up -- >> guest: well, you know, i think ultimately congress has to decide what they're going to do through appropriations and whether to, whether this is kind of problem that requires financing or requires change in leadership. i don't know that the white house is making that big of a push for an infusion of money before they make a determination as to what the problem is in the first place. >> host: we'll go to bill in scranton, pennsylvania, republican caller. hi, bill. >> caller: thank you for your time, folks. >> host: morning. >> caller: my question today, the irs scandal. i think this runs deep, and i think this is being undercoverred bigtime. the abc, cbs, this nbc networks have not given it any coverage, and the ap hasn't given it much coverage either. from citizens united to this day, carl levin, the latest news on carl carl levin. why isn't this getting coverage? i appreciate your time.

as far as i think benghazi now is capturing a lot of the attention, but the irs continues. a former recently held official in contempt. there was a bipartisan poll. watch that i do think has been undercovered is that the irs will release all of lois lerner's e-mails. this is something dave camp has been pressuring for. the irs said it would. that will be maybe the next shoe toro the problem is lois lerner is not talking. intel she talks she is really the linchpin and she's claimed the fifth. and until there's more news out of this, then other things are

going to grab the attention of the media. >> i think these e-mails could be a problem or could be illuminating. eventually as a scandal worked its way through while and look like the irs had been emphasizing giving greater scrutiny to these greater groups, the with the occasional liberal group also getting extra crude. the question became which what was the irs still think? maybe perhaps it will show something that we can focus on. >> host: anywhere from the justice department whether not to go forward? what house republicans want is some sort of prosecution therefore i'm not aware of what the justice department is doing. i can't help you with that one. >> host: back to -- brenda, you're on the air. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i would like to talk about the

irs and what obama has done with medicaid, medicare. [inaudible] >> host: what about medicaid and medicare? >> caller: like he got all the benefits to medicare and stuff and that's also -- sound like everyone else. i think he ought to be out there. he could've paid off the united states debt. >> host: you're breaking up. getting feedback from television. i'm going to let you go on that point. bob, as we wrap up, tell us what to watch for this week thank you defense in drones. one thing the nominee, he played a role as far as crafting the legal memo that justified the killing of an american in yemen, terrorist, that was killed. the white house was on capitol hill last week talking to democrats about him. they want to move him through.

senator rand paul will be vocal on that. in the house defense authorization bill, there will also be hearings and debate on the house floor about the abduction of schoolgirls in nigeria. and the big thing of course tomorrow election wise primaries in big states, the biggest one senator mitch mcconnell's challenge from the right and he is expected to win a. >> host: coverage the house floor on c. span and on c-span2 live coverage gavel to gavel of the senate. what about the white house? >> guest: i think how to respond to continue to respond to the va problems. i think the white house is interested to see how leader pelosi deals with the benghazi investigation so that they can gear up for that. and bob mentioned the one circuit court of appeals judge. we also had a bit of a flap last week over a federal judge in georgia by the name of michael boggs who the president

nominated and harry reid withdrew his support of box because of comments and positions you take and when was a state representative regarding the confederate flag and abortion. so that kind come through the whole deal the white house had struck with georgia's republican senators and the question over judge. >> host: a lot to watch this week and, of course, we will have coverage of the white house as well. go to c-span.org for all the details. bob cusack, managing editor of the hill. thank you both. appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you, greta. >> live to capitol hill for missouri senator claire mccaskill holding a first of several discussions on fighting rape and sexual assault on college campuses. >> today as you know we'll focus on the clarity and save act and talk to you about the challenges that those rules and regulations

present. two weeks from today we will cover title ix. and in four weeks from today we will cover both the administrator process that's been a great deal of focus on the criminal law enforcement process and where we are failing to get these perpetrators into the criminal justice system and what we need to do to improve our abysmal record in that regard. i thank all of you for being here. you were all invited because your experts in various ways on this issue and this is not a hearing. this is a conversation. the goal here, as i want to say for senator gillibrand and senator blumenthal, they're both started again. today. i'm sure they'll be protected in the of the roundtables we will have but we are working on tracking legislation. what we want to do is maybe simplify because i know this is now a complex labyrinth of

different rules between saved and cleary and title ix and different standards of proof, different state statutes. we don't even agree on the definition of consent. so those are challenges that i know this area represents and we want to see if we can simplify, clarify, augment, support, perhaps provide more mandatory training but with the grants that go with that so that universities can access the grants to help train people on campuses for important things like the initial forensic interview that we all know is crucial that, frankly, it is one thing i could do by waving a magic wand, and that is making sure every victim at the moment of report is immediately seen to by someone who is trained back into the type of interview that makes the difference between success and failure, in terms of ultimately bringing someone to

justice for a serious felony. as many of you know i've already sent letters requesting detailed information from the department of justice and the department of education regarding their enforcement and oversight. i've also launched a survey 450 college and universities regarding the policies and procedures relating to sexual violence. i'm holding these roundtables here from a variety of stakeholders regarding how they think we can best address this significant problem on college campuses. today as i said we will focus on cleary and save acts, two pieces of legislation which among other requirements mandate that schools collect information about sexual violence. these requirements are, in fact, a great start but i'm concerned they haven't been adequately enforced. i also believe we can do better to address this problem through this enforcement regiment. i'm a former prosecutor with years of prosecuting sexual assault crimes, and, obviously, that informs my approach to this

problem. i want to know that survivors are getting the services they need and that perpetrators of sexual violence are being held criminally accountable. but i know that's not all that's required. i also want to make sure that whatever steps we take going forward are the right ones and we respect the rule of law in this country which includes due process. i know that commitment issued by senator children and senator blumenthal. i now would like to invite operatives events to go around the table and introduced themselves. if you would give a brief introduction as to the work you do and where you were from. i would ask you keep your marks limited at this point so we have plenty of time as you might imagine i have lots of questions. i want to make sure we have time to get to all the questions and i hear all of your concerns and comments that i know will help inform our decisions as to legislation moving for. so why don't we start to my left? [inaudible] spank you need to hit the button. >> my name is tracey vitchers

and i'm with students active for anyway. were found by students at columbia university in 2000 later reorganize as a national nonprofit organization that empowers college student activist reform the campus of sexual assault policies and to the campuses accountable to transparent investigative and disparate processes and supporting survivors. >> my name is holly rider-milkovich on the director of the sexual assault prevention and awareness center at the university of michigan. in that role i am responsible for overseeing the institutions prevention efforts, our response efforts as relates to students who are survivors of sexual assault intimate partner violence, sexual harassment and stalking and also serve in a leadership role in developing policies and processes at the institution and ensuring compliance with campus safe and other federal mandates. >> good afternoon, senator mccaskill.

my name -- i work for the office of post secondary education at the is department of education. i am responsible for the regulations that implement the violence against women act and other clery issues. >> hi. i'm allison -- okay. i'm allison, the executive director for the clery center. were found in 1987 and we provide training and technical assistance specific to clery compliance. >> i am caroline. i represent university of south florida system. i am the assistant compliance officer for that system. my chief responsibility is to oversee higher education opportunity outcome for complaints including clery, campos said, the violence against women act and also where those laws interface with title ix. >> good afternoon. my name is jerry keith.

i'm the chief of police for george mason university. -- eric heath. >> thank you very much. and i am laura dunn, campus sexual assault survivor and been a longtime activist over eight years now and a recent graduate from users of maryland law school just last friday i guess i am a lawyer now. i've also speed is is that the first time you've been able to say that? >> feels good t but also the founder of survjustice which is survivors and the powers act which handles the sexual violence. >> great. cammy got here. senator baldwin, welcome. we're glad you're here. and to turn over to you if you've any comments you want to think before we begin. >> absolutely. i first of all want to thank you along with some for other senate colleagues for convening this first in a series of roundtable discussions on sexual assault

and violence on campus. and i want to thank you for your critical work on the issue. i also want to share some words of praise for the administration for taking i think the important steps to raise the profile of student sexual violence including an establishment of a white house task force to look further into the issue. and while i'm encouraged by the advances that we are seeing on this issue, including the strengthening of federal law that we are going to be talking all of it more about today, i also think we can all agree that there's much, much left to be done. and so i wanted to just call attention to two quick issues. i was proud in recent weeks to introduce the tyler clementi anti-harassment bill that would include cyber bullying and harassment into our

anti-harassment policies. for those of you who know about the life of tyler clementi, he was the victim of cyber bullying and ended up after his freshman year committing suicide because of the activities. i also, we can address this in the discussion, but senator mccaskill, you and your colleagues on the armed services committee have just done such an incredible job of elevating the issue of the sexual violence that we see in our military. there's one issue that i see sort of, overlap between what we're talking about today, and that's the rotc's on our campuses across the country, where many of our officers are

trained and come through. and i have certainly heard anecdotal information that concerns me and think we need to raise, you know, elevate the focus on, on that in terms of data collection and understanding really what's happening. and so it complements your leadership on that committee with what we're doing here today. so again, thank you to all of you for coming, and see a fellow badger, so thank you for being here. >> well, thank you, and we are glad you're here, send it. let's start with the clery act. maybe allison, you can start off. and all of these, everyone should just jump in. this is going to be a free flowing discussion. the worst thing that can happen is rigidly the shrimp saying i wish i would've told her this, i wish i would've told him about this. we want to do everything that frustrate you, everything you

think is working, everything you think is problematic, you know, please don't hold back. the clery act, i think at least in some of people i talk to i think it was originally envisioned this would be data that people could rely on any would be consumable by someone. the problem is now i don't think anybody knows that data is even there. i mean, getting past the first problem that is not reliable. a second problem is that it doesn't appear to me to be out there where families even know that it exists, that this is something they could even ask for and find out what the data is on a campus. so allison, who do you believe the data is intended to be for? >> your. i would come and again, i just interviewed one of our founders recently for something separate and we talked about the intention being to be forewarned

them something she talks so often about, to let people know when they're going to a campus what crimes have been reported on that campus. so for current students, prospective instead. the other side to that, and you said to air anything we had to air so i will take that to heart is that often how it plays out if you have a campus for example, that reports 66 offenses versus a campus that reports zero, the perception by the public is that that campus reporting 60 is unsafe when, in fact, i would disagree with that at that campus reporting 60 that is a former prosecutor use or know it's an underreported crime. students are coming forward and reporting and they're seeking help and they know where to go. they're getting the education to know that what happened to them to know to call the sexual assault. so that's one of the challenges i see with the numbers. the annual security reports that campus is produce better to be made public for families, for

employees our wonderful documents that provide summaries and policies. one of the other struggles iac is to check off the compliance box sometimes those documents are created and they have policy statements, summary for example, of a sex offense policy. but then there's no complete policy behind it. or if it is a complete policy got that policy is not being implement it on the campus. so i am sure some my colleagues that add to what, hodges started the conversation, ma but -- >> so how do we do better on the problem that is a college campus as they have had his hero, that should be a real red flag to any parent, that means they're not reporting their statistics and don't take this problem seriously as opposed to one that may have 60 which is counterintuitive. it may mean that they have a really robust program where they are actually collecting data and they can still comfortable coming forward. does anybody have any ideas as to how we could get past that?

because that's going to be the problem. i think it is a problem after i think there is an incentive do not accurately report. >> i think the white house acted already started addressing the. they called it a crime of survey but was of survey but wanted to visit the commission survey. we have an underreported problem and when we measure that and have that number at the top of the cleary charging their 100 rates and another number on the bottom he, and only five are reported, that's how you contrast it to sexual violence is everywhere and we need to get that understood by think when colleges have to face those numbers that incentives have the 60 come close that gap as well as -- i know the white house is looking to intimate that in 2016 but think we start thinking about that now and that works with clery because the challenge is geographically based in down and out is that work with the -- happens everywhere with students on and off campus. >> the answer to the clery problem is maybe mandating because the white house is

talking about voluntarily doing climate surveys. >> i am very for mandating. they make you return books before you get your diploma. the config it had to make students take a survey. we need to be thoughtful about how the survey is from. it can't be like where you rate, yes or no? it has to be a subtle message of have you had an extent we did want this to happen? when you force people to identify legally you will see underreporting. i did know what happened to me was rate for a long time. i thought it was my fault or something bad that happened and it took me a long time to come to that realization. the content of the survey is also an issue. [inaudible] >> how it's actually conducted. there's been a long history of victimization surveys in the united states, done by the department of justice. do you have thoughts or recommendation on that in terms of people, you know, sharing? >> one of the recommendations that i would encourage is that campuses who are doing surveys

use validated instruments for those surveys so that we are able to be able to compare from campus to campus the information that is coming out of these surveys in the ways that clery i believe was intended to function. also that they would be able to be comparable data so that will be possible when we are using survey instruments that have been tested, that they been demonstrated to actually measure that which we're hoping to measure. and i would note that the university of new hampshire has for 20 years a survey that they have used and that that has validated instrument that could be the beginning of an instrument that other campuses could adopt. >> so what you're saying is potentially we, education or doj we come up with a standard survey that everyone would use, with standard language on the

questions? >> i would hope it would come up with a court of standards is mission that would be able to be comparable from institution to institution but also that institutions be able to adapt some portion of the survey so that they can actually measure some of the other kinds of interventions that are happening from campus to campus, that serve not only as a tool for consumers to be able to use to compare data but also as a learning instrument for the campus itself to be able to identify what practices are effective. and it is my hope that those kinds of measures will feed into the yawning gap of research and evidence on what our best practices for prevention as well as response on the college campus. >> just state the painfully obtuse to those surveys come we need to be able to afford to have response for the surveys and eliminate confidential as we can to get at the heart of

what's happening because if anyone has an inkling that their identity is going to be revealed, they're not going to answer honestly and the data will be useless. >> i was going to say a good model for that would be something like the american college health association, which administers survey annually at many college campuses to looking at some of the instruments that they use to administer, many institutions if not all regularly do. it's just a matter speed which is all private health data that is written anonymously and there is confidence of people taking a survey realize it is -- >> absolutely. >> and to speak to senator mccaskill's question about the accessibility of the data on the website, currently depending on how you filter the data and had access to the data through the website, if it pushes the information out in an excel format, sometimes the tabular data comes out incorrect and that many typographical errors.

to our heirs in spacing. there are errors in the columns, and we found that to be huge challenge to to tell me again where you're getting -- use an acronym, the office of post secondary education website but if you go to the website on the clery and to try to download the clue data from that it often comes out with significant topographical errors, spacing issues. headings are sometimes not correct. there are periods or commas where they should not be and so it really questions on how bout the date is into getting the most accurate data for the campus you are looking at. >> and can relate to just talk about accessibility of data. the government came out with not -- but i can say as a student of bible were very disappointed they didn't mention the clery act reporting process on that website. they listed the 55 schools under investigation but they're not going to do that again. you have to request it. one of the problems with this issue and in the law enforcement can speak to is it's a summit issue.

if people don't know there's a complaint on campus, and if they did to feel more comfortable coming forward, sharing information in the data gets flushed out. all the other incidents that are reported come forward. i think david is of concern -- data is of concern spent let me ask our police chief. one of the things i realized is the clery act uses definition from both the ucr and the national incident-based reporting, and it's my understanding that if someone is taken by force into their car and driven across town, and then they break in some else's apartment and then there is a rate, you are reporting a kidnapping, a rape, and a breaking and entering as three separate incidents and nobody has any idea that it was the

same, all in one crime. is that actually the way it works? >> yes, madison. one of the challenges, not only accessible of information but making that information useful. that's one of the problems that we encounter in our business and law enforcement on campuses is the challenge of the different systems between ucr. overtime for clery act has expanded some definitions that aren't even covered under ucr. agrees a lot of logistical challenges for campus law enforcement to address when of the municipality counterparts or sheriff departments or local municipal agencies the account of his particular statistics yet college campuses are required to come up and try to determine where does it need that particular time because as we all know state laws vary throughout this country. being able to try to capture that particular information. to enter the second portion of your question, the article

google of how we count those particular crimes, we would talk about making it accessible but also useful, the fact is when the information comes out its aggregate data. it looks like all of the particular crimes are occurring on campus when, in fact, it may be one incident of a recurring or separate particular piece to an incident. >> someone could go go on a crime spree one night and could blow up the data over one continuing criminal behavior over one evening but because it embraced some types of criminal behavior? >> a good example would be possibly like a hate crime. when you have to designate a crime, maybe it's a probably but there's some hate violence to it, you designated as a robbery based o on on the geography of e it occurred but then you designate under hate crime. that information comes out, it looks to the untrained eye as to particular different kinds. >> what are we using both ucr and niger? does anybody know how that came about?

>> i can't answer that specific question but i can say that i know that clery anderson is it such that a slugger to be a description of the event. around and putting statistics and numbers schools have the flex builder of writing a narrative and showing that it is one event and they believe that is what turned out to do with the gender violence crime, stocking sexual assault. my concern is we only count by victimizations economic gain -- gang rape as one great even though there could be 10 perpetrators. .ini is more shocking. so we are counting all the different crimes but we're not counting all the different perpetrated? >> yes. we're very they consented to the public forget like what the problem is coming from. but we also just add on it, there's also the public crime log so there's an opportunity there where you have the ability to explain over kind of detail

in more plain language user-friendly language so to speak that successful. so if you are looking at an institution statistic community ability to request a crime log and get a sense for what occurred or what happened so they would be more detail there. >> can i add to that? that is true about the crime law but i'm thinking as a parent, and though i do this is to give parents and students, institution, you, informed information, ma the probability that they're going to even know that they can request a crime log much less weed through to figure out what one event being counted as many or a gang rape and counted as one. i think that's too much to ask. the third issue to counting is its report as raw numbers. so to rates at a campus that's a small cosmetologist go, 25 students, in a small rural area

versus a large institution, to rates, 100,000 people. >> both to rates can both horrible but it's a very different safety situation i think in my mind. with the raw numbers there's no way for a parent to compare apples to apples. >> do we need a whole new data schematic for this? anybody willing to sign up for that project? >> i think you can capitalize on that of those right now you can go on there, type in your zip code and see over crisis intervention service. why not type in a school, have the data show up there? have the ability to contract a few colleges? everyone to did the useful when you get in one location and the question on the crime log, my understanding is that physical and yet to be on and you can go see it. they can be electronic and maybe that's also something that schools can either have a link to a route to that with metadata accessible in one location. >> it seems to me with technology today we are to be able to do a lot of this more

simply with electronics. the ought to be the way that you could have a user-friendly dynamic where you could go on and click on the university can get the data can't get the crime logs, get, and so we did get context to how many students. and even allow the university to talk about where their numbers are. by the up, down? let them do a narrative to explain, for example, if they have a high number that this is because they put an emphasis on reporting and they've doubled the number of rape crisis centers and the number of counselors and as a result victims, i don't know, with that, sure that i'll be done clery? probably, right? >> one of the things i think would be very helpful and i would reflect also that when we look at the numbers and we know

that reports don't equal a clear picture of what's happening on campus, i talked to a lot of parents and parents want to know how to make a determination about what is a safer campus for me to send my child. and i think that looking at the prevention and response efforts that are happening on a campus are an excellent determination because that is something that campuses are able to affect, and that's something that we have more evidence makes an impact on campus. so i think as we are looking at finding ways to compare campuses, i think allowing for parents to have the data about those prevention efforts and have the data about those response efforts, in addition to the reported incidences, would be a very helpful matrix spent its content spent absolutely its content but it's up on what's happening on the campus but what is the campus doing to address

these matters both proactively and in the event of a traumatic incident. >> one of the things the white house talked about, and spend some time on and haven't, i don't think it's come to any conclusion, and that is just another day to be included in school rankings like the u.s. news and world report ranking? >> one of the challenges with that is because we are requiring schools to self-report. this data but it might not paint an accurate picture. if you just look at the statistical numbers. if you're looking at things that holly mentioned like what are the prevention efforts happening oon campus, do they can extend o the local rape right center, how many councils to there? could have a direct of sexual assault prevention intervention? i think that may speak more strongly than the data itself. because as we have seen across the country as students about more and more clery act violation allegations against

the campuses we recognize we cannot necessary trust every institution to report the data accurately. if you look at new york state campuses, for example, if you go into the clery data and to look at how many assaults are occurring for a campus in your state, it's less than half of an assault occurring for campus. if you have one in five women who is a survivor of the completed or attempted sexual assault on the college campus we know that data is not correct. you really have to rely on institutions to generate that data. so i don't know if using those numbers is the best way spent what about climate surveys at? >> they would potentially be more accurate. >> absolutely and i know that family outreach foundation is doing i believe 32 in csi, connecticut how to measure not just compliance with the laws but through safety. so have an objective third party kind of coming in at the watchdog and saying institutions of course you think you're doing a great job but let's go through if you have this policy come together as practiced? are? are you coordinate with local law enforcement or do you only

have your own security force? i think we need to look outside of school to get a true picture of what's happening. >> can i just -- i mean, i think it's a very wise suggestion to look at climate survey victimization report, but in terms of getting better, more accurate, high quality clearly dated, -- clearly dated to either impediments we should be thinking about what's for example, you're talking about campuses that have their own police department versus campuses that are reporting and interacting with one or more municipal police department that are responded because there isn't a campus, you know, definitions that may be applied differently in different states come in different campuses. are there a set of clear obstacles that we ought to be grappling with to make that campus data more accurate?

