] and the reason that i introduced them to you is because those are the two people who are the visionaries who are crazy enough to believe that at the age of 22 i could be cobb county's first african-american to serve in the legislature. this is the home of newt gingrich and bob barr. and so everybody else said it was absolutely impossible by skin was too dark, my age is too young, those were two people who were standing right there with me, along with my sister who will refuse to stand up, so i'm not a going to bother her to do that. it is critical to stay connected to the people in this room and be a part of the movement together. secondly, to be excellent at what you do. i come across people all the time who they just can't type anymore. and so it's time for us to be tight and be excellent and not

try to do to me thinks, but to create a niche for ourselves and to be great at that so you become to go to person for the issue of the scale or whatever it is you've developed. and finally i would say don't wait. we always think that if we are old enough, if we have enough decrees on the walls, husbands, picket fence, all the stuff we think we have to keep in mind. the truth is there is too much work to be done in our community and we cannot wait for other people to do it. so i'm looking forward to standing with you in this movement and not waiting our turn, but in that at them now. [applause] >> good morning. i am melanie roussell, currently press secretary for department of housing and urban development. i am the spokesperson for secretary sean donovan. i am blessed to be here. the thing about being at the end of the table is that you want to

repeat everything that everyone else has said. favored some really important points today. relationships. andrew gillum and i go back to his freshman year, which is a year behind me, at famu. i hope that any student government presidential campaign. right before i graduated, his wife pledged me. we go back a long time. jennifer stewart and i are from louisiana and i've known her since may 1st at capitol hill. jon stewart has been a mentor of mine. the relationships you build as your career grows will come back and you will learn from people and grow as people and develop in those relationships will help you in your career and allow you

to help others, which is another important point that i think has been made today. reaching out and helping others get to the place where you are and where you want to be an those things are really important. one thing i will say as a communicator i have found that young people, young african-americans in my career in public relations have an issue speaking up and speaking out. like alicia said, we have far too many things we need to be working on, things we need to say. and it's my responsibility to be frank and candid but the secretary when he wants to say something but i don't think he should say, i have to tell them or job. and so, it is really important that you have enough confidence in yourself and in your voice that you allow it to be heard. speak up and speak out and be paid. if you are a tight, then your

voice will be heard. and what you have to say will be respected. if you're sensitive, your voice will be heard and what you have to say will be respected. so with that, i will pass it on to another colleague, michael blake. [applause] >> good morning. i am the one at the end after you had chicken and grid and then you heard from everybody here -- the way the question right now. my name is mike blake, i direct african-american outreach for barack obama. and i always get excited saying that, president barack obama. [applause] and a few quick things. i'm from the bronx of new york. i'm jamaican.

[laughter] you can clearly tell a coordinated nice and team in the back. i'm an alpha. everything like that, anything you want, five everything. anyone in the room. but most importantly, i'm a man of god. [applause] and a very short story i am -- my mom, beautiful women, breast cancer survivor was homeless and you may in church pews. my daddy claimed emergency rooms for 29 years, of a hospital in the bronx at saint barnabas hospital. as two brothers who have been imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit. i have two siblings have never met. i'm an older brother who served this country three times and more. i do not take for granted the space that were in.

and i really do appreciate every single day. and i was -- i went to northwestern landed in evanston analysis sports producer for comcast sports, which a lot of people tell me as a dream job for a guy, you know, you get paid to watch sports. it's pretty much what all of us were doing. we could sit on the couch for hours, you know. you've noticed -- i see these relationship right here. but i was bored and i decided to apply for a job in a turn down the job. what happened was to do your slater pitcher in the person down. they reminded me of a training program started here in d.c. in 06 can't guess we can, which i would not known about if i didn't apply for the job and if the person wasn't nice enough to me after he turned them down to remind me about the program.

so when people are talking about relationships, they are real. people do not engage when i look at them, regardless of your rage and regardless of how good you think you may be. someone still has to say yes for you to get that job. someone has to say yes for what you want to do. so i've been fortunate, as my mama tells us, we went from no house to the white house. and there are few things relevant for this audience. one is my favorite book is called god's politics by jim wallis. unless one of the books as we are the one we've been waiting for. and you can't wait for somebody else to do it. we are the ones that i've melanie just said, we have to be tighter, we have to be better, we have to be more efficient. it is anytime it's not just do your representing commits those that aren't even in the room you're representing.

because if you are tight, that someone else won't do it again in the room at all. last thing, being valuable and be necessary. at the end of the day, if you're invaluable and the conversation, they'll find a way to make sure you stay there. and especially since they are so few of us in the room, the second you are not valuable and necessary, there'll be a reason for you not to be in the room. and especially since we aren't, you know, still become one come over so the generation trying to get engaged on it's important for you to do that. so being valuable to me as being necessary thing, i definitely had a moment that kind of came full circle were getting ready for the inauguration, i got to be on the bus but the king family. and it really hit home to be around the family who kept

thinking okay, this is all that we fight for. you know, it just wasn't for the president to be elected but for people to be engaged in the process. there is a day earlier this year which i thought was certainly my best so far. it was march 3rd of this year. we had a meeting that only with the vice president come with a lot of attorneys generals. then i got to do a meeting in the roosevelt room at the president in which it still didn't really hit home that i was sitting next to the president and the roosevelt room. and six hours later it was during a meeting in the oval office with the president and beyoncé and jay z. and of course i went to the concert. but we're not going to talk about that. [laughter] to the last piece, all these things, they are important and necessary. i recognize the bigger picture. all that you are doing is for those that are coming after us. you know, there's a picture in the west wing that really hits home with all of us.