>> one of the things that's difficult for me is -- one of the most difficult things for me as a compliance person is compliance is all about training, getting information out there, have everybody on the same page reporting the same things. and the wacom even the way the law is written right now we are to train new students and employees on the definitions of these crimes in their local jurisdiction. i come from a jurisdiction that has definitions for all the crimes but i could be in a state that doesn't. so sexual assault, yes, but like dating violence, domestic violence can do me a not have a definition. they may or may not have a definition of consent. wind up report for my school i must report based on the clery definition. they're not always the same, obviously. so to me there's a disconnect. in the it needs to be very simple but everybody has the same definition to which i'll

report on the same things, apples to apples. >> i think to piggyback on that, the first thing i want to talk about we talked about having this document that talked about prevention and has the statistics. institutions have to do that right now with the annual security report which essentially has these cliffsnotes of policies and the numbers. and in order to put that together well it requires training. so having training that when you have these summary policies, these policies actually have old policies that they support. and then a step further, the institutions are trained to implement them. what we've seen with a lot of the cases on college and university campuses across the news is they are not limiting policy will and survivors are suffering as a result. that's when you see major changes me. some of the institutions have made some major changes specific to clear compliance as well as title ix but that's a conversation for two weeks from

now, they are making changes because they been called out on a. there's been public scrutiny. so now they're investing resources. now they're investing energy for leadership. they're talking about clery when the board of trustees of the president or chancellor's have never talked about it before would have possibly misspelled for separatist. so now they're talking about it and they're doing some work around compliance. a lot of, a lot of what is there in the law if you're trained on it, if it's been intimated i think works well. the challenge that i see a lot just dated as a tech to assistance provider for campus grantees on clery and it also just as an orientation that works and trains compliance with clery are we get some people who get it on campuses who really are in a compliance role and they get and the editor with requirements are but they have no support. there's a difference. i think of web resources it would be great but a lot of times when we talk to

institutions we'll see just support, asked them what you're doing and how you can help. even if having the presence name attached something and help. and i don't have a solution. i wish i did but i think you can have this conversation without it going the organizational dynamics that come into play. >> it almost has been like a checkbox thing onto me capital. we're supposed to do this or we're going to do the bare minimum that we must do so that we can be quote unquote compliant but we aren't really having robust training or the underlying support on campus to make this work the way it's supposed were. i mean, frankly, we don't have a date yet from the survey but i think we do need to make some changes because nothing is more frustrating than a rote exercise required to do that has no meaning. that's why people get mad at the government. and that's one of the problems we've got here is that it every campus took it seriously and try to support it and understand

that there's something that's required other than cut and paste on this, it's time to cut and paste on the security report again, right? and put the same language in. i bet if we look, i bet those reports change very little in terms of the verbiage. >> and i am someone who says i wish we didn't have to do enforcement. i wish we could train and educate and people would do it, but what we are seeing anecdotally is that enforcement is the only way we're going to see changes, i campaigning -- i could name five institutions who don't really well. they are all under investigation. >> right. >> to piggyback off of what alison was saying, in october of last year, safer published the result of her campus account of a project and we looked at 300 school policies related to campus sexual assault. a third of those policies were not fully compliant with the clery act in written policy. and we are seeing a third of the schools out of 300 are not

compliant in some way in their policy. how can it then be compliant in action? that means thousands of schools are not compliant to extrapolate it. >> i'd like to add, to me as a compliance officer what i did is i look at the statute. i look at the regulation and then i help administration and management interpreted into policy and work with the units to help them get it done. but, you know, we are not, i'm a compliance officer and my management team, they are not experts in sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, preventing those types of crimes. what we need is simple things. give us a model policy. what doesn't look like? and not just cut and paste them here's the legalese from the regulation, i put in my policy, that we magically have a compliance policy. the policy is just the beginning. we need procedures. to get those procedures to implement it i thought of a simple solution to the department of education conduct audits.

surely they can publish best practices. practices. what have they seem and they have gone into institutions, the institutions that are at the many procedures that are right? could they publish the audit report so we can see the good and bad? >> where are those audit reports? to those get published? >> our office of student aid does compliance, reviews and that information does become public. >> if i wanted to go look at the results of a compliance audit done by d.o.e., department of education, where would i look? where would i find it? >> is on the fsa -- the office of federal student aid website. >> if i go on the office of federal student aid website and i click on there, am i going to be able to find these audits and universities that have been cited for not being compliant on

clear he? >> yes. >> and is that just part of a large audit or do you do clear specific audits? >> we have put a highlight on clear in recent years. in 2010, the office of federal student aid which is responsible for enforcing the clery rules created a special unit that does nothing but clery compliance. it started out with five staff members but it's grown to 13 and we have plans to double that in the next few years. so that are specifically clery compliance reviews being done, as well when we do audits on larger complaint issues. we also look at clery through those. so it's been done through two different mechanisms. >> about how many institutions would you say on an annual basis are getting a clery compliance audit, either through this clery specific unit or as part of a larger federal, federal student

aid, is that what is called? a larger fsa audit. >> will be the number on an annual basis of? >> i don't know the number on an annual basis. , about 300. >> 300 a year. and has to be in any attempt to collate those results and put the report together on the status of clery compliance on an annual basis that we could look at year-to-year? has of any effort to do that? >> we have not done it yet but we're going to implement that. >> okay. besides being a prosecutor i was also an auditor, 13 auditors is not very many for what, 7000 campus is? >> yes. we certainly are planning to grow that office, and as i mentioned we're also doing that to our larger compliance efforts. so it's not just 13 people. >> how many of the just clery audits are being done by the 13

auditors on an annual basis? as opposed to the 300 member. >> about 20. >> that's still a lot for 13 people. i can't wait to look at the audits. i want to see what they are. >> we actually have a summer it would be helpful, a constant analysis of the funny we put together in a spreadsheet that i'm happy to share with you. >> that would be great. i'd like to see. >> they're the only division enforcing a law addressing sexual assault that has a dedicated unit. the office of civil rights that enforces title ix enforces every law. they are not specialist and that is a big part of the problem. spend all this making rules and regulations but it's overwhelming. when it comes to survivors who ask for enforcement we don't have specialized enforcers who know the details of this law or even work together with the clery division doesn't have some work with office of civil rights. on the government side that could be a better process having more funding, not a person on giving more money, but if you're

going to spend my summer, please spend it on enforcement to allow them to specialize units. >> or at least forced integration between -- >> absolutely. >> and i think that would help institutions because they are splitting their minds on issue of sexual assault between two lost and now three, and that is difficult. so if the government can figure out to put it in one you know, so can institutions. >> and they can model that better for the institutions. >> let me add this to the. i was also a former auditor but of clinical trials. what we did, the efca had a wonderful self assessment tool, a track list i if you will. sweeney when the audit team came in one of the going to look for. so that's what we're going to be graded on. why can we do the same thing? because to me if you find it in audit it's too late to the regulate winter effect and you've got all this time where we are not getting it right and i would read it in front of it

and did it right and to caroline to you've got to do xyz. okay, fine. i will do it. >> the only problem with that is until you win having a federal government does audits on law enforcement, on child support, and when i took over the office we weren't collecting very much child support but we are passing every audit. so they were so busy checking the box that the new they're going to be looked at, no one was asking the question why aren't we collecting more child support. because they were busy. you've got to be careful when you do that because in institutions trained themselves to be audit responsiv responsesd to getting at the underlying problem. ultimately, it's not that they passed the audit. is that victims are getting services on campuses, young people on campuses are being trained about the reality of this problem, and we're getting more law enforcement activity around these crimes. i mean, that is ultimately the goal. that's the ultimate ultimate

deterrence. it's hard for me cannot talk about the criminal justice system today because i've got to wait two weeks to do that. it is a huge part of the problem. let's look at some of the of the things i have on my list. the reporting changes that are coming through save, which were part of -- i know were supposed to see a draft rule very soon? >> yes. will publish that in mid-june. >> okay. under the new law domestic violence, dating violence and stalking must be included. how are you going to handle the confusion around those three crimes? we already have the confusion of reporting each crime separately but maybe not each perpetrator separately. are you going to be providing definitions for the difference between dating violence and domestic violence? >> yes. we have negotiated will making committee and several of the

members of this roundtable served on the committee and we were very grateful for the expertise that you brought to the table. the committee represented a very wide group of interest from law enforcement, victim advocates, state attorneys general, basically we tried to get the gamut of different interests that would be affected by these regulations. and we grappled with a lot of issues we been talking with today, including definitions, including how crimes are counted. we talked a lot about training programs as well. and we were able with this group with very different interests to come to consensus on language and i really credit the group, all of you who worked on that because a lot of time and effort went into it and you really worked very hard to come to consensus on that. so we feel as if we've got a very good regulation that we're going to be publishing in mid-june for public comment, and

we plan to publish it in final by november 1. >> the only thing missing is definition of consent which did come up and all for didn't create. image and using the ucr. that leaves it up to states. unfortunately, not all states handle sexual assault the same. still don't have incapacitation as absolutely gushing to see one of them when i was a victim. i was told alcohol is not included. it doesn't count for you. i know what that feels like. i don't know what can be done on a federal level that we did have a very wonderful with the department of the great job presenting a definition of consent that not only talks about affirmative consent but also how to show when consent lack speculative fight back. you don't have to yell no. you simply are focusing on is that the presence of a yes? is there agreement? absent that, that's what really kills on this issue. that's what it's on. that's what hurts survivors so much. i have someone else said it is consensuaconsensua l because you

didn't do xyz when we lived through it. i don't know yet what can be done at the federal level but that's missing. it wasn't able to be done through clery added needs to exist. >> the problem is this is not a federal crime. and less you on, in the district of columbia or indian reservation. these crimes are state crimes, so we can't define four states elements of their crimes. but we can do models and incentives. >> weekend. i think that's one thing we should look at in legislation is how can we incentivize states to update their definitions of consent. i was surprised was to let 16 states that said it was only by force or threat of force. that's a lot of states that still don't understand that that is an inappropriate and incomplete affirmation of consent.

>> that's exactly, what laura was talking about specifically but also when you go back to negotiated rulemaking and coming up with a consensus, the piece on the ucr and nibrs, get states to the but what are consistent because even now under the new regulation of law law and the save act, dating violence and those while unfortunate are not listed in ucr and nibr so you continue to have an inconsistent definition between of the missed dose and what a shifty partners are reporting versus what college campuses are reporting because of the inconsistency in definitions. >> should we put it clear he data as part of ucr -- clery data? should go into the fbi uniform crime reporting program? has anybody given that any thought? >> if i thought the data was accurate i would suggest, but i know it's very much not at this point. i think in years to come when

survivors are more empowered, that will change, we will feel safe coming for and reporting. i do know it would have the effect we would want right now but in the future. >> okay. and let's talk about accountability and enforcement. when i realized that the punishment for the department of education and for doj is suspending, i know there's $35,000 fine for violation, but then there's, ma the punishment is supposedly supposed to provide all the meat behind this, all the stick behind this, is suspending institutions to participate in federal student financial aid program. now, does anybody in this room believe that punishment is ever going to be given to anyone? okay. so everything i told my kids if they didn't get i'm never going to speak to you, took them about 10 minutes to do it again.

because it was not an adequate deterrent because they knew it wasn't a realistic punishment. so what do we need to do, and this is obviously not just with clery, and by the way, $35,000 fine is nothing to a large institution. i mean, i mean, i can imagine what's the annual budget at the university of michigan? spent several billion. >> yet. so $35,000 fine to institution that has a $2 billion budget or $3 billion budget, whatever it is, i know was a lot, you have a huge system compared to a very small campus, that maybe has 500 students, you know, that doesn't appear to make much sense and it certainly does make sense to threaten something we are never going to do. so what do we do about meaningful deterrence in terms of punishing institutions? does anybody have any ideas about other ways that we could make this work? >> my favorite discussion,

because it's so needed, clery, i do think the fines are small but i don't know there's a way to do it percentagewise, take a percentage of the school gross income on whatever you want to call it so that it does hurt to not overwhelm smaller institutions. i know at lunch were discussing penn state getting find more by come for the sports violation millions versus what clery can ever do to get. i do think at least, i think you're hitting at a, title ix, dofund. right now there are two ways to enforce title ix under section 1582. with the requires voluntary compliance first. we saw that they had a voluntary resolution agreement. they violated it and made another agreement again. watch out. like you're only going to get a contract every time you violate. these violations are just law. these are survivors lives being destroyed leaving school. so i do think we do need sanctions. save was aiming at the. that fine is arbitrate and it

isn't many folks i don't know if we can look at adjusting it for institutions penalties under title ix you've got remove that. this law has been run since 1972. we are being way too nice to institution. and as a survivor, they don't care. they didn't have the cost. they still don't. we need to change that. >> does anybody else on fines? >> i would say that institutions are already operating i think under a lot of anxiety and fear of round addressing sexual assault on a college campus. i would be concerned about adding more stick with no carrot additionally. one of the things that we don't have enough of our programs are grants that encourage and inspire innovation and new practices and new knowledge about this issue. when we up losing all of our resources in enforcement and we are not complimenting that with innovation company think that we are creating a situation where

we do have box checking instead of new thinking. >> one of the things about that, and i extend what you're saying, i get what you're saying but one of the things that's disappointing about this is that we depend on college campuses for innovation for so many things in our society. and you have o on a college cams editor want to pick on michigan, although i kind of would like to pick on michigan, if you're from kansas i would really like to pick on you. you know, your system. you have law school. you have a medical school. you are training psychologists and psychiatrists, and social workers. you have every discipline, and academic excellence in every discipline that is needed to come together on this problem. and you have endowments. you have alumni, and if this problem is causing such a stress the universities, and i think it

is because they are worried that they're going to be next, that there's going to be a victim that is going to come forward and tell another horrific tale about how they were marginalized, how they were shunted aside, how they didn't get help, or another heartbreaking suicide where there is a trail of tears and inaction by people that were in a position to help. what i don't understand is why we are not getting more innovation from these college campuses on an interdisciplinary approach that they're willing to put some money behind from their own resources to make it work better? >> i am very proud to say the university of michigan is, in fact, innovating, that we could one of the first ever primary prevention programs for the college age population that we also have implemented a control group, matched a four year

longitudinal study of the program so that we can rigorously identify its efficacy on it, our campus that we are planning to launch a second as well to look at other stages over efficacy programs. that is because the university of michigan has extraordinary wealth of resources in all of the ways in which you've identified. we've chosen to invest them in this effort. many campuses do not have that benefit and we need to be able to extend the ability to innovate to other campuses that don't have those kinds of resources because campuses look different and we look different and when you get different kinds of knowledge and different kinds of innovation to address specific campus populations. for this campus at the doing of these resources. it's important they be provided the support and encouragement to actually do tha the research ano do that new thinking. >> so if michigan has, i'm not, i'm sure you do have a program that you put together this excellent. that's one of the reasons you're on this panel.

what are we doing, and maybe laura, you can speak to this, or any of the other roundtable participants, what are we doing to share that? i mean, if you put together a model that works where you've got an inner just been an approach, we have done, we have got a criminal justice degree with the forensic interviewing is taught so that the our people on campus who understand there is a big difference, where were you, why were you there, what did you do as opposed to the kind of energy that should be done when someone is willing to talk about what had occurred. ..

i am very proud they have done such great things. but be back to newspapers and other things, i don't know if that is really the business of the government should be doing it. the government needs to put incentive in the right place in handing out money to wealthy institutions. harvard is in trouble, hopkins is in trouble. they will figure it out. right now the people suffering are the victims who leave school and don't have no compensation for what is done to them. if we give money let's give money to scholarships to have a negative experience to make the school better for everyone else. >> the prosecutor in me says he

can't give scholarships to someone raven estimate he complained because then they will be cross examined because they got a scholarship in their credibility would be attacked on that. so we couldn't do that. but i get the point you're making and it is a valid one. so, does anybody disagree that we should look at signs as opposed to a set amount? >> i don't know that i necessarily agree. i say that we let the money. i agree with the point that holly made -- again, going back to the statement that institutions have changed have been under investigation. so they haven't even been founded with the violation. so they've made the changes from my view based on -- from where i sit based on the media scrutiny that they've been on the cover of time magazine, "newsweek," abc and they've made changes

even before there's any finding of the violation yet. so while fives i am sure serve as some deterrent, i almost think the public -- been out there in public command the attention on this issue particularly in the last six months two years, the six months in particular i think the spotlight has really shown on this. so i don't know that putting all of the eggs into looking up time for the energy, i am not sure if that's the way to tackle it. while it makes a great point that i really agree with putting on my prevention hack, working on a community organization and prevention. so i was charged with preventing alcohol use, suicide, eating disorders, sex or sol, whatever the issue as they came up through very pick up the phone and say we have an eating disorder problem. you need to educate on a. then you need to start being strategic about prevention.

and look at the public health model, which is where we pulled the primary prevention peace, and this at the center for disease control has done. college and universities have not -- some house. i don't want to put them on when puckett, but many again because of lack of support or lack of resources depending on their pension endowment are not the main robust programs around prevention. if they do have programs around prevention or maybe one person if they are lucky enough, they are not being strategic about how they prevent that they make you with one shot orientation presentation. and i struggle with this daily with how do we have been -- had we hope to change that? beyond writing a check, which i certainly can't do from our nonprofit budget to every institution, let alone university of michigan, how did they do this? even if it's creating a great

program. we have one. zero vw has the grant program for colleges and universities. they do not hand out a lot of those. it is a small amount and writing again, an institution who could have applied for that i would've had to then again right the federal grant with maybe the help of irp recently signed a piece of paper. i think that struggle comes in and that comes back to the organizational dynamics again with what is valued and his prevention value and i wish i didn't have to say because they value it, but i don't know that it is valued in all institutions yet. i think we have a long way to go on the prevention side. >> if we don't set up the enforcement side, the enforcement side brings media attention. so the only thing we can rely on to make these universities and colleges do what they should eat doing this for them to get a bad story.

first of all, that is a lot of victims. you know, that to me would be a depressing conclusion. so we've got to figure out some way to up the ante that assured of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. >> i would almost say less the dollar amount, more folks at the department of bad to do the work. again, i think the changes i've seen institutions start to make is that there immediately an investigation. we don't know if the fine is 35,000 are upwards of a million. so i would almost rather see the investment in a bigger team. >> in all fairness, the fines will be paid for this. we have been issued with budget and our government. we can't just endlessly handed out in institutions that have done wrong. they confront their own enforcement. that is the justice and every survivor would back that up. >> senator mccaskill, if i could add the enforcement

component, especially the law-enforcement, the important pieces to have clarity so you are enforcing them in coming if so many people are so can be used about how to read the regulation or how to understand so it's hard to say enforcement we have so many people that don't understand the regulations. it comes down to training, comes down to doing a lot of things on the backend. i work with a lot of really good people who want to do the right name. i am cautious to label institutions when you know the backside of people -- a lot of people are doing the right thing. this is mass confusion. >> what about the victims? been told to love her to figure out because a lot of it isn't about law. it's about treatment. it's about value. i can understand. i went to law school, i understand how hard it is. but we are talking about victims. >> at the end of the day, we all want to be on the same page and that's what i'm talking about.

>> that's one of the things we'll try to do through these roundtables. ird today that i did this area pretty well. at-large he learned several things today i didn't know. i mean, there is ways we can simplify this. particularly around what needs to be reported and how you define it. we need to be less reticent about the best practices model is being to schools. i know the task force has done some of that toolkits for universities to help them figure out the right way. were we to a fat, the more consistency we look at from campus to campus, which means all of it becomes more reliable because we can compare apples to apples because we have no ability to really know which campuses are doing well because they aren't even doing it the same way. i get the point you're making. in the campus to require school to publish their evidentiary standard, but we still don't have an evidentiary standard in

law. >> one is provided in the guidance that the dear colleague letter. the process does address sexual assault. i do think it should exist in statute. i think it needs to be solidified. we have the idea that the ads falsely report. campuses are not dealing with crimes. yes, behavior may also qualify as a crime by proponents of the evidence is a sufficient standard. >> i agree. but i will tell you that while i know it is in the dear colleague letter, i will tell you that if i were in court, the judges say to me, i don't remember where we studied that letter in the statute. it is just guidance and i think it is problematic for institutions. it's hard for us to come down not using that standard when our government hasn't had the political will to in fact put it in law, therefore -- we're not

talking about losing someone's liberty here. we are talking about losing something of value. a preponderance of the evidence is an appropriate standard in our system of justice producing something of value. not your liberty. that is all we talk about in the administrative proceedings. so i feel pretty strongly that we need to step up and do that and i think it would stand the right message that this is what it is and no one should argue. because campuses are indignant. >> absolutely. >> does anybody disagree with that but there are still campuses not using the preponderance of the evidence standard? >> i think that having a preponderance of evidence standard would empower more colleges to take not necessarily severe, but more punitive action against assailants. i think in many cases colleges and universities via spoken to our freight is taken a stronger stance for fear of having the alleged assailants come back and file a lawsuit or been expelled

or being expended, stating that it is a criminal courtroom. you can't call it sexual assault. you have to call a sexual misconduct. you have to call it a violation of the college. having the stronger preponderance of evidence might encourage and empower institutions to take a stronger stance against assailants come especially repeat perpetrators who we know based on the evidence to the majority of the sexual assault on campus. >> here is a hot one. reporting to law enforcement. for more survivors report to law enforcement if they had clear information on how to do so or were accompanied by an advocate during the process quick >> i know quick >> i know it's and the only reason i report it because i first tried going to the school and they were supportive and said you want to go to the police, i felt comfortable. it's really hard just to go to the police suffocate.

very few people do that and i really appreciate the white house talked about having confidential space. even in the military we have options for keeping its violent or not. people have could make the decision for themselves are empowered, leaves the system. i am pro-reporting it to law enforcement. the only way to get a survivor without being traumatized is to be at their free will. as long as mandatory doesn't mean taking away choice from a survivor. >> what about requiring law enforcement to report it -- the university to report to law enforcement unless they're survivor affirmatively opts out? >> i think it can be used as a threat to keep victims silent to be very honest. when it goes to the police, sometimes the family finds out, friends find out. it can be a big thing and not everybody wants spotlight on aerosol. i see the good in it. i see the attention and it is i'm worried it will be used as a

threat if you talk to me and tell the police up out of your control and maybe you don't want to talk to me anymore that will deter some reporting them into the school level. >> if they have the ability to opt-out, the ability to say i don't want reported. >> who is going to make sure they know their rights? >> i've talked to an awful lot of campuses and victims in the last few months and this requirement that they are required to sell you may report to lump oarsmen or you may not report to law enforcement. they are hearing don't report to law enforcement. now i think that might be because the universities are shaping up that way as they know if it doesn't go to law enforcement remains an administrative proceeding on campus and it's not as difficult for the university. but that is what a lot of victims are telling me they hear that when they are being told he may report this to law enforcement, but you don't have to. they are just hearing the second part. >> it is a tough issue.

i am not saying sec. but the silence cuts both ways. you could be pressured and reporting are not reporting. both are bad. >> what about jane doe reporting? >> a couple of things on both topics. one, i think all information on your campuses have in their policies these types of pieces. one being the option to report to law enforcement. but exactly what you said, it depends on the picture is painted. if it is painted in terms of vacant or local law enforcement, but you really don't want to do that. >> they are going to ask you really embarrassing questions. it is going to be awful for you. >> right. so my solution i love how the white house task forces addresses building and though building about your relationship with crisis centers and victim service centers for they are trained to provide options and empower the counseling, which i think sometimes i throw out those terms than they sound

fussy. but if they are done well, they really work in terms of explaining, providing education to the student reporting about what happened in providing some of the definitions in a language that the student i understand what happened to them. i can actually be rape by my friend. on the next window that the process is. this is what the insurance covers or guardians will be contacted. someone can explain something i did for years with survivors that takes precession sometimes. i fully explain process from acp. the amendment clearly has the obligation to have something in writing that goes throughout the options. if a student is experiencing trauma, they could not talk about or have the documents so they know what is afforded to them. the other piece, the anonymous per query you have to include if you do that anonymous reporting or the voluntary confidential reporting. again, turn much similar gives

you an accurate number. if you're counseling centers giving it the economist number, if they say to students, listen, we can include the number of our statistics. it's confidential, voluntary, but they say we can have an accurate picture of what's going on in our campus. and certainly in favor of that if it captures the data. getting institutions on board with that. some have come onboard onboard with having been proactive about saying we are doing this, getting our numbers. this happens here and that is why the board of trustees for hiring a prevention person were hiring an advocate. >> just to make sure i'm clear, it is my understanding is that a number of college campuses and universities who are not reporting the data is the only place the data resides is in an institution that is confidentiality. in other words, if someone goes to a mental health center or to a hospital and the only people they tell are people who have a requirement of confidentiality,

then they are not even including data because they are considering confidential, even though it's just another good of the data. >> some are. depends on the institution. >> i want to agree with what allison said. it is important where jane doe reporting options and also victim advocates are training side-by-side with law enforcement so together they entered the stands they are working as a team. they have different roles that they are a team. when it comes to explain in a survivor's options and choices, we want survivors to be fully informed and make those important choices and that takes time and it takes trust and it also takes on the side of the deck or not the kid and also takes well-trained, well informed law enforcement officers as well who have not only the knowledge about forensic examination that is so important, but also understand the impact of trauma and are

able to be sensitive to a survivor so that they are getting really good information that they are able to pursue. so fewer matters coming before prosecutors that don't have enough information to move forward, which is the biggest issue we see when it comes to law enforcement is not having enough information for whatever reason so that a case can go forward. >> a lot of campuses i really devoted to creating a collaborative environment, especially within law enforcement and victim advocates and assault response teams that include a number of individuals who have a responsibility for responding to those particular crimes to create an environment of collaboration. they can go to the done to say this is what we can do, the avenues we can take with that particular crime. i would be an establishment of

college campus adjusted those particular issues in a more intimate way to address those concerns. >> one of the challenges we found at sea for his those who go through law enforcement off and i doubly traumatized. they are doubly victimized by the time they go through the law enforcement side of things. if the local law enforcement networks of the college campus does not have a specific person or group of people properly trained in how to conduct an interview with the assault survivor and how to collect the evidence come it can be doubly traumatizing. i'm not sure if any of you read the story that came out of columbia university where one of the sexual assault providers went through the disciplinary process, the college did not find her assailant guilty of anything. he was not removed from campus and she finally said i wasn't getting the outcome i wanted from a university, so i'm going to the n.y.p.d.

the n.y.p.d. officer showed up at her room, basically disregarded her concerns, kept wanting her to repeat traumatizing information about her assault, kept trying to question the nature of her relationship and the assault at the assailant because they had consensual sex to test previously before he gives up eight her. i cannot have the experience feel incredibly disempowered. we don't know if this'll go anywhere anywhere. probably won't. >> where is this? been a columbia with the n.y.p.d. the stories in the columbia state university newspaper. if the n.y.p.d., one of the largest law enforcement bodies in the nation isn't training officers properly on how to interact with a soul survivors, i don't think we can start to require students to have to opt-out and so we can train local law enforcement. >> a shocking to me -- i am just not aware of any moderate sized police department that doesn't

have trained sexual assault detectives that we take that report. that doesn't sound like a trained assault detectives. >> he did not sound as if he was trained. >> i brought people to report to police before and sometimes they make that report to someone initially to see it detect his. you can always controllers come coming and responding. i hear that you are concerned about the law enforcement. i promise you if we handled the issue well all go up on its own. you don't have to mandate it. it's a reflection of our society is. our system is failing criminally campus size. filing complaints, our faces are in the news. our names are out there. it is changing already. what we need to see if the peace we can control. we can control whether there's a consequence for people who did it to a spirit that we see the

consequence, we know it is safer for us. >> we will spend a lot of time on this, the criminal justice one. i understand the incredible stress and heartache and problems is coming to law enforcement. but i also know that the vast majority of these perpetrators aren't even getting a criminal view. and didn't care that they are never in having the moment where police officer sits across the table from them in mosques and difficult questions. we acted in any meaningful deterrent on this problem until that is happening. so there is a chicken and egg problem here. if you are not getting many of the law enforcement action, it is going to be very, very difficult for the vic tends to feel there is any point for them to put themselves out in the most public and painful way imaginable if they don't have any confidence that in fact something could happen to this

perpetrator in terms of being convicted of a crime. >> absolutely pure train them on first minister that has sent the viewer. it's knowing how perpetration blocks for sexual assault. i constantly shocked people by talking about repeat perpetrators. they don't know if that happens still. i think with my enforcement, the quality of training is more guaranteed, they will investigate better and see questioning because right now we only talk about the victim and that needs to change. you can't put a victim through that. >> jane doe reporting, i guess -- i guess part of it is part of me thinks that the universities were required to report that this crime occurred to law enforcement without any identifying information, that is another check on the institution , that they would have to be telling the police

that this occurred, even though they wouldn't be giving out the name of the alleged perpetrator or the name of the victim. >> would police be required to investigate them quick >> obviously i don't think the police would investigate if they don't have the name of the victim or the perpetrator. but it would be another place that data would be located besides the federal government, which feels distant and frankly not really something people are that worried about. if the university president is confronted by his chief of police that he turned in 12 incident reports to the local police about identifiers, then all of a sudden he see in a front-page article in his future or she is seen a front-page article in her future. to me that he is another place you would have to be accountable. if nothing else, it opens the letter to medication between the

university and local law-enforcement, which may not be a problem where you are. but it made, i know there is a huge issue. i that you spend a lot of time at your meeting talking about how to get meaningful and how the cooperation between local police and university police because there is a natural friction there. >> it depends on the jurisdiction and the institution the interesting piece i think is as title ix query is expanded and local law enforcement, not campus law enforcement, the local law enforcement begins to understand these particular things come it's created a little more friction to assert extent because their understanding of what our requirements as a campus law enforcement agency in how we have to be collaborated with their institution goes against, to assert an extent, the mission within their own agencies. it becomes difficult. the jane doe reporting i understand that particular

nature. obviously the particular case it becomes extremely difficult to investigate those crimes but that is it to have our name of perpetrator or anything like that. >> i will point out the investigative violence unit in kansas city in the 90s and i had members of the police department come to me, members of my staff come and say we can't do domestic violence because most of the time we don't have a victim. we need to dispute the homicide unit because last time i looked we didn't have anything it's testifying. we managed the cases together. it is amazing that there are cases that can be put together without a cooperative victim. >> but that is the problem. that's why we don't want mandatory program untrue reporting. i do want my friends and families questioned without my consent. that is traumatizing. i think where he has 30 anticipate what you are trying

to do. we are supposed of law-enforcement developing enforcement of those relationships that the city share data and supplement the report. the problem is campuses have no authority to make city police work with them. that is something the government could do. it could obligate not campus law enforcement to work with campus enforcement because they can oppose on hold back and that we were not forcing the disclosure. you are just having a better relationship in that sense to me what you were getting at. he wants a relationship. >> i don't know specifically, but i know from laura's is, the differences when you do have a college campus that does have a law-enforcement agency train versus a college campus that does that, you seem to see why the disconnect between local law enforcement in the institution pointed out how that particular entity on the campus. they create a lot of different challenges in dealing with sharing of information and collaboration.

>> should campus after don't have the requirement of confidentiality be required to report to the administration when they know about the sex assault? >> i'm not sure if i know the answer about whether they should or not, but what i do know is if we require faculty especially, but also reporting information that number one we have to vigorously educate our student body about where there are confidential resources and about what the responsibility start of anyone who they share information with two report and also we need to ensure that every member who has an obligation to report also has equally robust training so that they are appropriately responding to that student so that the student is getting support and care that those reporting locations. one of the challenges when we expand our reporting requirements is that we say to

students, you can tell anybody on campus this information and they will share with the institution. and then we create the obligation that that person is equally poised to address those matters. so that is something i think we should carefully on as to whether or not all members of the campus are equally adept at supporting survivors, which is the second half of the reporting piece. >> one of the pieces on the cover right now under law under the cleary act in responsible employees under title ix. the security authorities under the cleary act, obviously someone with law enforcement, someone wanted during access. anyone he designates from your desk in a crime reports. but then there is a piece, the palenque piece for professionals or people with significant responsibility for student activities. so that often encompasses most of your suit airfares comest you

life coaches, freak life, greek advisors if their faculty and greek advisers and what the responsible employee side with title ix sometimes goes off. one of the pieces that we've seen from the organization i say that is if it is done really well, if there's a lot of training, the theme of the day, but if there is training what you do in a student discloses and how you handled that disclosure, if there is not training, it could have a chilling effect because it kind of creates this institution running around saying you're all mandated reporters. you can't say that to people than not train them on on what that means. if you train them and say listen, you're a campus security authority. if a student discloses to you, you have to provide statistics. you have to provide information in case there's a reason to

issue and then talk to the students and say we know you are building rapport with students, but you are not qualified to handle it. you are not qualified to take disclosure and these are some ways you can talk to your residents regularly about what your requirements are and if you do have to disclose come you can keep it private. and may not be able to be confidential but you can keep it private. it is good if it is done well. >> so im and ra. >> if i could come i want to apologize that i have to leave now. but i wanted to first apologist share how valuable this feedback is for us. i really appreciate your time here. senator mccaskill started the meeting by saying this roundtable will be a success if nobody feels like they've left instead i wanted to make that point and i didn't. so right before i leave i guess i want to offer the opportunity

to face a topic that we haven't delved into in the first hour and a half that you want to leave the two of us with before i unfortunately have to depart. >> well, something of interest to you considering your legislative background were sitting at the table we talked about considering internet crimes. not fiscal issue graphical times that we as a rulemaking committee couldn't address it here but that an issue. cyberelements in the sun actually captured. it may not be something on universities. maybe an area to look into. >> additionally, i want to revisit that. it is to fund more research on this issue. one of the places are campuses to receive research dollars to address public health issues around alcohol and other drugs i think there's an opportunity to create similar credit programs so campuses can do research on these matters as well to

increase our knowledge body on this issue so when we are complying with the act says campus doing so would wreck this is based on evidence. >> also going along the line of the internet technology, the technology sector right now is that the lead of great intervention strategies and programs for reporting on campus, bystander intervention, access to resources regarding campus violence and to have funding and access to those programs on college campuses go a really long way. i don't know how many of you attended the violence at the white house, but there were some really great proposals there about how you create intervention and prevention strategies using technology and creating accountability for colleges regarding the aggregate data reported through the third party sexual assault reporting on college campuses.

>> thank you very much. so im and ra and somebody on my floor brings me a video on a cell phone and it is clearly someone having sex with someone and it is pretty obvious from the video that is the bad is completely incapacitated. and there is even conversation him out one or more perpetrators about the fact that she's incapacitated. the ra recognizes to the vet demands. does the victim -- does the ira in the circumstance have a duty under the law now where should she have a duty under the law now to reporter? >> it actually contemplates a scenario like that in the colleges they too great a policy when the victim is unable to do so.

been intoxicated or passed out, obviously the victim may not even know what occurred. that is a different circumstance. so it doesn't mandate reporting, but it does say colleges are encouraging the type of reporting. i would agree with that. >> but does the ra need to talk to the victim first? >> i don't think so because the victor may not know what happened. >> with the victim must not incapacitated and she saw the video and clearly it still looked to this ra is that this was not consensual? is the ra have a duty to report that? >> my advice they are to be good faith. there is no peace for good faith. if the direct your is a savvy crisis and i were to say we received three reports come it is to be the same type of thing. it is very clear for campus security authorities that they are not domesticated. it's the last thing in their opinion to go to the vet them and say listen, you should not have too many effects of a bad

example. it is the start -- it's arty bad situation, but it's the start of the bad situation if the ra goes to question the student. >> i guess what i'm getting at is we want the victim, the survivor to have great power as to whether or not this case is criminally investigated or not. but at the same time, there is a public safety duty of people that work at this university to protect other people from these crimes. and so, if we are going to get all the power to the survivor as whether the case goes forward at any time a bystander comes forward, you say they would almost have to check off with a thick band before they can in fact -- because once one person that gets the name and was one force for to get that video, law enforcement has a duty to go question of the time.

law enforcement does have a choice. they can't see us this crime was committed. the victim still has the opportunity not to cooperate and say i'm not going to sell you anything. the thick, the survivor has a lot of powder because it's very, very difficult to move forward with a non-cooperative, obviously the most important witness to the crime. we can't mandate reporting. wait a minute, when a two-man reporting because very few people do this once. very few people do this once. >> senator mccaskill, one of the ways the university of michigan has addressed this conundrum is by creating a review panel. in instances where we have a survivor who is unwilling to participate in the institution's process for whatever reason a review panel that is made up of representatives for law

enforcement, representative from my organization, a representative who represents the interests of the accused student and also her title ix coordinator get-together to look specifically at matters of community safety versus survivor autonomy and talk through the issues presented to make a determination as to bet the rid the instance where there is a survivor who was unable around willing to move forward with the institution's process, whether the institution has an obligation to continue to review or investigate that matter or if there is other action the institution may take to address the responsibility for community safety will not investigate in particular incident. >> that makes me really uncomfortable. i mean, if there is a video of someone being raped, i want law enforcement to get it like in 10 minutes. i mean come a panel to discuss whether or not one person a

should receive direct evidence of a felony -- >> i'm sorry, i was looking specifically at campus responsibilities. not one enforcement responsibilities. >> i'm talking about campus personnel having a responsibility to report to the university, which would then have a duty to report to law enforcement under the circumstances i believe. >> if you want to solve this problem carter make victims comfortable making the choice themselves. i can't say it any other way. i hear the pain. i've worked with victims of gang saturday. i'm a victim of gang rape. i have helped a school that headed from their students. i care for every survivor. the reason i reported is because i didn't want someone else victimized. i didn't report it for me. when i thought i came forward, i was able to do so. you can't take that choice away. i know that you want to get the individuals committing this harm, get them on their systems are better. the dems will see the systems

work. they will sue the newspaper article that doesn't let the football player go for rape and see them in trouble. there are victims reported in cases are mishandled and we see that and we know it. we know it in our bones that it is not safe yet. when we see those cases reported handled better, we'll automatically have higher reporting. if we do it this way, we will deter survivors. >> so your recommendation would be that the log would not require someone who has direct independent cooperation of the felony, that they would not reporter? >> i don't think they should be mandated to report it did if they choose to do so, that is one thing. mandatory, taking it away from victims who could reported themselves because they're capable, intelligent individuals , that can still occur. it's not like it will not get reported if we don't force someone to do so. >> with an ally at sad that it had to be reported, but it could

be reported anonymously so that at least the institution would know that there is an issue. >> the whole idea of reporting this to take this man off the street to make an anonymous parody still not do it. >> queries based on reporting or purposes of keeping track of the severity of the problem. the clary data is not a basis for prosecution. it is all anonymous data. >> but now you're trying to suggest they also have the law-enforcement purpose. i think you will change the nature of the beast and i promise to campus survivors will not appreciate it. >> i believe it's a campus security authority must marry you gave, the ra would have to give that to their law-enforcement, the statistics and they may not have the name of the person that video, maybe they do. there's a lot of unknowns. the campus public safety or campus offers more determined if

this is something many to warrant on. if they know the person in there, that is why a team like hollies make amends and others to reach out, to not say this was reported, mandated reporting. that would be a bad way to player, but then to reach out to the students say this came to attention. this was brought by a third party. the student may say i don't want to do anything but they've been given their options. so that's the scenario you are given a tennessee campus security authority, to me i would think you would seek clary violation. i would put them on a clary violation for not reporting. >> absolutely. what is written now, they are obligated to report that appeared there would be in good faith seen on video. >> i agree with alice and if she is mandated or he or she, if they are mandated as a campus security authority, the most likely would have an obligation. the problem is from the campus

on person-to-person is, the definition is very broadly defined. some institutions may designate that others may not. one of the things we talk specifically about his narrowing the definition bananas for a suggested, encouraging that reporting for those who are designated as the csa. >> at night, you know, i think it is really important that everything we do in this area in power victims and survivors and empower survivors to be the ones who make the decisions. i completely agree with you, loretta. it just is very difficult when there is clear evidence of a serious crime and he knows there are repeat offenders that someone would get the wrong impression that they didn't have any obligation to bring that forward. frankly in some instances, at least in my experience, the

survivors when they realize other people where they are that wanted to help, it made all the difference in the world. the loneliest journey is the journey when you think no one is on your side. >> it is solid how it is framed. law and prosecution of sex crimes, i feel strongly our system is failed and it can be better. it is our spring because survivors are told don't tell me anything consult have to tell police, you will deter reported novel move backwards. as long as it is framed in the wake makes it clear survivors can keep having a voice. >> i would almost say some of the cases we've heard about the problem isn't getting to law enforcement. it is the response you were hearing. i do want to seek for everyone at this table, but i've read in media confident that nobody would actually say that. and you learn because you meet the person and say wow, somebody said that. this person said one of these absurd statements students will

keep getting raped and so the chickens come home for whatever the statement was that many find out out those actually said. there's not much much you can do. it goes back to training and the trauma informed. so there's only so much we can do in terms of getting it to law enforcement. like laura said, until we are all having a campus process and to find campus process with guidance from title ix, and so we get to the point of the statements are being made and they are being made in the campus process. don't get me wrong. >> anything else? i've gotten through my list. we've done it in less than two hours. anything else that you all want to bring up that we haven't talked about for anything you feel you need to augment? >> one of the things that is going to come up over and over

and timed them on to talk about internet in different things, cleary original had the idea that the physical campus with some coordinator of a walker black and i'm not a campus campus, but definitely right by my school still. the fact that cleary's geographically bound creates a lot of issues in the rulemaking process, the nitty-gritty if we had victimization surveys, data happen on campus or off campus? a lot of them worry about having cranston looking unsafe. i think it is an area that needs to be explored. i don't have an answer, but campuses and students where they hang out and people lived in that may not be consider campus under the cleary act, very much campus to any student walking around. i know that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. it doesn't matter as happens as long as it effects education, cleary will also update that in the near future.