it's essentially a 7-year-old boy. i'll use it when you walk past the photo is this little kid in the present kneeling down and reaching out. and when you want are you really don't know what it's about. the young brother was at an event and he kept saying i want to meet the president, i went with the president. at the end of the stories that i just want you to know the president haircut was like mine. people are watching all that were doing. hopefully by the end of this conversation you realize it's not just a senator in it, you are doing it as well. [applause] >> isn't this an awesome panel? i mean, these guys are doing it. i tell you, awesome. you heard a lot of themes that were resonant and consistent throughout a lot of thayer comments. the one that really struck me and was really resonant is this whole idea of legacy and passing the torch in stepping up and standing in.

and coming off the backs of what was an election here in washington d.c., where you had a young mayor who four years ago was trumpeted as the future of this generation. you have a young president of the naacp and mr. ben jealous who suffered his degree of criticism following the shirley sharad situation. you have a generation who have come before us, who at many times consistently say wait your turn, you need more experience. not yet. and then you see these comparable experience is that we're seeing in today's society, where young leaders are having to step up to the plate. and when they miss on different accounts are highly criticized. semi push into any of the two panelists who want to weigh in on this is what lessons are we supposed to take -- i cited these two past examples of the shirley sharad situation regarding the election for an

election as mayor adrian padilla, a young man who is still think is great promise. we've got a young mayor here in kasim reed. somebody i'm sure would like to see returned if he decides to run for reelection. and other generators. what advice do you have for this whole idea of passing the torch? what responsibility do we have this young people in the struggle? what responsibility to the generation come before us have two us as we talk about and consider the idea of passing the torch? so open so open that up for the panelists who want to respond. >> i think the first of all, you have to understand what comes with leadership. and you know, you can't be a jobs and positions where people throw roses at your feet and not understand that sometimes they're going to throw eggs and tomatoes. so you know, you have to know

that the absent flows are a part of it and you have to embrace the whole job, the good part in the bad part. and use that criticism to cause you to correct without overcorrect teen. so -- and you need people around you who genuinely care about you and whom you respect because right now is a time for the best and brightest. you know, michael said something that was so powerful. he talked about -- he said necessary. the quote that i use in my mind and around my office is i need you to be very necessary. and that is how you navigate through the crises that ben jealous ghost or an mere 50 goes through because it is a part of it. when you're doing what you all are trying to do, you have to love the whole thing to be good at it. you know, i'm always stunned when i hear politicians whined about having to raise the money. well, if you want to be in

politics, having to raise money for part of being in politics, so shut up and get on with it. either go do something else or to the whole part of leading. so the council that i would have around that issue really is that you have to love the whole part of it. when people criticize me, i loved the give-and-take of it. because when you had me come you better be prepared to have back. so i mean, that is just a style. we had what i call her west coast offense. we are constantly moving, costly throwing the ball and constantly advancing. i believe that you have to be, in this day and age, a leader who is prepared for the whole job because you're so exposed. anybody anytime of the day can say almost anything they want about you now. right? that is a complete shift over just five or six years ago, were

the only thing that mattered were whether someone who was a respected journalist or been trained to do research and all the rest, those people you have to take seriously. i now have to take jimmy jenkins seriously, who i don't even know. if jimmy jenkins has something to me, he better be prepared to have a two-way conversation about it. the point i'm making is you will become victors family. you've got to be prepared for the whole game now because you don't have the safety for the position. people will say anything. look at the things people say to the president and about the president of the united states. so that is going away. but i believe that the appropriate path is to adjust the gain and to prepare yourself psychologically and from a career standpoint for the full game. i'm going to shut up, but i've got a great piece of advice for

mayor wellington webb. mayor wellington webb and i were having coffee before he started running for mayor. he said that the thing when you sit down, you should tank of the worst secret in your life. think of the team and your mind that my god, i would never want any human being on the planet earth to know about me. and then imagine somebody asks you that question in front of a thousand people and you better be prepared to answer. that is the world that you're getting ready to get into. that was real, y'all. because he was sane when you're stepping in to be in the mayor a major city at this time, the mayor of america spends $2 billion a year. so god knows what micro is some and all the rest, but when you

have that responsibility, there's a lot of interest are not consistent with yours. so if you're going to get in this space can be better be getting into it for the right reasons and you've got to decide that it's working. >> you know, i spent a good chunk of my career been frustrated by the people who are bright ahead of me, so i like it when opening the door, they're trying to hold us back, they're telling us what to do. at some point it occurs to me that what we have actually is a mutual responsibility between your generation and mine a generation ahead of you. i remember being a child sitting on my father's shoulders going to a concert or a fair and i would see, sitting on the shoulders, i can see things out there that he couldn't see. but at the same time, he was feeling things that i couldn't feel. people are spending on his feet,

all going to read pushing them around. it's kind of a responsibility for her parents and their generation's responsibility to trust her vision. but it's our responsibility to understand what it is they've gone through that got them to this place are so together we can ask to do a lot of things together, were both of us have a responsibility to make the relationship work. ..