>> i think that is right. you know, in the military it is forever the member of the military is. it is not just on base. we do not limit the authority of the cmj, if the perpetrator or their survivors a member of the military, there is jurisdiction and it doesn't matter where you have been. now there is dual jurisdiction that happens in town is supposed to a base. but i think that is right and i think we need to look at that. even on some campuses, they don't consider greek houses on campus, which really seems to defy logic because there are campuses that don't. >> yeah, absolutely. another idea i floated earlier, the cleary complaint process now going into effect with regulations taking force in the fall will be for the first time ever and i know students know about title ix because it's in the nose. it is all about cleary, their

rights they are. a lot can be done to make sure the process is i'm not alone.gov, but i also note the investigators have limitations and how they can update progress and whether you do a title ix complaint, cleary complaint, it is stressful to not know if anything is look at, not know who is talk to and the government can do more for transparency, showing an investigation here that help survivors make a complaint say someone is talking about it. let me add my story. let's expose what is happening. the more transparency in relation to this matters. >> was here from the universities about that and maybe from you, lynn. why should we not have all these investigations? why do they need to be a secret until they are over? >> the university of michigan is currently under investigation by

the opposites office of civil rights and we share that information with the community. so i am not certain. by a campus would not share that information with their community. >> i know they put the 55 names out there, but they're evidently has not been a change in the policy that will have that been ongoing disclosure. >> we did make this 55 names public and we certainly can give some more thought to how to move forward in the future. >> you now, i understand if there is an investigation that you do not want to reveal the details of the investigation while the investigation is pending because you can screw up your investigation and bad guys can get away. but if it is just a matter of letting people know that there is an investigation, i think you are right.

i think knowing someone is looking at a book of comfort to other survivors that there is a process in place they can rely on some sort of structural support. >> even giving information of where the announcement is through the school, here is who you can e-mail if you'd like to add or contribute to the investigation. i know through my work with survjustice, people see the news than we want to add our story today. at this complaint. at this information. i do think there is a benefit. [inaudible] >> right. >> -- not just investigated. we internally corrected everything magically goes away. we need to know what went wrong so that others can look at that and learned to better. >> i think that even came up on the rulemaking committee that we talked about sanctions. right now i just had just at the regulation that will go into

effect in the father requires schools to show a possible sanctions for violence. a lot of times campuses are doing a good job sanctioning. both do an educational video as a consequence for summer suspension or some other meaningless, like an sap reasoning meaningless consequences. cleary can include that. we've heard five reports of sexual a soul. or to suspensions for one expulsion. i said something about a campus, how they are taking it. that is something that could be added in required sanctions. >> we should do the same thing for institutions. if it isn't applied the law, this is what happens to you. and not just the $35,000 fine. >> ray. >> we do think it is important to have opportunities to add information to our investigations. we have started doing some public listening sessions as part of our review process to provide the opportunity.

>> the public means on campus normally an alumni who graduated and have left. it can still be expanded because we are seeking alumni organizations that dartmouth, harvard say in the habit of a 20 years ago and it's handled poorly. so just think dionne not. >> anybody else? i would just additionally i'd been in a campus regulation of which i'm very proud of that are promulgated, that have been promulgated will be issued in november. we've sent appropriate bars for campuses to reach as it relates to training and prevention. but for many campuses, this is a lot of new information and i am concerned that is campuses get guidance and support and resources from the federal government to be able to be compliant. i see already the cropping up as many for-profit organizations that are looking to cash in.

looking to cash in on institutions fear. what we really want is institutions to operate from the point of the best practice possible, not from a place of fear. so that would be my encouragement. >> welcoming to people like you have an organization across the country? >> we do not currently have been organization across the country. this is something a number of us who work on campuses are hoping to create in the next year. as a colleague in the audience who is joining me after this to discuss the very matter. >> i think you should. i think you all better be tasked with putting your universities and colleges in a compliant position not just by making sure you got all the things you're supposed to do, but that you have her best training and policies and that everyone understands it's not just your office that has a role here. i think you could benefit from

some collegiality and for cross-pollination. >> thank you for that encouragement. >> i don't know what to do besides say it's a great idea for you to form an extinction -- organization, but it is. >> you for it happens that has to happen on the campus because there's so many silos existing on campus. i am sure everyone at michigan knows the great work holly is doing, but there's probably some folks who don't. so you know, knowing your resources on your campus and i don't know -- i guess it's nothing we can legislate so to speak. but having folks come to you know, i think we've seen the cleary compliance coordinator role for title ix port nader will crop up on campus, one of the things we do in our organization has had a collaborative learning program and campuses sign-up a new ongoing professional development

teams of five sewer forces them as a team of five, not just the cleary guy or gal, but a team of five to examine compliance from all bubbles and manifest themselves with the tool that they have to go through and do there a program review, where they do their own program to see what they can find. that is another thing. while it's great to see it happening nationally, i do think we need to see it happen in our campus. it sounds so simplistic, but that's what we are missing. the top three things i see the biggest challenges around comes silos to be number one. the silo/organizational dynamics. >> this is another place for the assessment can be a useful learning tool. not only looking at him of victimization, but the levels of information saturation on a campus. having campuses set goals for improvement over the course of time. so what we're looking at campus climate assessments, it is they're happening on intervals

so campuses can monitor their progress. >> well, glad to see are excited. i have a feeling we'll have some some pushback from universities about mandated campus climates. so we have to be ready to win that fight. >> absolutely. senator mccaskill, i want to add on what allison is talking about. coordinating across the campus, for example, look at that higher education compliance commotion to solve this, when i had started this initial compliance project and this was 34 years ago, completely grassroots because we realize we have a problem in the way to get everything in compliance. when i was all set in that time i courteney with 27 separate organizational units. everybody from one person to wellness to ddo. so it is very complicated hagrid now said it has disturbed the

institution enemies to be a central essential entity to keep track because my law-enforcement officers do every day is completely and utterly different than my title ix for nader's government and my folks in athletics versus general counsel's office. so central organization is very important. >> just to piggyback on the carolina same. some really great work run issue are actually happening at the community college level because they typically operate within the local community and how to have more cooperation with local law enforcement, local shelters for students must title ix plus on campus law enforcement. bergen county community college has created a really great intervention and prevention programs is bilingual to serve their population that connects them with resources on a near campesinos really leading the

way. we see the great work from community college because they are sasso much of the community that they are required to then work with more community members that don't operate in the ivory tower were within silos that the university. kind of a side issue that takes away from the conversation. i know you're interested in the idea of combining forces focusing on violence. the department of education obviously has done some good work, but i have been continually disappointed at least with the title ix cases regarding enforcement and i've had the thought with other survivors at the department of justice, their office for civil rights needs to get involved. sometimes schools are doing what the violating civil rights for deterrent reporting. they are serving justice in many ways. looking up at mono, bringing the department of justice would be a statement. this is the just education. we are not just throwing money at the problem. we are actually laid down a lot this is a crime, a civil rights violation. this is many things.

i encourage the enforcement aspect. the abilities to happen happen from the government and it's not something activists can do. not something institutions are nonprofit to new. only the government demands significant enforcement and i hope you look at the department of justice and the role it can play. >> okay. i learned a lot today. i appreciate all of you being here very much. just consider this an open channel of communication. we should draft legislation done sometimes after the last round table here we are working on it now and obviously we anxiously await everyone's input to the draft and what we include and what we don't, but we are working on a collaboratively and obviously it is really informed by these roundtables. so i know i've gotten a lot of staff in this room today taking lots of notes and all of that will be collated and we will look at all if it in light of the list of things we are

talking about legislating about and hopefully come up with the right piece of legislation double off rent and improve what we have and empower the survivors in a way that they have not been empowered before, with the right mix of regulation support and penalties. so, thank you all very much for being here. >> thank you. ..

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

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and it wrapping up what she says is going to be the first of a number of conversations she will be only on campus sexual assault. he missed any of this conversation you can watch at any time on line at c-span.org.

and earlier today we heard from former new york times executive editor jill abramson, the commencement address at wake forest university in north carolina. we will show remarks again at 830 eastern right here on c-span2. more commencement addresses later this week. join us friday for speeches by louisiana governor bobby gentle, massachusetts governor duval patrick, a georgia congressman john lewis and others. >> communication policy had not been reformed since 1934. there was really a compelling need in 1995 to begin a process of massive telecommunications reform. at that time you basically had boxes. you had a box for broadcasters, box for telephone companies the hobart to long-distance, you know, cable, satellite. our view was, we had to come in and try to eliminate the lines of demarcation and promote

competition, believing that with competition there would be innovation, more investment, more consumer choice, more innovation and, you know, fortunately i think the result has proven us correct. that is exactly what is happened . >> when the 96 act was written we were largely focused on telephone service, whether it was local or long-distance. to some extent we focused on cable tv service, and we wanted to take the steps to make that market competitive, which we did . the primary focus was potts, plain old telephone service. today the landscape is fundamentally different. the fcc has managed as well as it can without clear direction from congress about how the transition from the era of telephone service to the time when everything is delivered over the internet should take place. in my mind the fcc has done a good job.

>> evaluating the 1996 telecommunications act with two of the house members who helped write it tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy events and every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable-tv industry and brought to you as a public-service buyer local cable or satellite provider. watch as hd, like some facebook, follows on twitter. >> the justice department filed charges today against members of the chinese government and military for hacking into the computer systems of five u.s. companies and a labor union to steal trade secrets. the indictment listed several industries that were affected, including a nuclear power site, manufacturers, and a solar products company. attorney general eric holder led

today's briefing on the charges. this is about half an hour. >> good morning. i am joined by assistant attorney general for the national security division, john carlin, united states attorney for the western district of pennsylvania, david hickton, executive assistant director of the fbi, robert anderson and the special agent in charge for the fbi pittsburgh office. it -- in his 2013 state of the union address president obama called the theft of corporate secrets by foreign countries and companies for real threat to our security as well as to our economy. we are here this morning to discuss a matter that proves this threat is all too real. today we are announcing an indictment against five officers

of the chinese people's liberation army for a series of cyber security breaches against six american victim companies. these represent the first ever charges against known state actors for infiltrating united states commercial targets by cyber means. a federal grand jury in pittsburgh has found that the five chinese military officers conspired together and with others to hack into the computers of organizations and the western pennsylvania and elsewhere in the united states. the victim entities include westinghouse electric, alcoa, allegheny technologies, united states steel workers union, u.s. steel, and solarworld. this is a case alleging that economic espionage by members of the chinese military. the range of trade secrets and other sensitive business information's : in this case is significant and demands an aggressive response. did the indictment alleges that

these pla officers maintained of prize experts to access to victim computers to steal and permission from these entities that would be used for to other competitors from china including state-owned enterprises. in some cases they sold -- stole trade secrets that would have been particularly beneficial to chinese companies at the time that there were stolen. in others they stole sensitive, internal communications that would provide a competitor or adversary in litigation with insight into this strategy and the vulnerabilities of the american in three. in sum, the allies attacking appears to have been conducted for no other reason than to advantage state-owned companies and other interests in china at the expense of businesses here in the united states. this is a tactic that the united states government categorically and ounces. president obama said on numerous occasions, we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to united states companies or to the united states commercial sector.

our economic security and ability to compete fairly in a global marketplace are directly linked to our national security. the success of american companies since our nation's founding has been the result of hard work and of fair play fire citizens. this is how it ought to be across the globe. success in the international marketplace should be based solely on the company's ability to innovate and compete, not on as sponsors government ability to spy and the steel business secrets. when a foreign nation uses military or intelligence resources and tools against american executive corporation to obtain trade secrets or sensitive business information for the benefit of the state-owned companies, we must say enough is enough. this administration will not tolerate actions by any nation that seeks to illegally sabotage american companies and undermine the integrity of fair competition in the operation of

the free-market. this case should serve as a wake-up call to the seriousness of the ongoing cyber threat. these criminal charges represent a groundbreaking step forward in addressing the threat. this indictment makes clear that state actors to engage in economic espionage, even over the internet from faraway places like officers in shanghai for will be exposed for criminal conduct and sought for apprehension and prosecution in an american court of law. with that it is my pleasure that turned over to the assistant attorney general for the national security division. >> thank you, sir. the national security division mission is to protect our nation's security by using every legal tool available to confront and of the threats to our country. today that tool is an indictment backed by the independence and credibility of our criminal justice system.

the threat is from members of unit 61398 of the chinese military who have targeted the u.s. private sector for commercial of vantage. we alleges that members of unit 61398 conspired to hack into computers of six u.s. victims to steal information that would provide an economic advantage to the victim's competitors, including chinese state-owned enterprises. in the past when we brought concerns such as these to chinese government officials they responded by publicly challenging us to provide hard evidence of their hacking that can stand up in court. well, today we are. for the first time we are exposing the faces and names behind a keyboard in shanghai used to steal from american businesses. thanks to the investigation of the fbi and the hard work of the western district of pennsylvania , this indictment

describes with particularity specific actions on specific days by specific actors to use their computers to steal information from across our economy. it describes how they targeted information and industries ranging from nuclear to steal to renewable energy. and it shows that, while the men and women of our american businesses and their business days innovating, creating, and developing strategies to compete in a global marketplace, these members of unit 61398 or spending their business days in shanghai stealing a free to reliever. and it shows that the business information that these individuals fall, including trade secrets, what have been particularly beneficial to chinese companies. let me give you some examples of the allegations and learn batman right about the time that solarworld was rapidly losing its market share there were pricing exports well below cost,

these hackers were stealing cost pricing and strategy information from solarworld computers. and while westinghouse was negotiating with the chinese state-owned enterprise over the construction and nuclear power plants, the hackers stole trade secret designs for components of those plants. to be clear, this conduct is criminal, and it is not conduct that responsible nations within the global economic committee would tolerate. at the department of justice and the fbi we have repeatedly pledged that we would do more to all those accountable to engage in these actions. today we begin to fulfill the pledge. we will continue using all of the tools at our disposal to pursue those who steal our intellectual property that matter who they are or where they reside. i would now like to turnover to david hickton, the u.s. attorney for the district of pennsylvania who has been a valuable partner in its efforts.

>> thank you. good morning. as you know, pittsburgh has long been preeminent in the metal in the street and home to organize a letter as a result pittsburgh has become the target of state-sponsored cyber intrusions . the organization started by the chinese defendants named in the indictment are united states steel, the largest steel company in the united states, westinghouse, one of the world's leading developers of nuclear power technology, alcoa, largest aluminum company in the united states, allegheny technologies, a large integrated specialty metals company headquartered in pittsburgh, the united steelworkers union, the largest industrial union in north america, and solarworld, a leading solar prius manufacturing company. these victims are tired of being raided. it is important for their

government to take a stand against criminals to infiltrate and exploit their computer networks. some of the militia's activity described in the indictment appears designed to benefit the chinese--pound steel industry. our domestic corporation struggles to compete with china on the pricing of steel and other goods. our competitive advantage has been to engineers superior, stronger, and more advanced product such as oil country tubular goods and seamless standard line pipes. these initiatives cost billions of dollars in capital and research and development costs. in these computer intrusions enable the theft of this technology and what our ability to compete. at the time of these computer intrusions by the chinese military u.s. steel, the

steelworkers, and eight t i and other companies were involved in trade disputes to redress jumping by china's state of steel companies to excepted international dispute resolution mechanisms. the success of these entities and trade litigation also met the targets. the hackers stole internal trade strategy, attorney-client communications, and cost and correction analysis. the conspiracy by chinese hackers target each of these entities at critical times such as in the midst of negotiations to build a nuclear power plant in the middle of a trade case. the affects of economic espionage are far reaching. obviously the victim companies lose their capital investments in research and technology, but the important message is that cyber theft and packs real

people. the lifeblood of any organization is the people work, strive, and sweat for it. when these cyber intrusions occur productions los call plants close, workers get laid off and lose their homes. this happens in steel towns in western pennsylvania like braddock, mckeesport to mike weapon as well as in many other similar towns and cities in the united states. this 21st century burglary has to stop. we would not stand idly by if someone pull the tractor trailer up to a corporate headquarters, cracked the lock and loaded up since the reformation. hacking, spying, and cyber fact for commercial advantage can and will be prosecuted criminally, even when the defendants are state actors. these victim organizations and,

indeed, every organization are entitled to a fair shot and a level playing field in an intensely competitive global market. we thank the fbi for its great work. it took world-class investigators to follow a complicated trail of computer evidence to one building on one block. we stand ready to bring these defendants to justice in federal court in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. thank you. we will now hear from bob anderson, executive assistant director of the fbi. >> thank you. good morning, everybody. as my colleague just said, today's action is charging five chinese military hackers with illegally been dreading the computer networks of six u.s. victims, does treading very clearly that we will law stand by and watch other countries steal our nation's intellectual property. it is no secret that chinese

government has lately sought to use cyber as the in-to obtain economic advantage for its state-owned industries. diplomatic efforts and public exposure has failed to curtail these activities. we have taken it to the next up, securing an indictment of some of the most prolific actors. these individuals are alleged to have used a variety of techniques, including e-mails that wants melissa software to steal proprietary and sensitive information from our u.s. victims. the victims of suffered significant losses as a result of the three pla tactics. our future is being built every day by the innovation and effort of american workers and companies. we believe there are many other victims and hope today's action is occurs and to come forward

and to talk with us. as stated earlier by the attorney general my colleagues on the stage, this announcement is the culmination of several years of work by those represented on this stage and many, many others who are not here today. that includes a task force for the department of justice national security division, the united states attorney's office, the fbi pittsburgh office, the cyber division, a counterintelligence division, and the criminal division at fbi headquarters. this investigation has touched 46 fbi field offices in the last several years. it's a landmark case that shows how interaction between u.s. government and private enterprise can succeed. this first indictment of chinese cyber actors clears the way for additional charges to be made. this is the new normal. this is what you are going to

see on a recurring basis, not just every six months, not just of your theory is very clear. if you're going to attack americans whether for criminal or national security purposes, we are going to hold you accountable. no matter what country live in. thank you. >> before we take any questions i would like to make just one further statement i want to confirm over this past weekend there were a series of law enforcement actions undertaken across the globe related to a separate cyber hacking case working in close coordination with our international partners. we conducted a series of arrests and other actions targeting the creators and the purveyors of malicious computer software which can victimize. there is an announcement in this

matter in new york city. i will refer you to the seven district of new york in u.s. attorney's office for other questions related to this case. these two cases show that we are stepping up our cyber enforcement efforts around the globe and the perpetrators range from foreign governments to civilian actors. we will not tolerate these activities. now we will be glad to take your questions. [inaudible] >> potential retaliatory cyber attacks. >> well, it is our hope that the chinese government will respect our criminal justice system and let the case proceed as it should, let justice take its course. we expect, hope the chinese government will work with us in connection with this and bring these indicted men to justice. we are also continuing to remain vigilant when it comes to cyber threats that emanates from china or from other countries.

>> mr. holder, is it likely that these defendants would ever stand trial in a u.s. court room? if not, what is the real goal here? >> our intention is for the defendants to have do process in an american court of law. that is the intention of what we have done today, to hold accountable people who have engaged in activities that violate american criminal law. that is our intention. >> but it does seem unlikely. do we even have an extradition treaty from china? we ever extradited people for these sorts of offenses? >> you can never tell how things will play out. we have stated our intention, brought a charging indictment. it is our hope to have these people stand before an american jury and face justice. >> you mentioned this is the first of its kind prosecution. what new tools are available to you to make this happen now and 2014? what barriers or obstacles? >> i will defer to the folks who

conducted the investigation. >> i am reluctant to get into the means of the investigation for talk about the details beyond a we have shared with you in a fairly detailed complaint. i think i am very grateful for the of the president and the attorney general to give us the green light to proceed, and we have both the will and the manner in means to achieve what we have put before you in western pennsylvania. >> says these are state actors is it possible you bring steps of -- subsequent indictments against the state into the? >> we're not going to discuss the possible charges might be brought in the future beyond to say these cases -- the cases like the one we brought today, phenomenal work by the fbi that we were able to bring a case that could save by name what people did in the specific actions that they took. we hope that the comet will stop by bringing criminal actions, but if it does not we will continue to use every tool at

our disposal. one thing is clear, the status quo cannot stand. american businesses cannot continue at their secrets stolen day in and day out. >> in light of the nsa is buying controversy and the chinese government's, you know, frustration with what happened there, is there any worry that they could retaliate in a legal context and start filing charges against camino, u.s. officials espied on china or things like that? i assume that these guys, these chinese are now on and temple and can travel outside china. would that happen to our -- >> all nations are engaged in intelligence gathering. what i think distinguishes this case is that we have a state sponsored entity, state-sponsored individuals using intelligence tools to gain commercial advantage. that is what makes this case

different. >> can you put a dollar value on the information that was stolen? >> it is not possible at this point. the indictment alleges the threshold required to charge. but i think surely all of you know what it takes to do there research and development to develop these new projects to complete -- compete in the increasingly competitive global market, you know what the impact is on the cyber -- so the dollar value will be substantial. >> billions of dollars worth of affirmation? >> it is substantial. >> sir, i believe one of you said that the investigators were able to track these hackers to a block and a building where their work. wasn't there an opportunity to apprehend them? work with the partners to actually bring them to justice? have them face justice in a

court of law? >> we have been able to charge specific individuals by name. we have mentioned weather work got the apartment of the people's liberation army units 61398. we hope, as the attorney general said and anticipate that we will be able to bring them to justice in the western district of pennsylvania and have them have due process and be able to base their charges in the core of law . >> a missed opportunity, were you able to point? is this just another government building? the impression that i got with the statement is that these individuals were tracked down to this particular building at this particular block. so why not take the man? >> the building and we are

referring to is in shanghai, china. we will, we hope that these individuals come to face their charges in a u.s. corn. beyond that i'm not going to comment further. >> when you talk about their capital commodities bigelow ben terms of the u.s. jobs that have been lost as a result of these kinds of attacks? >> i think there's a lot more data on that in other forms, but i can speak directly from western pennsylvania. we have -- we have taken everything that has been thrown at us a much and as a venue and faced all the challenges that the global marketplace. but if you look specifically at the example i told you about earlier and the investments, u.s. steel, for example, bought a plan in texas to compete, expanding their capability at

great cost and expense, and this is over and above the research and development cost. and when these intrusions hit and the market was flooded with the low cost by from china these plans were padlocked, and people lost their jobs. and so it has a real and direct negative impact in that jurisdiction our practice, and the same is true in ohio. that was another location for some of this investment to compete. so all around the country there has been a real indemonstrable loss of jobs and negative impact in our communities. >> you are saying that plant in texas was shut down as it reached -- the allegation you're making today? >> the below cost sales of competitive products and the cyber hacking, there was a very substantial trade case about this in 2009 the you can look

at. yes, absolutely. i am saying that this side were achingly is terribly to a loss of jobs here in the united states. >> can you talk a little bit about why now? obviously this has been something you are working on for a long time. what made you decide that this is now the time to unseal the new charges? >> these two cases take time to bring. we bring cases when they are at a point where we can identify individuals or entities that are responsible for the conduct. the question earlier about a missed opportunity to my legitimate question, one thing you have to keep in mind is the people who were charged in this case have never been in the united states. is that a question of the above are as a mile in the u.s. >> these hackers would not have done this without the approval of the state's.

expect them to just hand over to you? if they don't, what else do you do? >> we are hoping that we will have cooperation from the chinese government. we will see what happens. it is in the interest of china, it would seem to me, to be seen as respecters of the rule of law our hope will be that their results will be cooperation with the spirit to the extent we do not have that we will use all means available to us to ultimately have these people appear in a federal court here in the united states in pittsburgh and be given due process of american law. >> there are a range of things that we can do it, and we will employ all of them. >> the question of why now. a lot of this the activity has been going on for a long, long time. some mentioned that the leaders

give a green light to this case? was a problem in the past to get that green light? .. >> i would express concern about other industries that potentially are at risk not only from china, but from other countries as well. and as we've all indicated, this will, i hope, serve as a notice

to every nation around the world that would engage in these kinds of activities, that the united states takes it seriously, that we will bring charges where that is appropriate, and we will take all measures that we possibly can to hold individuals responsible for their conduct. >> thank you. >> earlier today former new york times executive editor jill abramson delivered the commencement address at wake forest university in north carolina. we'll show her remarks again tonight in their entirety at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and more commencement addresses during the 2014 graduation season. join us friday for speeches by louisiana governor bobby jindal, massachusetts governor deval patrick, georgia congressman john lewis and others. >> telecommunication policy had

not been reformed since 1934, so there was really a compelling need in 1995 to begin a process of massive telecommunication reform. and at that time you basically had boxes. you had a box for broadcasters, a box for telephone companies, a box for long distance, you know, cable, satellite. and our view was we had to come in and try to eliminate the lines of dehard case and -- demarcation and promote competition, believing with competition there'd be innovation, more investment, more consumer choice, more innovation and, you know, fortunately i think the result has proven us correct, that that's exactly what's happened. >> when the '96 act was written, we were largely focused on telephone service whether it was local or long distance. to some extent we focused on cable tv service, and we wanted to take the steps to make that market competitive, which we did. but the primary focus was really

just what we call potts, plain old -- pots, plain old telephone service. and today the land scape is fundamentally different. the fcc has managed as well as it can without clear direction from congress about how the transition from the era of telephone service to the time when everything is delivered over the internet should take place. and in my mind, the fcc's done a good job. >> evaluating the 1996 telecommunications act with two of the house members who helped write it, tonight on "the communicators" at eight eastern on c-span2. >> if you go back and look at coolidge, he was a conservative hero, and then his tax rate was a gold standard tax rate that we saw in the video, 25% was what he got the top rate down to. and he fought like crazy. it started, remember, with wilson in the '70s. so that was an epic battle. and when you go look at what all

the socialites said about coolidge in washington, how cold he was, he wouldn't meet with them, you want to remember that they were probably also from families that endorsed different policies. especially alice roosevelt longworth whose father had a different model of president. t.r. was a let's get 'em, go active, bully pulpit presidency, and here was coolidge, prissy and cold and not giving out favors. so she said he looked as though he'd been weaned on a pickle. he was from new england, farmers don't talk a lot or wave their arms about because a cow might kick them, you know? if you've lived -- and it was temperamental, of temperament. he was a shy person. but it also had a political purpose. he knew that if he didn't talk a lot, people would stop talking and, of course, a president or a political leader is constantly bombarded with requests, and his silence was his way of not giving in to special interests. and he articulated that quite

explicitly. >> author and columnist amity shlaes will take your calls, e-mails and tweets on taxes, depression-era presidents and current fiscal policies, "in depth," live for three hours sunday, june 1st, at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> on friday the brookings institution held an event looking at the sustainability and modernization of the u.s.' aging infrastructure. congressman john delaney talked about his bill to create an infrastructure financing entity. the event also featured perspectives from detroit and salt lake city. this is just under two hours. >> okay, good morning, everyone. my name is bruce katz, i'm a vice president at the brookings institution, founding director of the metropolitan policy program here. i want to welcome you to brookings both for people in the room, who are watching on c-span

and via webcast to the closing event of infrastructure week. so a lot of folks, public, private, civic, have been involved in designing infrastructure week and pulling it off, and to all of you from brookings, thank you. and also thank you to the foundations and corporations that really have made our work possible; the ford foundation, hitachi, aig, ge, rbc, kkr and all the members of our metropolitan leadership council. they really have made our research possible. now, the timing of this week could not be better. and i know congressman delaney's going to talk about this. there are clearly short-term federal actions involving the gas tax and the highway trust fund that are critical and really a new wave the national government's engaging. but there really are metaissues

that are incoming this week. does the united states have what it takes to build and retrofit a new generation of infrastructure for today's pressing and disruptive challenges? this is a pivotal decade because of supersized economic, social and environmental challenges facing the country. we need more jobs. we still need 71 million jobs -- 7.1 million jobs to make up the jobs we lost during the downturn, keep pace with labor, dynamics, population growth. we need better jobs because we went from 81 million people living in poverty and near poverty in this country in 2000 to 107 million. and we need to build communities that are resilient and sustainable in the face of economic restructuring and environmental challenges. so infrastructure can play an enormous role in addressing these super challenges both at the national scale and, frankly,

at the city and metropolitan scale which drive most of the economy. if we think differently and innovate continuously. so what we've tried to do at brookings, and this really is a set up for this forum and a set up for congressman delaney, we've really tried to do four things. we've tried to redefine infrastructure for a new era. we've defined it, essentially, as seven sectors of infrastructure that really have all their own methods by how we design them, how we finance them, how we deliver them and how we govern them from roads and transit to trade and logistics to energy and water and so forth. we're a modern, sophisticated economy. and infrastructure means a variety of things as we all know, and we can understand that. we can basically not just come up with ideas for solutions, but actually execute them. second, we've redefined the impact of infrastructure. right? this is 14.2 million jobs in this country.

11% of our jobs. and the incredible thing about the infrastructure supersector is that these are good jobs. they pay better wages than many other sectors of the economy. so when you invest in infrastructure, they're a platform for broader growth, but the jobs in that supersector are very good. third, we've tried to redefine by what we mean by innovation in infrastructure. you cannot build 20th century infrastructure for a 21st century economy. particularly how disruptive this economy is particularly given the potential to use the technology, to deploy it, to apply it in ways where we get better results. and finally, and this really, i think, will get to congressman delaney's thoughts, is we're trying to redefine how we invest in infrastructure. because at the end of the day, you need to invest for the future and, frankly, the entire system is a public/private exercise in the united states, and it's federalist in design

and execution. we are not a country, like many of our competitors, that really just have a central government that basically has a national plan and then does the bulk of the investment. we are a federal republic, and we are a public/private enterprise. and so as we go forward today, we have some excellent innovators from around the country who are really doing the hard work of putting forth a vision for what infrastructure can look like in this decade and the next century. we really need to think differently about this and align it to what is a disruptive and pivotal moment, but also align it to how we operate. as a nation and as a society. with that, i want to introduce, i think, one of the most innovative members of congress. john delaney, congressman from maryland's sixth district, right? hometown, right? washington d.c.

but also someone who comes into the national government from the private sector, ceo of a company listed on the new york stock exchange. this is really someone coming in not just with private sector expertise in the abstract, but with ideas that can be deployed for, again, a very different kind of moment where the national government needs to be a stable and reliable partner, a platform, a foundation for investing in the kind of infrastructure that moves our country forward. so congressman delaney on the critical committees that really deal with so much of what we're going to talk about today. thank you for coming here, looking forward to your remarks. [applause] >> thank you, bruce, for that very nice introduction and for all the work you do. and i want to thank everyone for being here and for your significant participation in infrastructure week.

it's, obviously, a topic near and dear to my heart, and i also want to thank brookings for hosting this and for all of your contributions to this topic and, generally, your contributions to public policy in this country which in many ways is sing lawyer. -- singular. so it's great to be here and be part of this event. so in my judgment, increasing the infrastructure investment in the united states should be our top domestic economic priority by any measure. and i say this for really three reasons. the first reason relates to some of the things that bruce touched on which is that it's an incredibly important jobs program to some to extent. and it particularly focuses on creating middle-skilled jobs which is exactly what this country needs. if you look at the data around job creation in this country, we're actually doing a pretty good job creating high-skilled jobs, and we're doing a very good job creating low-skilled jobs because high-skilled jobs

kind of directly and indirectly drive the creation of low-skilled jobs. but what we're really lacking is these middle-skilled jobs, the kind of job where people can have one job, have a decent standard of living and raise their family. that's really where the shortage is. that's the part of the market that's been hollowed out by the macro friends of globalization and technology. -- trends of globalization and technology. investing in our infrastructure is such a perfect way to create those jobs because it creates them directly through the people who actually build the infrastructure and indirectly around all the manufacturing that goes with infrastructure. because if you think about our ability to compete in manufacturing, you realize that the kind of things you have to manufacture for infrastructure, you know, to simplify it are big and heavy. and the united states has a competitive advantage on building big and heavy things. so it'll be incredibly stimulative to our manufacturing sector. the first reason we need to invest in infrastructure is because it creates jobs. and i actually think this point really needs to be emphasized because i come from the

financial services industry, and people often ask me what do i think the chances of another financial crisis in the near term. i actually think that chances of another financial crisis in the near term are almost zero. but when people ask me what are the chances of another jobs crisis where the effects of globalization and technology continue to accelerate and hollow out the middle class of this country at a much rapid, a much more rapid rate than we anticipate? i put the chances of that at pretty high. and so to think that we don't need a, potentially, big jobs program in this country, i think, is very short-sighted. the second thing it does is it makes us competitive. i care deeply about the united states' ability to compete in this new global and technology-enabled world which we all know we're living in. and having world class infrastructure is critically important, as you all know, to doing that. so it creates jobs, it makes us more competitive in the long term, and it also pencils out. if you look over time, for every dollar we spend on

infrastructure in this country, we get almost two dollars of economic return. it's $3.92, to be -- $1.92, to be precise. so it's rare from a public policy perspective that you can do all three of those things; create jobs in the short term, make you more competitive in the long term and pencil out. everyone knows about the challenges we face in infrastructure, but it's also a huge opportunity. i mean, the numbers are very significant. i mean, you hear numbers three trillion, four trillion, some people even say fife trillion dollars of -- five trillion dollars of an investment in this country to bring our infrastructure up to a world 3áy

for the last year around this challenge really fits into that financing category. so, again, we grant money, we charge user fees, we do public/private partnerships, and we finance it. what we've tried to create for lack of a better term is the category killer of financing. in other words, the big 800-pound gorilla that will take care of a lot of the financing needs. and that's what we've created

with the partnership to create america act which was a bill that i introduced in the house of representatives republican a year -- almost a year ago, and it had a companion introduced in the senate a few months ago. and right now it's the significant piece of bipartisan legislation in the whole of the congress. we have 31 house republicans on the bill and 31 house democrats, and we have half a dozen senate republicans and half a dozen senate democrats. so it's completely bipartisan and in a meaningful way. in other words, we're deeply penetrating the congress, and we're adding members every week. what the bill does is pretty simple. it's complicated the way it lays out, but it's actually pretty simple. we launch a large-scale infrastructure financing entity called the american infrastructure fund which is designed to be a large scale bank bond guarantor to be used by states and local governments around the country to finance any type of infrastructure. i the way bruce -- i love the

way bruce framed the categories of infrastructure. i call them the food groups of infrastructure. this entity allows states and local governments to use this money for transportation, for water, for energy, for communications, each for education. to think in the world that we're going to live in in the next 20 or 30 years from now that we don't think of education facilities as core infrastructure to a competitive united states, i think, is crazy. so all of those categories are eligible for financing. the american infrastructure fund is capitalized up front with $50 billion that goes in day one and creates the capital bed for this financing entity, and it stays in there for 50 years. we believe the american infrastructure fund can leverage itself 10-15 to 1 in the private markets. so it takes that $50 billion of capital and potentially leverages it up to $750 billion. and it'll exist for 50 years, so that money can revolve up and down for 50 years, potentially financing $2 trillion of

infrastructure over 50 years. and if you do the math on that, that would create three million jobs in this country which is more jobs than exist in my home state of maryland, to put it into perspective. so that's what the american infrastructure fund does. the way it's capitalized is very unique. the government does not put the $50 billion into the entity. it's put in by private companies who buy bonds very cheap, nongovernment-guaranteed, long-term bonds. 50-year, 1% not government guaranteed. they would never make this investment in a normal kind of free market system. but to create an incentive for them to do this, we say that for every dollar a u.s. corporation invests in the american infrastructure fund, they get the right to repatriate a certain amount of their overseas earnings back to the united states tax-free. we all know, and it's come into sharp focus in the last couple of weeks, that we've got an international tax law problem in this country, right?

and it's causing almost half of u.s. cash to sit overseas, of our largest corporations, and the cash overseas is growing at a faster rate than it is in the united states. so pretty soon u.s. companies will have more cash overseas than they do in the united states. and they're not bringing it back because we have a system, and this system is i unique in the world where we require our companies to pay tax locally where they earn the money, and when they bring it back to the united states, they have to pay double tax. no other country has this. what the other countries do is you pay your tax locally, and when you bring your money back to the homeland, if you will, you don't have to pay any tax. so that's why this cash is accumulating overseas which is why pfizer, for example, is doing one of these tax inversions. the real driver is the fact that they have $60 billion in cash overseas. if they bring it back to the united states, they've got to pay $20 billion in federal taxes, so they might as well use it to potentially overpay for a company that allows them to redomicile overseas.

so is what we're doing is creating a path for some of that money to come back to the united states tax-free. it's not a free lunch. they have to put some money in this american infrastructure fund. we make them buy bonds if they want to bring it back tax-free that they would never buy, that are probably only worth 20 cents on the dollar. the good news for them is they get to bring money, the effective tax rate is about 10-12%. the good news for us is we get capitalized without a penny of government spending a massive infrastructure financing vehicle that'll be around for 50 years and will make a material difference against this challenge and opportunity we have around infrastructure. and the reason this bill so bipartisan is because it brings together two pieces of public policy that each party has been spot on right about. we democrats, i'm a democrat, we've been advocating for an increased investment in infrastructure in this country for a long time for all the reasons we've talked about. and is we've been 100% right about that. my republican colleagues have been pointing out for some time

that we need to fix this international tax system, that it's a problem. it's making us not competitive. it's reducing investments in the united states among our largest companies. and guess what? they've been 100% spot on right about that. and so this bill fuses together those two pieces of good public policy, and as a result it has garnered such significant bipartisan support. as i said, it's the most significant piece of bipartisan legislation in the congress. a big idea -- it's a big idea, it's an innovative idea, and it's being done in a completely bipartisan way. in fact, we won't even add members unless we have a companion from the other side to keep that march of bipartisanship going down the field. we're going to have a hundred members on each side of the aisle with this bill pretty soon. and recently, in light of the highway trust fund situation -- now i'm going to pith -- pivot to how the momentum on our bill can be used to potentially do something even bigger, we've

thought about how we take this groundswell of support, and we introduce it into the discussions around the highway trust fund. because as most of you know, we in congress need forcing functions sometimes to do things. [laughter] and the highway trust fund, which is, obviously, a disaster in the making, it's pending insolvency, if you will, could also become a huge opportunity if positioned right. so what we've said is this: why don't we take the fact that there is bipartisan support around increasing our investment in infrastructure and fixing the international tax system. and not only do the partnership to build america act, but let's do something bigger, and let's deal with the highway trust fund at the same time. so what we've proposed, because if you think about what we're doing with our bill, we're raising $50 billion of capital from corporations and allowing them to bring back $200 billion from overseas because the ratio is 4 to 1. for every dollar of bonds they buy in the american infrastructure fund be, they can

bring back $4 from overseas. so we're bringing back $200 billion from overseas. there's a lot more money over there. let's bring back all of that money, or let's put in place a mechanism for more of that money to come back, and let's take additional revenues that can be generated off that and use it to capitalize or prefund the highway trust fund for several years to get its insolvency off the table which will give us time to figure out how to fix it in the long term. because in truth the highway trust fund should be funded with a flow source of funds, right? using kind of capital, in other words, putting it in and prefunding it is suboptimal. but in a crisis moted, it's what -- mode, it's what we should do because we all know the long-term fixes of a highway trust fund are complicated. how do we deal with gas tax, vehicle miles driven, the fact that the country's become increasingly urbanized, and a lot of urban dwellers don't use

the roads to drive, but they use them. we're not going to figure that out in a couple months. so last week i laid out in "the washington post" an idea that has gotten a lot of momentum ever since we started talking about it which builds on the partnership to build america act bipartisanship but takes it bigger. it's doing something bigger. we say let's take all the money that's sitting overseas, right? and do a mandatory tax on it of 10%. give companies ten years to pay the money in, but then they can bring the money back freely. so we create a path for the almost $2 trillion overseas to come back to the united states which is what most of u.s. corporate america wants to do. that money, the money that's raised from that, can be used for two things. the first thing it can be used for is to prefund the highway trust fund for six years. in other words, the shortfall. and so that we can have a measured and meaningful conversation about how to fix it in long term and not have to worry about it for the next several years. take 60% of the money and do

that. take 40% of the money and create the american infrastructure fund that we lay out in the partnership to build america act. and at the same time, let's change our international tax system to move to a modified territorial system which is what most of the world does which means you pay tax locally on your earnings, and if you want to bring it back to your home country, you can bring it back tax-free unless where you pay tax has a particularly low tax rate. then you have to gross it up to a minimum. so if somebody sets up a zero tax haven, you're still going to have to pay tax to bring the money back. so that's our framing. let's lift up, let's take this bipartisan support around the partnership to build america act and potentially let's do something bigger. let's take the highway trust fund insolvency off the table for six years, give us time to fix it. let's take some of the money and create the american infrastructure fund. this way we'll walk away with a clear net increase in the amount of money we'll spend on

infrastructure in this country, and so we'll create the jobs, we'll make ourselves more competitive, and at the same time, let's fix this international tax system so that money can flow. this would be so transformative, so utterly transformative to the short-term job creation opportunities in this country into the long-term competitiveness of this country, i think it would be a singular and historic move for us to do as a nation. and the good news is we're coming to this debate already from a bipartisan perspective. in other words, the momentum on the partnership to build america act proves that both parties want to do this. both parties want to increase our investment in infrastructure. both parties want to fix our international it tax system. so one of the things we're going to focus on is how do we take that momentum and not just do the partnership to build america act, which we should do, but potentially do something bigger. so that's where my focus is on infrastructure. and it's so great to have your support. bruce, it's really great to be

here and have this opportunity to talk. i know you have many other experts that are going to opine on this subject. again, i want to thank all of brookings, the whole of brookings. it is a singular institution, and it makes an incredible contribution to this country. and i want to thank all of our individual supporters in this room who have been so helpful on the partnership to build america act. you have been there with us from the beginning, you've been constant supporters, and it's really helped our efforts immensely. and i want to thank everyone for taking your time to listen to what i have to say today. and, again, i'm an optimistment i think we can fix all these problems, and i think what we're laying out here is a good first step to make this country more competitive, create jobs and, hopefully, in 10 or 15 years when we have infrastructure week, we're celebrating all the success we've had. so thank you. [applause] ..

that's an important thing, particularly with the infrastructure. i am a senior fellow here at the brookings institution. i manage our metropolitan infrastructure initiative. i want to welcome you all again to ever structure we 2014. for those of you following on the web cast or falling on the tv, we want to invite you to join the conversation. go ahead and tweet. rebuild renew. join the robust twitter conversation that has been happening the entire week. we have an excellent panel wind

up. before i get into that i want to recap some of the key themes and discussion points that we heard all during this week starting back on monday. even though i think that we were certainly successful at our initial goal, which was to end up the initiative and push it to the front burner of the national policy discourse. as the congressman talked about the law we think it's critical. we have to move the conversation-action. that the president and vice president talk about it. it was helpful in doing that, we also want to make sure this is not just a conversation that is reverberating throughout the echo chamber here in washington. it obviously matters for all the reasons that have been talked about. matters what is going on in congress, a matters of we fix the highway trust bond. matters what will happen with the midterm. all of these things are important, but this is not the only conversation about an first -- infrastructure in america today. it is really not even reflective

frankly of the washington conversation you heard from the congressman. there are a lot of these ideas out there. we need to start talking more optimistically, getting down to brass tacks and figure out what we can do here in america today. but it is also not reflective, i think a lot of the conversation. infrastructure is so very broad and multifaceted. it is not just about bridges. obviously that matters, particularly after this horrible when it -- went to the we have had their really know that that transportation matters, but by limiting the discussion of ever structure just that narrow band from particularly just roads and bridges, we are failing to recognize the multifaceted way we are delivering, designing to governing, and financing the range of the infrastructure projects here in this country. i was encouraged to hear this week, and they did talk about a lot of different areas. as bruce mentioned family think about infrastructure. we do talk about recitation,

both intra and inter metropolitan area transportation . it is energy, water from a telecommunications, public works the carter and talked about education. it looks to the governor has talked about things like infrastructure. we think that these seven areas really capture the essence of the upper structure debate in the united states today, and we know that all these things work together. it is clearly water, transport, energy, all of these things fundamentally connected. a cut down to what we need to do, which is how you deliver projects and an era of fiscal constraint a political gridlock in many places, we have to deal with these different sectors. the other important part is that the federal age of the sectors of our for structure varies dramatically. with the federal government is doing in telecommunications is not the same as what they're doing on freight rail and other areas. so other important things that

we heard throughout the week, one is obviously that ever structure matters to the american economy. this was something we heard from the very beginning with a big event in the chamber of commerce . lebron and business leaders to talk honestly and other infrastructure, not just half what it's doing on the ground but have and enables them to do their business and compete locally. as bruce mentioned, a major focus on jobs. clear it will need to create more jobs in this country. we put out our reporter this week. showing that 11 percent of u.s. jobs are in one of these different sectors of the infrastructure. not even the indirect jobs, not the guy who's cutting the hair or a guy is doing his work. direct jobs in these seven sectors, love and percent of the american work force. then there was echoed by policy like this we, the afl-cio and all bunch of others. the direct connect with an infrastructure in the american workforce. we also heard a lot about major disruptions that are affecting

the conversation about infrastructure in america today declare a new washington. conversation is a major disruption. no doubt about it. demographics, the building america futures event earlier this week with secretary fox talking about the director of the changes that we are experiencing in this country and the growth. this is not what parts of western asia or europe. we are growing country. the way, that rub the mixture people are able to get jobs in things like public transit, all of that is important. we will discuss the role of trade and logistics' and boosting u.s. exports given a disruptive changes that are happening broadly a round of global economy and given disruptions around climate change also a big theme this week, how we design water infrastructure that is sustainable on resilient. it is obviously water infrastructure is really near and dear to our hearts obviously . but i think the main preoccupation that we heard, the

main disruption that could coming up was around funding and finance. this was a steady drumbeat and common theme. out of we get things done today? but it is also, i think all we are the most resolutions, not just all morality, but the tools and the tool box, the real ideas that are out there, and how they get things done and how you come learn from one another. first, it is clear that for some areas of transportation, infrastructure like transportation, we are going to have to fund them in traditional ways. raising the gasoline tax. we talked about things like tolling of the interstate. we talked about things like ballot measures and transportation for america and the center for transportation excellence to margaret workshop of the states get ready to do campaigns around ballot measures , see if the voters are willing to raise money with a transportation infrastructure. we know that they're doing this

already and is something we will see probably emerging in 2015. we heard a lot about new partnerships. accommodations between the public in the private, philanthropic and nonprofit. not simplistic notions about private initiatives. selling off public assets for purely private profit. try to figure out ways that we can get this done leveraging private-sector expertise, capitol, and connecting at with traditional areas of the infrastructure so that we can get things done in a unique way. so the bipartisan politics enters highlight a lot of these ideas along with the west coast infrastructure exchange, and what they're doing in washington , california, oregon, british columbia to develop standards, transparency, and a real pipeline project the works for both the public and private sector. now, it is true that none of these ideas and innovations are going to solve all our infrastructure problems. we know that. there is no real silver bullet solution will we're facing today

the but it is clear that in addition to the priorities of fixing the trust fund, as congress mentioned, that has been studied, a true partnership of government entities, private financiers, they're going to have to do the hard work of the united states to get this done. it is not going to be easy. i am encouraged for what we heard this week about new innovators, new generation of ideas, new generation of activities that are working. so with that as a backdrop, i think that leads into the discussion that we want have today with the screen panel that we will set up now. i will introduce the panel as quickly. you can read the details about them. there will be providing reports highlighting innovations in which they are engaged and also the general thoughts as experts about what's going on now. first of we're going to have the director of projects in the toward future cities implementation office.

i love the fact the quality implementation office, action oriented optimistic. as the name suggests it will talk about a range of engagements are under way, not just city services like water, lighting, energy, waste, transportation, but how all that relates to economic growth and how that relates to us neighbor of stability. an architect, recently became a father of twins bit of luck with that. it is probably getting harder. after dan will have the founder and ceo of big focus partners. leading the rockefeller foundation funded reinvest initiative, a collaboration among a series of private firms working to create a public-private partnerships for brazilian infrastructure across water, energy, transportation. addiction may be on a personal pitch and they. next the director of research

and development, a new organization working to our caviars across infrastructure with an emphasis on transit transportation. a broad range of expertise in making it more accessible, equitable, and sustainable but on a policy sun and also from the practice site tomorrow work on the ground and replaces. musters new director cities and transportation at the carnegie endowment for international peace which is on the other side . and then finally we live eric shaw, director of community and economic development in salt lake city where he is a possible for possibly a wider range of activities, planning, economic development, transportation engineering, building services, housing, never a development. so i don't know what he does in his spare time or if he has any. what may be an unnatural act for us, we don't have any kind of

formal big fat presentation. but given this week, given the excitement, we did want to make this the more active, more interactive, go to the audience roach of the quickly for questions. for those of the following alabaster on tv go in and use-tax. who will try to get some of those into the conversation. certain as we follow. with that, please join me in markham in the panel. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you all for allowing me to speak with you this morning. the emmy's that uc and the screen is one you have probably seen before. it is one that tends to illustrate disinvestment, the

population, and conventional thinking that may have led to both of those things. for us, a group that actually implements with of the partners of a public, private, philanthropic, underlies family think it is something different. actually may be a side of an incredible opportunity for transformative innovation. particularly transformative innovation with an infrastructure and looking at things a little bit differently the way we may have looked at them in the past real opportunities to stabilize our cities as a whole, minimize costs to increase revenue, an insurer that we can establish 21st century systems that began to mitigate the impact of some of our older 19th century's systems, began to drive up unemployment as we do them, ensure equity along the way.

lastly, provide a resilience to as city in the region that really does not have it but certainly needs it. and as we do this, as an implementation office -- and we have begun of the project level talks you about this morning, we think that there are lessons for everyone here, not just for legacy cities like detroit, to grab the united states, north america, but those cities that are rapidly urbanizing across the globe. the issue that detroit is facing today to be lessons for those in lagos, as bergamo by. these things matter globally, and we together can begin to deal with those. maybe seen as a kind of line. in fact, it is a circle. the proximity between these two realities is quite close. some of the things we're beginning to work on right now

that we should talk about, the first is green infrastructure, the idea that we have the ability to clean our air here, to clean our water, to begin to use these spaces to bring in carbon buffers. an extensive amounts of freeway, as you might imagine. many of these city directly next to neighborhoods. we have three times the rate of childhood asthma. that is not by chance. we use are available they can land actually plan a specific species to soak up co2 output m blog tis of particulate matter of getting into neighborhoods. here in the middle of developing projects right now with the most partners in the city as well as within the epa. how would begin to deploy blue in infrastructure systems, particularly important, and nothing some folks will talk about this this morning, given the illusion of we are experiencing in d.c. right now. you know, and deter we have over 20 square miles of vacant land.

perfectly vacant land. that is not a structure, and it is occupy bowl and to read that is roughly equivalent to the size of manhattan. how might be used the size of men and to deal with the bigger issue which is storm are run out, especially given the fact that the towards the top 42 percent of the world's freshwater supply commit 84 percent of the u.s. fresh water supply. we need to be better stewards here. in detroit every time we give a little over half an inch of rain and storm water goes to the catch basin we overwhelm our combined sewer overflows system and do a direct discharge into the detroit river and ultimately the great lakes. we are taking raw human waste and putting it out there. we need to do better than that. this is an important asset the towards its on, global asset, and we think we can begin to make those changes year but applying very soft systems company 201st century blue the

infrastructure systems that could use the land to soak up the water from a man is the hydrology, and remove the 19th century system that costs as copious amounts of money that we do not have as a city in the show the federal government would not like to fund either. the same time we can use all this land for food and energy. we can begin to actually think about how food production in this city can work to actually satisfy the needs of the city as a whole. starting in the chart, dramatic revolution in the city it typically has been defined by really poor access to the address is true, seeing many small-scale urban and agricultural products. we think these things can go to a larger scale and the occupied providing jobs, food, but then also for energy through biomass and a host of other things. detroit can lead in this regard. lastly, in many of these areas, you can tell it is not as if nothing is there. there's a house here. people, in fact, in the '20s or

miles that i'm showing you here 90,000 people live there. these folks have needs, of course. in many cases folks are older, people with poor access to the ability. pour access to health, amenities, services. these folks are isolated. we have to begin to rethink how they can move around. the idea is no one is getting dislocated here. how do we begin to develop on call paratransit networks that can actually allow people to get around more easily without requiring the dedicated to extract a bus to come down a street five times a day when one personal in the stick of the doctor tuesday. these the things we can begin thinking about the mall and a puff of opportunity and around areas that in the past of indicated our failure. and so for detroit it's all about putting liabilities and assets. he will continue doing that.

[applause] >> good morning. they saw all of the, as the event appear on stage shows going to ask you to start pitching your city in the rain. this is not at all a stretch of the imagination. i want you to imagine what happens to all the water after it hits. we have walked by puddles of flash flood warnings, the picture that water rushing off on any history is too large pipes and headed into water treatment plants.

when this system works well it is designed to keep water cling. on days like today when the system tells us what you see are baseman's the flood, sewers the back up into communities. we need to be will to think about these challenges in different ways. cities across the country are dealing with this file but not just washington d.c. many cities have their infrastructure systems of 100 or 150 years old. they were not designed for the ways we are using them today. my firm leads an initiative called reinvest initiative which is a partnership across a cities and leading engineering and legal, and finance firms to rethink how we both design and finance our system like our water system. think back on the water system with all the rain that is common today. imagine how it works.

it works like a giant funnel. our cities are built to gets this water and russian underneath the streets and carried out the lakes and rivers now i want you to picture that city working more like a sponge. imagine our roads could absorber water, imagine we could plant trees are put in wetlands that hold the water in place instead of having it all russia of the same time. that is a very different type of infrastructure. here talking about replacing pipes under your streets handle water mains in preview water treatment plants with tens of thousands of small pieces of trees, pavement that observes water, places to catch and hold water, something urban bathtub. what reinvest does is we work with cities directly and s.w.a.t. teams to redesign the systems and create financial portfolios and infrastructure.

we have a city park is across the country from miami beach to hoboken, new jersey, out to milwaukee in el paso. these cities are not like each other, but they all face the same challenges. they need to build infrastructure for the next hundred years and find ways to pay for it with increasingly strained public budgets. how do we do this? we will give two examples, one from miami and one for bubble could. the city of miami beach's a city that has been featured in the news frequently. when you hear about resilience often you will find an article on the papers a miami beach. miami beach on a sunny day has flooding sometimes it gets up to 2 feet high. this is a real. we could not believe it until city officials are listed different places where there was just water. miami beach problem is not just

flooding, not because of rain. the problem is that they're sea walls are sold that they have sea water pushing underneath the city during high tide and coming up through their sure systems. they are coping well now, and they are really leading the charge because they know this cannot last forever. we are working with them to redesign their seawalls to think about how you hold up the city differently but also pay for it differently and rethinking property taxes and insurance rates and one of the los and -- expensive insurance markets in the country. hoboken, which faces change is similar challenges was on the front page of the news for weeks after hurricane sandy it. the city at one point had 14 feet of standing order. hoboken has won square-mile, teeny tiny, 55,000 people in shape likable. was billed for a difference time. this city knows what they need to do, different things.

we are working with hoboken on some of their in the industrial parcels of land to think through how we combined types of infrastructure across sectors, and not just thinking about water, but looking at, where can we build cisterns underground to hold water when the sewers overflow, when it rains, but also to combine them with things like parking garages that can serve as flood overflow spaces during really intense rain. and then building on that, put things on the surface that create recreational spaces and parks for a city that is incredibly dense. to picture this are what you to think about a layer cake of infrastructure. it is not just about building one thing that is important. it is up building whole systems. when you think about all systems sort of counter intuitively in order to finance infrastructure we are interested in finding multiple ways to pay for the same project where you can

combine parking fees with water system user fees with attracting corporations to demonstrate technologies in innovation. i want you to know picture your favorite science museum and manchineel to showcase for communities for kids what resilience looks like for the next hundred years in a public park to work with companies to showcase coming here is how we can generate electricity for waste-water systems or what it looks like to turn waste and energy. a lot of our challenges associated with infrastructure and especially with rain in brazilian infrastructure is, when we are successful in building these systems is a politician's worst nightmare because success is something that does not happen. so a storm hits the community. that is fantastic for exactly one year. the next year you're fired.

will we are doing is finding new ways to not just come by in the systems to pay for them differently, but work to make sure that those successes are clear and visible for the public enemy's, the government's the working hard to make these changes. the slide that i have up here is an illustration of a process. all of you will find this amelya . on the left-hand side here you see a collection of what as city needs. cities know their needs incredibly well. they know they need new water systems, new electricity systems to repave roads at regular intervals, to rethink how to provide broadband to underserved communities. and each part of the city has different needs. city governments tend to be organized in cycles. the transportation office, broadband office, education office. and more interestingly banks tend to think in layers. they want projects where they

are not the only ones investing, and you can stack of capital and investors to be able to pay for. while we at refocus and their partners that we invest do is work to realign systems design with financing, and our goal is to be able to take what a city needs, so imagine your idea of a dream house, turned that into a blueprint consistent with the city's priorities, and also help make that into a mortgage stockinette. we have a lot of cities with a lot of projects, and they're going into banks with very "one of a dream house. and we need help translating those ideas into investment projects. this is not a problem of not enough money. it is certainly not a problem of not enough need, as you have heard from detroit. our challenge is to be able to combine these things to get from ideas action in a way that is

clear and replicable. so what we do is a little bit like doing in the olympics. we work not just on the system's design, such thinking about what the green infrastructure looks like or how to build a fund, but we also connect that to working with legal experts on how you design a public-private partnership that can deliver 10,000 pieces of infrastructure, not just one water treatment plants. then, what are the different ways that you can bring together revenue streams, as congressman delaney mentioned, with user fees, but also with saving, the successes that don't happen. so when my basement does not flood and i did not collect from the insurance company, how like a hedge that money and redirected to the projects i need? so in short, but we do is help cities not just rebuild what they had for the last hundred years, we aim to get them to

what they need for the next hundred. thank you. [applause] >> hi. i am getting away with showing a painting or a collage because i am part of a new civic philanthropy. we are just getting started. it is extended talks you a little bit about what is going on with us. this is a beautiful piece by an artist. basically she works with the concept to match the unknown, trace our paths, and she, you know, you can say that she makes the and not quite beautiful. i just wanted to use of starting point for how we're thinking about the infrastructure and the role that we can play in making a change. we just got started.

we did this can of the field. there are so many wonderful amazing experts out there. you know, banks banging on the door to try to make this change, but change is scary for some many people. and what is scary is the unknown what we want to do is try to bring together all the people, partners, organizations that cities, the private sector, and make the hon none more legible, to explore this area had to figure out the stuff that we could partner to a to make these things happen. one of the things that we started to look into was improving the experience. general services experience of getting around the city. we all know what it is like to be unable to hail a cab, to wait for the boss that never shows up and it's never know when the boss will show. we all understand this. in fact, this is one of the greatest numbers of people get into jobs. we're talking about infrastructure as an enabler of labor markets and shops and

people accessing jobs. so it is a huge underpinning of our economy, but it is one of those things that is overlooked by conventional transportation as usual. usually we serve it out. we serve it up with these big agencies. we have to reorganize it. well, frankly that is no longer going to work. people have really unusual schedules. people in detroit you just need to go to a doctor once a month on a tuesday. you have other people working for ballpark time. the fee schedules are no longer as predictable as usual. what is going on now is that there is a huge number of participation from the private sector and public that is really creating a sharing economy. but what is really amazing about this is people are participating

. there is an equity issue. honestly there is also a new emerging evidence of the americans that have smart phones, many of them also rely on smart phones that are only active on the internet. they don't have wi-fi. so we are just seeing a glimmer of what can happen. what is going on is on the demand side, no wonder the top down supply-side way of looking at things. how do you reduce friction in the market to make these things happen? how you get people to be able to move around to read what is going on in the private sector, taking the lead on making this happen. what is really amazing is they are doing this. with all the constraints, you all probably heard about companies being banned. there are being banned from cities. i really think that is the wrong approach. how can you figure this out. they are providing a service, public infrastructure public

service to your citizens in a way that challenges everything we know, but is actually making people able to get around the city. and i think that, you know, that is an area where we have to be courageous. we have to explore the unknown. i think there is lot that we can figure out together, but leaving them out of the conversation, i will never happen. some of the things we are doing to create the environment, we want our work to be rooted in evidence. we are actually sponsoring a major study, 12,000 person sample size. we will be releasing results throughout this year. really interested in what kind of it takes to make these changes happen. over the last ten years, cities across the country, really have

been able to lead an innovation. and they have been doing it without a big federal policy pushed on the ground with mayors, commissioners, it will to figure out and reread the playbook of our cities work. what does it take? as civic sector, visionary leaders? willie interested in figuring that out. you want to create situations where these different sectors come together and actually talk. right now it is the wild west. the pioneers are going out and staking a claim. when that happens and they're also being restrained, there is lot of competition that actually is negative. there are being confined by outdated policies on hon. to make progress on updating the policy. we want to create a situation where people can come together and talk about these things. on june 10th and 11th the summit on washington in shared

use a nobility. the officers are working on this policymakers recommended others talk about solutions. we are also taking a look at, you know, what does exist, governance. how can we update this, make regions stronger? how can we define the relationships between the private sector that is taking his path and the existing government structure? what kind of relationship to when need? i think that is something that will be in partnership with jakarta later this year. finally, we are really interested on changing practice leaders are rewriting the playbook. we think that partnerships with cities, with the civic center call with the private sector combined actually going and trying to demonstrate and implement the new ideas is the way to go. we think that right now the pioneers are out there, figuring

out on their own and it takes a civic organization to bring people together, combine the public benefit with the private interest and maximize the overall benefit. i hope you'll join us and our journey. we are just getting started. thank you for letting me explain . [applause] >> hello. my name is eric shaw, the bureaucrats of the bunch. in my spare time i think about infrastructure, which is why i'm here. i am excited to talk to about our transit rail infrastructure and a solid city region which has been a manifestation, a significant amount of coordination and collaboration between cities, counties, and the state. this was not an easy feat given the fact that so lake city is an

island of luminous sea of red. but we all came together to work on a common goal which was improved air quality, some of the worst air quality in gasol lake region, and then increasing the economic development potential for the region. there is lasting impact for this and the fact that 80 percent of the people who live in utah live and no 100-mile stretch between ogden and provo with salt lake city being the largest city in the middle. 180,000. our population ballooned to 370,000 during the day. a lot of the success was realized by having strong regional partners. so the chamber was an advocate for regional -- for transportation charges. regional council or and p.o. has done an amazing regional transportation plan has been fully accepted and implemented by our partners, and in the utah transit authority which is

constructed and operated by an amazing and efficient regional transportation system. we have estimated that the economic impact of our regional transportation system is about $7 billion, which is amazing. so i want to talk to about three different systems that we have within our region. the top, which is our track line, light rail line or requires similar collaboration with in the city to realize its success, as was mentioned. i have housing, transportation, economic development, and planning. we were able to collaborate looking at changing our zoning, looking a housing policy and working with stakeholders and developers to map out the development potential of our light recorder. our first line open up in 1999 and connected our downtown to the university of utah. cost about $200 million.

created almost 2 billion yen investment and about 50 projects. and it is still ongoing. i want to talk about one of our other allies that just opened up last year that connects our downtown to the airport. and it goes along north temple which is our main street that goes to the west side college is one of our communities that has of the lore performing economic indicators. and so we talk about this. it was just about connecting a nice place for the university, but out of the catalog the main street and focus on supporting small businesses but also connecting a major job centers? this goes from downtown to the airport and includes major private employers but also focuses on small businesses. if you guys can't see, this light rail is in front. the red iguana has the best chili, russia and the country.

it is a family-owned business that has been around for 55 years and is one of the fastest-growing small businesses in the country that is located in the cbc. 17% per year. it is amazing. and this surely is good, by the way. the notion of creating this rail allows all new markets to comment for us to connect taurus and residents to really enjoy the outstanding july colorado. but for our other small businesses it creates the same opportunities. the fact we are connecting not only jobs centers but also creating these small opportunities for businesses. right now, $200 million cost. we propose a thousand new housing units of which 550 are under construction. also, this line in the middle, under the mayor's lead in our

city council and you al qaeda call we are rebuilding our streetcar system within selig city. so this was a $50 billion project that came from tighter money and from on match. apparently it happened pretty quickly. so we identified the right of way in 2009. we secured the tiger granted in 2011, and we had revenue service in 2013. so we know how to get things done in salt lake city. i just want to say that. as -- it has transformed this community. streetcar line, saw salt lake line, share house to reassure house was are baleen community well the teenager's i am out. now it is actually the second economic cub and our region. $400 million private investment, 400,000 square feet of new

retail, printer thousand square feet, and 1,000 new housing units being created in the past four years. so finally for our commuter rail which is the front roger out to the front runner at the bottom, six of the million dollar project that opened up in 2013, and it really changed how we thought -- our suburbs thought about economic development and thought about rail. one of the sweet spots now between salt lake city has now become the home to a new campus for adobe, ebay, and one project alone, 700,000 square feet of new office. so are suburb right now, increased density cannot transit oriented development and it is changing how our cities have developed, our regions are developing and also have our cavelike effect thinking about our downtown out in salt lake city and in ogden to revitalize and the think about how they

could better transform our downtown and our ups. and then in the end i just want to say that all of this investment and infrastructure also has to include people. as a what we have done in so lake city, we did a study and found that while we have a greater regional system, the majority of the residence in salt lake city make shorter trips, and we make more frequent trips, but what we are priced as a regional rate. we were able to put in 200,000, a partner with the utah transitory and create an annual pap specifically for solid residents at the price of $360 for your. at the price of $360 a year. [applause] i am so amazed and so proud about this project. we put a significant amount of staff time into it.

it has created this goal of reducing the trips, increasing rider ship, being responsive to how local function verses regional function, and we are seeing this environmental target. thus far we have sold 1500 of them, and we have a target, 7,000. we will see this happen. specifically averaging to renters and to low income communities to make sure which brings me to my final point. it is great to talk about economic development and show as creating jobs, but in the end all of this is moot if we are not creating economic opportunity. and so one of the best things we have seen, we have a guy that briefly had gone out of homelessness deliver and designs of three and a $60 per year for a chance to pass that was able to connect to and from his new

house in north temple two is new java sugarhouse. that is what this work is about. thank you very much. i look forward to talking to you guys. [applause] >> well, that was great following the congressman, following the discussion we have had here this afternoon. the definitely wanted to have a mix of public and private actors. i think that was one of the comments that we heard. it does take a bunch of different people to get these things done. because infrastructure is getting more complex and dismal to pass it and we have different motivations and in games it does require a bunch of different people working to attract things happen.

but we also appreciate the fact. you know, the national conversation is very helpful, but once we get down to we have to be talking about what this means on the ground in u.s. cities, metropolitan areas, and other places. one thing i want to do, optimistic conversation. i want to take it another way. it will help us understand where the challenges are. i want to ask each of you, what are your biggest headaches, the one thing when you wake up every day. i know i have to deal with that one thing. break through this one area in my life will be easier. i'm going to start with you. what is the biggest headache? >> building things fast. a lot of that, rich to talk to

our federal partners in a regal we are trying to do right now is bundle as much as possible so that when the money shows upreared will to build a faster and not wait, plan, get approval , build. out we lay out the full system house of up when the investment comes uprear able to capitalize? >> i think the biggest challenges, creating a new culture of working. i think that the sharing aspect really calls for collaboration. com sector collaboration, sir, private, public sector collaboration, and that is really unusual in the last decade that we have had of top-down supply-side provision. so often i find myself in conversations. this is not such transaction. we need to work together. i want to work with you. so i think that really is engineering a new culture.

>> i think for us there are probably two things it on. one is a bit more transactional and the others and a high level. first of, of course, gaining access to capital to do many of the things we are describing can be a challenge and a good day. as we know, things in detroit are not as good as we would like to be. but we also recognize that we are seeking funding through most of partners, but it is always difficult to illustrate the value proposition to potential investors when you're describing the spot that i showed. investment and massive vacancy areas that we know well undergird opportunities for economic development and growth, but certainly in iraq. the second is, i think, a broader issue of the kind of open narrative. in detroit the time to articulate the story that is not

typically told, how we might utilize these vacant spaces, but we think those spaces and will we do their highly reliable to the efforts that are under way, central business district in midtown district. these are areas where we are seeing incredibly robust growth. significant investment overall reading presoak what we want to do is not bring everybody down and challenge them with the narrative that i'm talking about. we want to put that in relationship to these other more conventional investments that are necessary and illustrate how these two things actually support one another. >> so the greatest challenges, the liver that i would like to switch to, i find that when talking about infrastructure where it will to do incredible things.

i find that nothing gets done. and so the more we get from issues to problem solving we will see greater success. the another item that i have is to joppa lot of the targets that dominate such a reactor model the federal government. i can hold my own. the bottom line with infrastructure is we need to build things that pay for themselves and create multiple types of value. we do not need to bludgeon the community member. we need to understand where the money is coming from and how we pay for it. >> that is actually great. this is something that we, as bruce mentioned at the beginning, we are trying to redefine. we are trying to -- the word really means -- there is water, transport. when you get down to it, they are designed and built differently. your comments, what you are

trying to do is to marry these things. is that a bigger challenge? is that just how it is done? innovation? or by extension is the way we are trying to break it down disaggregating? does that make any sense? >> i think the opportunities are at the scene of infrastructure system. we have sort of experience the 50 years where we cannot build the freestanding systems that we originally built a hundred years ago or 50 years ago. i think this segregating the discussion to put cities at a disadvantage because it does not get them the chance to solve when-when problems. when you repave your roads it is much easier to put in an empty pipe delayed broadband that have that company come in and tear up the streets the second time. cheaper for the company and cheaper.

>> i think aggregation is important, but we spent a huge amount of work time. if we have learned to speak government and law and engineering and finance. a big part of it is just making that. >> others on the one? you are working with folks, trying to solve the problems, right, to create access and opportunity. the infrastructure is the driver. enabling you. want to expand on that? >> well, yes. actually, i think that we are thinking about the growing economy and the, you know, playing for the future, people will be coming. new things with the infrastructure will be stored in the infrastructure. i think that the way that we are

going, you know, our firm, the way we are thinking about doing it is a culture change issue, saying like not getting into this jargon, creating greater flexibility, creating greater literacy, creating capability so that you can handle the double discussions without doubling everything down. >> in detroit will we're trying to do is make sure the investment that we put in place today, effective. there will yield significant results down the road for generations is a big place that we're trying to make. but -- >> does that message resonate?

looking at long-term. >> we kind of meat. >> there are a lot of folks extreme expectations that don't actually live in that need which is also interesting. what people understand is the issues we are facing there and in many other cities across the u.s. these are issues that can be dealt with to overtime. one thing we ask ourselves in the try to think beyond our own neighborhood, not just about what makes the most. you have to think about, these things are actually going to bear fruit for children. for ourselves overall it is just something that people need to wrap their minds around. says will we see as an opportunity down the road given

the infrastructure, we see thatn sharp contrast based on past issues. in the mid-1970s the submitted a major federal play for regional light rail system. it would come to place and be fully operational by 1992. so that never happened. of course we had to seek the regional cooperation. we had one county of doubt. we at estate matched, deployed a small little circus train that goes around downtown. does not actually come back to anybody to anything. what we see, where detroit yesterday and then look at cell lake city, look at denver, look at all these other cities in which those investments were made, what that meant from our regional perspective, from prosperity to equity and know how far we have fallen behind and now we have to surge

forward. >> i look at detroit. fifty years from now of our economy changes will we have built our air for structure and a way that creates a resilience city? can we think about bacon property rules right now and infrastructure right now and change those policies so that we can be dynamic? it is interesting. >> just to respond, there is a deep, dark secret with most government cities. we lose money today. we have long-term problems, it just means we will lose more money in the long term, not the we are now losing money to date. part of helping communities find solutions is to figure out what they're spending money on today that they don't want to be spending money on. a lot of cities have a basement cleanup fund every time sewer's back up and are not allowed to use that money to pay to repair the water main. so it is not about thinking about on certain things 50 years

from now. start with where you're failing now, and i can guarantee you that is where you will fail worse in the future. >> i wish i had a basement cleaner. the one common theme i think i heard, very different ways, partnerships. i think you actually mentioned that, and has become so clear to us in our work that it is not -- we think about public-private partnerships, leasing the indiana toll road and the parking meter, but it is about these different ways the public and private government, nonprofit leaders are coming to get it to actually solve problems. the infrastructure stuff, i mean, can anybody echo some of that? how important are the partnerships to delivering things and how different is that from what you used to do? ..

so you know, i don't think any substance would occur if it weren't her partnerships in detroit. you were talking about private and public arrangements. you're talking about local and federal plays in things like that, but also connections of philanthropy and connections to community groups who have asked us not to financial capital and

certainly human capital and we are seeing those solids of great success brought together. >> i was just thinking about the partnerships on an animated logo. the peer-to-peer sharing happening now, people get the awards were doing. on the philanthropy site, what it is we decided to do is to be an operating philanthropy because we wanted to help direct and have input on designing part we wanted to keep them on trask on being brave. so these kinds of partnerships i feel i really necessary for the new dynamism that is happening out there. it is essential. there is no one right now that can solve these problems alone. so we have to do it together.

>> i don't think that is quite broken through. it is important. i did want to throw it open for folks to ask questions in the time that we have love. so go ahead and identify yourself and affiliation nsa question, it has to end of may? your voice may go up at the end so it is a question. [laughter] >> name is jamesa brisbane and i would like to know, have you specifically showed the importance? oftentimes economically existential importance of these problems and showing they are not simply a nice thing to have is simply an important thing to have. sunday we don't invest in the economy will pull exist without it really quick >> i'd would make infrastructure had you breakthrough?

communications, partnerships? >> i think designing catalysts. feminist places that understand the problem in its absence. as devastating as hurricanes in u.s., it woke up a lot of communities to what happens when they don't do something. and there is a lot of different catalysts out there. you don't have to wait for disaster. but the those moments where he resources stretched to have a conversation with a community about what their lives a book like in the absence of investment. >> it is fundamentally on the ground. or is this and many apsley bridge collapse? regards all excited about it. >> it is definitely stuck and i think we have to applaud cities like hoboken has taken a hands-on tech approach. they are reworking everything. they are working with head on rebuild i design us a competition to rework the entire city of flight management

systems. they are working with us, so it has changed both the urgency, but also the sense of what is involved. it's not just a one sector problem. >> you just have to sell, so every time we have a station open up, the governor came out, we all share the first-person high pass. so the idea in the end if someone said the system doesn't work and it's total because it is an interprocess and you have to celebrate, articulate and show every interracially say when. >> workout that done? >> really smart people and amazing staff. that is my shout out to them. i told them i had to do that, which is also true. >> other questions? >> e-mail frankel. i want to direct this to you and

may be chambray. we are in a situation of anonymous names. some opportunities and scarce public resources. we have to be able to prioritize, to choose sometimes within sectors, sometimes across sectors. we have new needs and resilience. you know, how do we -- maybe five or 10 years ago the fact we have to prepare for three and for further increases in sea levels in the next three decades, which is a whole other set of names. as you know, i've been struck at the factory do not have been this messy republic of ours, we do not have a really good analytical transportation infrastructure planning or capital programming process in

place. how do we make decisions better in which some needs are viewed as more important than others and some opportunity is more official than others and what is the role of the federal government in driving states and localities in the metropolitan regions to establish the systems? we know there are very few places that have affect his analytical decision taking processes about infrastructure investments. how do we change and improve that situation? >> so i want to take a crack at the nonfederal level. i think i will let brought deal with that. but on the local side on how to prioritize on the local level, one of the things that is really fascinated is going on is the openness and sharing information and data from the city government to the public. this has catalyzed amazing

analysis digest the public. they have an interest in functioning transportation to they want to get around. so for example, citibank in new york city recently released a set of data and they did an analysis on this and showed that during a subway to lead there were more chips taken near the subway stations immediately as soon as the end ta for these to the notice of a delay overtaxed. there were more bike speed taken around the transit stations than other places and it was only during that time. it was not a recurring trip, it was just in responses delay. you can also see bikes are picked up closer to transit stations in general. does that mean we now know what the transit hubs aren't more people are making the last mile afterward they could use a boost in getting connected to them major transit hubs? those are under examined areas

and coming in now, with open data there's better potential potential, more potential to understand where we should be put in our dollars. >> and it doesn't have to be a formal process. the mayor said leadership say, how does your plan tying it to the other palm? i am very fortunate in having office divisions under me and having about 12 planning efforts happening right now from bicycles to trains to housing. i'm constantly asking where they connect, how they overlap. or using the same language? the same data? instead of one big launch of infrastructure planning effort, how do you align the existing master and make sure they are saying the same thing, representing things the same way and having a lined time horizons, which i don't see in a lot of states that were at before. >> just to follow up, this is exactly what we are trying to get this despite what is going

on in washington, there is stuff going on out there and there isn't much more optimistic message. these are the folks all across the country. i don't want to be pollyanna-ish about the problems. supersize challenges come at things could have predicted, but it's going to come from the bottom. we are just not seeing that. not a top-down kind of thing. it's not done by passing legislation on the federal level. once we start to see all this going on, the federal government will respond. so we don't think that the federal government should do anything because obviously things like what are the only industrialized countries on the planet that doesn't have what. it's a perfect day in the federal government should be directing resources at a time of severe fiscal constraint, at a time when there's challenges we have to focus and prioritize. question year.

>> thank you. john wood, retired government and ditch near. mostly overseas for about 35 years. the question is one of the biggest returns on investment icy is continuity of operations. the ability to do those things day to day and to keep society moving forward. as a think about it, to cities, new york and london, very critical to the financial stability of the planet. how we take any lessons from those cities of things to learn? there'll soon be very thick haze. that is question. >> i would plead off i'm not just to say particularly in the case of new york following sandy, the dimension of the resilient conversation obviously blossom nationally and definitely ended hard for us to detroit. perhaps for issues not similar

to those in new york, which this is the kind of financial center and so on and so forth. they rotated into an issue in nature mendes challenge to develop a truly was a hit city that also has some of the greatest need for it. you have a number of means what's going on with that. you have a challenge for slight disruptions can begin to actually undermine a lot of these informal and detroit and ultimately you can have loss of life. you can have significant challenges. so that we are trying to see the ways in which there is a common about bundling infrastructure. how can we assume the forward, whether it soft or hard systems, whatever it is, how can we bring

these things together succinctly said those investments are being made to launch new businesses, but at the same time support community action so that every thing that happens along the way develops a much stronger network to keep things going in a time of challenge, knowing there are some folks will never have the means to escape something like that. >> i was just going to say quickly from "the new yorker" london this transferability of lessons i think you're a great example of being able to translate within context and have the leadership to do it in a really astute and sensitive way that reflects the community assets. that is actually the imperatives. it's really interesting to always be looking for the common challenges, but it is solution building that they are very contextual. >> just taking a very specific example.

rob, you know this love from the look rockefeller foundation after hurricane sandy, working with governor cuomo should plan for the next hundred years, the nys 2100 process. within that, there was an anecdote about from someone at a cable company who is describing the cable companies knew where the power was out faster than the power company stayed because set-top boxes blank with the power is interrupted. they started picking up the phone and calling in a speeded up operations and restoration of power tremendously. when we talk about partnerships and open data, it is not just public to private. it is private to private because industry is also silas. we need to find those opportunities to create across sectors when it's private industry that really is underpinning most of the needed the resource. >> we've just barely started to scratch the surface. i want to keep this conversation going. we have to keep going.

again, we've asked more questions, raised more questions than it answered here, which is not a bad thing. we will keep the conversation going. but please join me in thanking our great panelists. [applause] and while they are getting off the stage come i want to introduce our final speaker for the morning as craig kelley, the global chief operating officer, a position he has held since 2012. multinational engineering infrastructure firms with approximately 14,000 employees. he may not know how this all fits into the conversation today about future and innovation in all of that. what we think is very mysterious , imported medicines or measures around the world, connect to different of infrastructure we had on this panel is exactly the right way to close out. with that, please join me in welcoming craig kelley.

[applause] >> good morning. well, as bob mentioned, the system closing section for infrastructure week and i want to take a moment to acknowledge of the individuals and organizations, our host erie proteins are putting together a short week. the speakers we heard from this morning from congressman delaney to our last panel underscored the importance of this topic. so let's give them a quick round of applause. [applause] when i first spoke with robin patrick about the opportunity to come their speaker perkiness at the conclusion of infrastructure week. probably the easiest decision i had to make in a long time to talk about infrastructure, something for close to 130 years we take great pride in reshaping cities and regions across the globe into coming here to advance the conversation about

that and offer some perspective in that regard was just a great opportunity. so thank you for that. as you had a moment ago, we plan to design infrastructure across the globe. in the past year has certainly spent time in canada, u.k. throughout europe, asia, middle east, australia, new zealand in major cities across the globe. i'm going to use that perspective to talk about what we do well here and perhaps where some of those differences are in the u.s. i'm going to frame the conversation around four key themes. versus technology. the second is generational attitudes. third is delivery and financing and forth, bring it back to the role of government. first is something we all face. the rush of changing type allergy. traditionally, our business, infrastructure has not been a

hotbed for technological change. the romans invented concrete after all, which is only slightly latecomer compared to the wheel. but today, new technologies are becoming more and more common in our business. advanced materials, affordable solar powered and electric vehicles. just a few innovations that have the potential to change how we do business. two new technologies stand above the rest. the magnitude of their potential effects. one is already with us in the other is in the not-too-distant horizon. they will not change how we build infrastructure so much as how we use it. the smart found each bias of this revolutionary in the interaction of the two could be a game changer. today the smartphone is ubiquitous in much of the world. i'm fairly certain every person

in this room has at least one smartphone on that right now. this little device is started changing how we use infrastructure. we're driving based on real-time traffic information. we purchased a rail ticket on her smartphone. we pay for parking. we summon a taxi all on the fly. we could accomplish all these things before, but the sheer ease is upsetting established market. just ask anyone in the taxi business. more than that i'm in the smartphone is the road in your hand. disparate bits of turning efficient but they were buried in an elevator at the metro. we can use those in new ways. one of the benefits of transit has always been the chance to do something to at the time spent commuting. but the quality of that time has

always been low, hasn't it? the smartphone has changed how people use those time. some argue that some behind the trend from driving towards transit. consider this, total vehicle miles traveled in the united states peaked in 2007. a year now for something else. it is not a viable choice. for many americans. so let's fast-forward to the reference to a time and we on the cusp of opening up rose to autonomous vehicles. this technology could take the most unproductive hour of the day, our commute to read e-mail, watch a movie, go shopping on the smartphone.

you will agree society will have a tough time saying no to that. technology is not the only thing changing. so are attitudes. fewer young people are getting drivers license. ent is tagging. cities are cool again. transit use keeps growing. ms wave has showed no signs of slowing down. in germany, one half the men under 25. rates are driving and people in their 20s have fallen in france and australia and cautionary newspaper in europe than it is in the u.s. leading the way of the so-called millenniums. everything from soup card to picture. these services turn

underutilized assets. who knew. here is where changing technology and changing attitudes they converge. but major capital investment since i'm used 90% of the time? the car of course. it's not hard to imagine a transportation future that looks rather different than today. using an app on the iphone, i summoned an autonomous vehicle and take me to the next meeting. might be my car, maybe someone else's. this may be 15 years off. the consequences for industry are not yet clear. when everyone has their own

chauffeur or will people deemphasize car ownership in favor of an on-demand model? will this lead to other lifestyle choices that go with lower rates of car ownership but sitting in walkable neighborhoods? if so, the infrastructure we asked in the league to change. but before we get to that, it is important to recognize many things will not change. our existing stock of infrastructure will always need to be maintained. from interstate highways to water system to the power grid to communication beds, we have fallen behind in technology is not going to save us. to my knowledge, and i am in this business, there is no app out there to fix the bridge. the new infrastructure rebuilding the 21st century man fact that different from

what we built in the 20th century. the next wave of investments could focus on supporting a denser, more urban patterns living. not so many new highways or public transit. fewer single-family homes and more vertical construction. water and power infrastructure inward instead of outward. sustainability would be a nonnegotiable objective. we have to handle a world of higher sea levels and more powerful stores source. it's interesting, other countries look at our decentralized system of infrastructure planning and wonder how can it ever were? it has its challenges, but it also has its strengths and we heard some about this morning. different places can try different things. each city is its own little petri dish of experimentation. one place experiments, the other

places learn. as an example, we never adopted a national policy on rail. but a few cities tried it and other cities liked what they saw. bike sharing work here in washington d.c. in other cities are following suit. so is rob was talking about really are, to refinance to deliver infrastructure of the future? innovative things are happening. we are all encouraged by what the congressman had to say, but they are mostly happening someplace else. a generation ago there was not a big gap in how infrastructure is financed, built and operated in the u.s. versus other industrialized nations. actually a quite simple model. government collected taxes and al qaeda funding. private firms bidding to sign about the next project and the government was the algorithm. pretty standard. in the u.s., this is still mostly how it's done except of

course we are doing fewer projects every year. what once existed at all levels of government terms of consensus doesn't exist anymore in both parties. to support a reasonable level of infrastructure, investment has broken down without anything to replace it. these consequences are serious. i know everybody here understands it and they are getting worse every year. i am not going to belabor the point. the financing infrastructure and taxes has also been on the client and other countries. but they've been willing to build a new finance existing in its place. we have yet to adopt that. user financing for fiercer race is increasingly seen as not only acceptable, but preferable from mexico to china to europe to australia. as high-speed railways are built as toll roads.

it is the new normal. user financing has the advantages and it goes beyond just raising money. it helps allocate resources in a rational way. if a project serves a real demand, the market will find it. if however the market is not interested, that's also some dean about the project. look at the decline or retrenchment in the construction of the greenfield toll roads recently. we all hate congestion, but that is different for how much we are willing to pay to avoid it. user financing should be encouraged, but it is not a panacea. in particular, not well-suited to the task of restoring and retaining the infrastructure we have. this bread-and-butter work cost many tens of billions annually and it cannot realistically be fine and with tolls. rugby scrum to liquid with the

gas tanks recur throughout the week is and always will be a necessity and remains the big wrench in our toolbox. whether it's building our new facilities are old ones, new methods of project delivery can make a big difference. fortunately we still lack a bit behind in this country. the dominant part is here with one team designing a project and the project sponsors operated at the end of the day. we talked earlier about the perfect case for the traditional methods in this country are very much silent. but what is happening is a move towards design build. this started about 10 years ago. the merrier contractor and a designer and they develop a project in concert that eliminates some of the frictional costs in the fictional time that occurs in developing and silos.

that improves schedule. that improves cost and that can improve the risk. beyond the site building, another approach that goes for a very strong public-private. again, we've heard about that throughout the week. here is where one team who does everything from raising financing to planning, designing, building and operating for a period of time. government's role in this case is to set standards for performance and pays overtime. let's be honest. some agencies, some governments are at the country are still skeptical of these two practices. they are free to give up control. i believe this here is not warranted, but it is true that these methods call upon governments exercise control but in a new way. under the old system, the project sponsor can take every design choice, however small. it's very hands-on and cannot a

lot of time to the delivery process. with new methods, the project sponsor so retains control, but that is expressed through performance standards with the private sector that should figure out all the details. this allows government to focus its energy on true matters of public policy. fitting object is come establishing a budget, demanding performance and enforcing rules that get the most out of the competitive marketplace. once these decisions are made, the delivery process becomes less inherently governmental and more amenable to efficiency driven by the private sector. i firmly believe that if our public agencies could adopt a contracting crack is that we've increasingly seen as commonplace overseas from one into australia and elsewhere, we could get more

infrastructure for our money here at home. let me conclude with a couple of thoughts. by themselves, these reforms will not solve her infrastructure deficit. but if we can get our bang for the buck, perhaps this can lead to greater public confidence at every dollar we last to retrieve the benefit and be managed with the utmost care. this could be a key element in convincing our elected leaders at whatever level of government the infrastructure spending is vital and needs to be paid for by all. given the ways our society will change in the future and the challenges we see in elton infrastructure, it is vital to keep is growing and thriving as

a country. the time to act is now. thank you. [applause] >> that is great. thank you very, very much. a lot of teams who may not expect to hear from a large engineering firm. thank you for reinforcing that. before i close, a quick thank you to the team at brookings who did an awful lot of work not just on today, that the whole week. taylor stewart, amelia shyster and pat say about coming to china infrastructure we, i really don't think he slept since sunday night. acc had come to pick him up as a stalling down. thank you all for coming out today on a rainy friday. i thought this is a conversation we wanted to get into. we just started to scratch the surface. one more comment before richer the program.

we highlighted a budget projects today. particularly here with the piano. we did this all throughout the week. we are going to keep doing this. this is oprah spent a lot of time on over the next year, maybe leading up to infrastructure week 2015 because as we travel around the country, as we talked to political leaders, corporate leaders across the country, this is the stuff they are looking for for months. they want to know who is doing what. tell me what the the innovations out there. what can we learn from these people? to do to talk to to get that done? get into specifics because nobody is waiting on a more for the silver bullet to happen. we see a lot of energy, a lot of vitality. we heard from folks or in person. this is the time to get this done and we see that from a lot of folks around the country. we are going to spend the next bunch of money soliciting more examples. if you have ideas, send them to us. we look around the country and

start to build a clearinghouse of project ideas. so those lessons can be shares weakened at the network approach that we talked about so people can learn from one another. we do put america's infrastructure needs are daunting. i don't think they're insurmountable. doris had a dysfunction excuse for action. we firmly believe states, cities, metropolitan area send a private private institutions that they tend to have the talent and have creativity to move the country forward in this area and in others who absolutely believe now is the time to do so as we can start building for the next hundred years. thank you all for coming here today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> earlier today, former "new york times" executive editor jill abramson and deliver the commencement address at wake forest university in north carolina. the landmark supreme court case that was struck down racial segregation in public schools. the naacp hosted a discussion with attorney general eric holder of massachusetts governor, duval patrick about how it affected their lives. this is about an hour. [inaudible conversations]

>> at the center's director counsel of the naacp legal defense fund and many of you know that are six to rector council, john payton, the brilliant lawyer from washington d.c. is well known to many of you passed away while he was director counsel. we wanted to be sure of the director councils are represented here today and i am absolutely thrilled and happy that someone who actually was a very early hero of mine is here today and has joined us and that is john payton's wife, janet dougal, human rights act to boost in her own right. [applause]

i also want to acknowledge the presence of the dean and faculty of howard law school. many of you know that howard law school was the incubator. much of the thinking that went into the earlier civil rights litigation were lds and so i like to think interim team and the howard faculty for joining us today as well. [applause] it would be impossible to call the names of the many civil rights leaders who are here today. many of you know to do this work are truly does take a village of amazing, dedicated, activist lawyers, advocates, brilliant people who have committed their lives to making america better for everyone. i would ask that any of you here who are leading organizations stand, but i want to especially knowledge the person who leads the umbrella organization of which we all said and not dissuade henderson, the executive director of the leadership conference on civil

rights. [applause] it is my pleasure and honor to introduce to you, attorney general eric holder, who was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general of the united states in 2009. we are so thrilled that he chose to join us today on this are important very. his bio is in the program and so i won't labor reading it. he's known to many of you. i did want to make a few import knows that you should know about him. the first is attorney general holter is closely connected to her civil rights history. his wife is dr. sharon malone who is the sister of vivian malone, the student who helped desegregate the university of alabama. it is also true that attorney

general holder very early in his career served as an intern at the legal defense fund. and it is also true that as many of you have seen in the past two years, this is an attorney general tremendous courage. his willingness to step forward and address the issue up over incarceration in the deep, deep problems in the criminal justice system is really unprecedented. i do not think we have had certainly orwell have another attorney general who will acknowledge the role that prosecutors can play in dealing with the issue of overcharging, which these two over incarceration. his commitment to dealing with the issue of harsh penalties weeded out to not violent drug offenders sets him apart among attorney general as we have had in this country. his recent efforts around

clemency, his willingness to use the bully pulpit of his office to educate america about the power prosecutors have been the ways in which the rapid and priest over incarceration in this country hurts all of us and imperils the vitality of our society shows him to be a courageous leader frankly in the traditions we revere and honor that the legal defense fund. so we are thrilled that he could take time out of his very, very busy schedule to join us, to make a few remarks and so i present to you the 82nd attorney general of the united states, mr. eric holder. [applause]

thank you. [applause] thank you. all right. well, thank you also much for that warm welcome. i'm going to talk about you in a little bit. thank you, president eyeful for those kind words and thank you all for such a warm welcome. it's a pleasure for me to be here today and joining the public servants like governor patrick, governor wilder along the trail blazers like charlene hunter gault, and other trailblazer, jamie do who's near and dear to me and i think just on a personal basis. it is difficult for you, but i miss eric i am a daily basis. john pate is a great, great man.

[applause] it is great to be here in celebrating the work of the naacp, the legal defense fund in commemorating the date tree that this organization help secure 60 years ago demario and every committing ourselves to the critical work that still lies before us. the site is not over. i'd like to thank our host at the national press club when every member and supporter of lds for making this an import observance possible. it's a tremendous honor to take part in the celebration and stand with lawyers who participate in the brown case. the families of the courageous plaintiffs who made this landmark decision possible and with sissy marshall, wife of the late thurgood marshall, one of the nation's greatest civil rights pioneers who helped found this organization nearly three quarters of a century ago.

since 1940, lgf has performed critical work to rally americans from all backgrounds to the unifying cause of justice, standing on the front lines in their fight to guarantee security, advanced opportunity and to ensure equal treatment under law. your enduring legacy is not only in the words that sum of all legal opinions, but in the remarkable once unimaginable progress as so many of us have witnessed even within our lifetimes. the fact that i serve in an administration that another african-american bears witness to that progress. [applause] your actions -- [applause] your actions alongside those of countless citizens whose names may be unknown to us now, but whose contributions and sacrifices into her have forever

altered the course of our nation's great history. decades ago, brave individuals across the country sustained by the strength of their convictions, field or their desire for change and represented by lawyers from its eminent organization including visionary attorneys like thurgood marshall, robert carter and jeff greenberg embarked on a dangerous come along and ruling march the culminated on may 17, 1954 in the united states supreme court. as a march that lead to difficult and uncertain terrain from the injustice of plessy versus ferguson into the dirt days of jim crow and their slavery from the discrimination and violence and the strange truth but ultimately gave rise to a unified civil rights in the name at the founding and growth of lds. it was a march that tested the soul of this country and

questioned his president abraham lincoln once asked whether a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal of long endure and it was a march is immeasurably strengthened by the transformative power of a single court decision or not jurors came together, but one of my high-dose, chief justice earl warren, the eyes of the road upon him to unanimously declared separate was inherently unequal. and she's three years old in 1954 when brown was decided. please don't do the math. [laughter] yeah, yeah, yeah. [laughter] he's battled? to see some of the pioneers in this room, my generation -- my generation was the first to grow up in a world in which separate but equal was no longer the law

of the land. even as a child growing up in new york city, he understood because they learned about the decisions that its impact was truly groundbreaking, breaking the law in line with the fundamental truth of the equality of our humanity. although brown marked a major victory of anyone old enough to remember the 1960s, i also knew and saw firsthand that this country would automatically translate the words of brown into substantive change. integration of our schools, a process that was halting, confrontational and at times even bloody did not buy sell put an end to the beliefs and the attitudes that given rise to the underlying inequity in the first place. the outline of institutional segregation did not by itself soft in the m.i.t. and alleviate the vicious bias that had been directed against african-american people in communities for generations and

the rejection in its clearest forms by our highest court of legal discrimination could not by itself wash away the hostility that way for years the new and perversely innovative at times to keep separate but equal in place. these markers that progress could not forestall the massive resistance policies that followed in states across the country in which public schools were closed and private academies were up in for white children only. they could not afford to protest that the little rock 900 brave young students are required detection of the 101st airborne division of the united states army to enroll in an all-white high school and they could not prevail. alabama governor george wallace for making his infamous stand in the schoolhouse door in 1863, nine years after brown went to courageous african-american students, one of whom you heard, vivian malone would much later

become my sister-in-law. they attempted to register for classes at the university of alabama. but thanks to brown into the developments that followed on the day when gideon and classmate james had walked into the university, they were protected not only by the power of convictions, not only by the strength of the national guard or the authority of the night takes department of justice, but by the force of binding law. when those nine students entered little rock central high school, they were supported by all nine members of a resolute appraisal court and the millions of civil rights advocates and supporters began to rally permit to march into stand up, even to save and in order to eradicate the discrimination they continue to face in schools, and they said not only on the side of equality and on the side of that which was obviously right, but on the side of the side of justice.

this was the seachange that brown versus board of education had in the progress they've made possible. he did not instantaneously are painlessly stared down the walls that divide is so much of the nation, but it did unlock the gates and it continues to guide out the guesswork and the justice department have a civil rights enforcement efforts as a work of the divisions in the disparities that persist even today in the 21st century. after all, a supreme court justice sonia sotomayor said recently what i think was insightful to send the college admissions case, we must not wish away, rather than confront, the racial and a quality that exists in our society. the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak open and candidly on the subject of race, unquote. and i would add, to act, to act

to eradicate the existence of still two persistent inequalities. i want to assure u.s. remark this historic anniversary that my colleagues and i remain as committed to this cause is ever before. while the number of school districts that remain under desegregation court orders has decreased significantly in just the past decade, the department of justice continues to actively enforce and monitor nearly 200, 200 desegregation cases where school districts have not yet fulfilled their legal obligation to eliminate segregation root and branch. in this case as we work to ensure all students have the building of educational success for access to advanced placement classes to facilities without crumbling walls and take allergy to positive learning environment and partnering with the department of education to

reform school discipline policies that fueled the school to prison pipeline and have resulted in students of color facing suspensions and expulsions at a rate that is three times higher than that of their white peers. we are moving in a variety of ways to dismantle barriers and promoted bush and from america's classrooms to boardrooms to voting booths and far beyond. so long as i have the privilege of serving as the attorney general of the united states, this justice department will never, never stop working to expand the promise of the nation where everyone has the same opportunity to grow, contribute, ultimately to succeed by calling for -- [applause] by calling for new voting protections and by challenging

unjust restrictions that discriminate against vulnerable populations were pekinese of color. that is the real vote fraud. that is the real vote fraud. [applause] by challenging these measures, we will keep striving to ensure free exercise of every citizen must fundamental right to begin implementation of another landmark and the united states versus wender, will ensure lawfully married same-sex couples can receive protections they deserve. [applause] and by fighting for comprehensive immigration reform that includes in her path citizens so that men and women who are americans can step out of the shadows and take their place in society will make certain that children who've

always called america home can build a bright future and can enrich the country they love and do so without fear. [applause] in the use and other efforts, there are undoubtably difficult times ahead. challenges old and new remain before us. there are too many who are wedded to the past and who irrationally fear the new america that is emerging. they misconstrue our past. america has been at its best when we have acted to embrace and make positive changes we have been forced to confront and so it must be again. government will never be able to surmount the obstacles we face on it don't come up especially days like today, i am reminded of the extraordinary courage that since 1940 haslett

seemingly part very citizens and lds leaders to stand together, to transfer the power of individual voices into the strength of collective action and to bring about historic changes like the one we gather to celebrate. changes that pulled this nation closer to its founding promise. changes that make real the blessings of our constitution and changes that codify self-evident truths into subtle. as i look around this room and with great faith in the american people, i cannot help to feel optimistic about her ability to build on the progress that was celebrated this week and i have no doubt that with your continued leadership, with your boundless passion and with your unyielding courage, we can continue the legacy that has been entrusted to us. we can extend the promise of those who made a possible work so hard to secure and we can

build that more and just society that everyone in this nation deserves. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> getting a little business to appear. thank you, mr. attorney general. [applause]

all right. we are going to keep going with her program. i'm going to welcome him charalayne back to the stage. i thought i had a minute to collect myself after that extraordinary speech. so grateful to the attorney general for being with us. i am not a leigh jones. i want to be a lane, a truth about being a lane, but i am not a lane jones. a lane jones has a little cold and i am going to introduce and present the award to mrs. cecilia marshall. this is something that means a great deal to the lawyers at the naacp legal defense fund. she is known throughout the country and has been mrs. director counsel. she has been mrs. solicitor general. she has been -- she has been

mrs. judged. she has been mrs. just is. but today, we want to honor cecelia marshall for her own work dedication to civil rights. [applause] married to the late thurgood marshall for 38 years, she saw a lot of the world through the unparalleled prism of her husband's work for justice and equality for all. mrs. marshall was born in maui, hawaii. her parents were among the first immigrants to hawaii from the philippine islands in 1910. in 1848 she came to new york to live with her maternal aunt and uncle and started to take classes in stenography at columbia university. during that same year, she got a position of secretary to the

national director of the naacp branches in new york where she says she admitted receiving her first baptism to the racial challenges of america and she has been motivated ever said to make a difference in the lives of others. yesterday at our board meeting mummer taking notes on the computer, mrs. marshall was reminding us when she attended word meanings of the young secretariat took notes in shorthand for the legal defense fund. she serves on many boards here in washington d.c. and has been a tireless advocate on behalf of young people, particularly through the thurgood marshall summer a lot internship program. but we know her best for her work on the lgf board for she has 1994, getting on the amtrak train in coming to new york for the board meetings, serving and convenient dinners for us that her beloved georgetown club with our supporters and donors and being a welcoming arm for every

director counsel at the legal defense fund has had including me. i have been privileged by just the joy of her friendship, her laughter, her counsel and tremendous support. ladies and gentlemen can we present the spirit of justice or to mrs. cecilia and marshall. [applause] >> thank you, director. i can only prove half of what you said about me. not even half. 60 years ago, on may 17 after the supreme court handed down

its landmark decision on brown v. board, i was that the office of our legal fund, wary celebration was taking place. but after about an hour or so, thurgood announced i don't know about you fools, but i am going back to work because our work has just begun. ..

elaine jones and ted shawn who are all here today along with our present the director counsel, but i would also like to share this award with mr. william coleman, another close friend of thurgood. thurgood appreciated his advice and counsel throughout the year some four fair assessment -- throughout the year. if there good were here today at using the same words that he

spoke on july 4th 1992 when he accepted the liberty medal. he said, and i quote, the battle for racial and economic justice is not yet won. indeed, it has barely begun. the legal system can force open doors and sometimes even knock down walls, but it cannot build bridges. that job belongs to you and me. the country can do, afro and white, which and poor, educated and illiterate. we can run from each other, but we cannot escape each other.

we will only attain freedom if we learn to appreciate what is different and musters the courage to discover what is fundamentally the same america's diversity and our virginity. take a chance, won't you. knock down the fences that divide us. sarah powell -- tear apart the walls of the brazilian. freedom lies just on the other side. we shall have liberty for all. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> please join me in another round of applause. [applause]

>> so now i have the honor of introducing someone who won as -- one of my heroes. you heard the attorney general referred to her as a trailblazer in her own right. thus making about charlene hunter gault. many things, an award winning journalist, you may know her from her work at npr as a special correspondent after spending six years as cnn's johannesburg bureau chief and correspondent. before the short does npr chief correspondent africa. join india or in 1997 in 20 years with pbs when she worked as a national correspondent for newshour with jim lehrer of. she began her journalism career as a reporter for the new yorker and later worked as local news anchor for w. r. c. tv in washington. as the harlem bureau chief for the new york times. numerous honors, including two emmy awards and two peabody awards, one for work on

apartheid people, news our series of south africa during the life of apartheid and the other for general coverage of africa. she is also is sought after a public speaker calls more than three honorary degrees, on the board of the committee to protect journalists, the carter center, the peabody board and that is a promise global. vice-president of the clear elizabeth jackson carter foundation established by camille cosby in honor of her mother, and she is going to the lead us in the conversation for the next portion of our program. [applause] >> we are all excited about this conversation and so excited to

get it started really skipped over one thing, and we can't because it is too important to be that is our acknowledgments and special recognition of jack greenberg. i will ask before we start the conversation for former director counsel ted schott to come and give our special recognition to jack greenberg. [applause] >> good afternoon. first, let me congratulate cissy marshall, who is the inspiration , mentor, friend, and i wish all of you could know her the way the sava some unfortunate enough to get an hour. she has one of the most wicked sense of humor you will ever here. [applause] but she is a great, great civil-rights warrior in her own

name. jack greenberg. there are presently, by my count , two signatories to the brown v free. judge weinstein is not with us today. bill coleman, of course, is one of my euros. but out of the lawyers who argued brown there is one survivor, and that is a jack greenberg. jack greenberg came to the legal defense fund, as you can see from the program, and 1948. and he came to the legal defense fund after serving in world war ii, and the marines. in fact, i always remember that when jack was told at some point

that he had handled what was supposed to be a tough situation with grace and handle it well jack said in a very offhanded way, i have been in tougher situations than this. he was at the regina. serve this country even before rican legal defense fund to serve and then another profound way. jack, as you know, joined the staff in 48 and from 48 to 61 was assistant counsel for becoming direct to council from 61 to 84, the longest tenure of any director counsel. with all due respect to sharon who is only beginning, and i wish for a long tenure, i suspect that there will not be

another news service in that position over so many years. he served so well. jack happened to be director counsel during the halcyon days of the civil-rights movement. it was jackal was on the phone with other ldf lawyers, with the demonstrators, with martin luther king jr. and others who work at the edmond pet is bridge it was jack who told martin luther king jr. that if you march and break this in junction you will be breaking the law, as any good lawyer should have told them. and martin luther king jr. said jack, it is not your job to tell me what to do. it is your job to get me out of jail when i do it.

[laughter] if you look at the photographs from that era of the sole rights leaders, many of those photographs, you will see martin luther king jr., whitney young, roy wilkins, all of the great ones, a gillibrand off and dorothy height and some of those photographs, but you will see jack greenberg. and jack greenberg was noticeable. [laughter] i had the privilege along with another recovering lawyer, think tech and describe them as. he has been busy with other things who is here today, governor patrick, of being, i

think, one of the last two. think we were one of the last two hires that jack greenberg made at the legal defense fund. i can't say and will say -- is not my place to set a my hair was. i will say he made a great hire an governor patrick i remember when i was tired, you know how jack was. i came -- was trying to get out of the justice department, the administration said changed. i was now in the reagan administration. i came up to new york at jack's bs for an interview. some of the lawyers or unhappy because jack made this decision by myself. you know, he decided to was going to be hired. some of the lawyers are buzzing about not having a role in that.

jack said, another lesson that i learned and i used later, not as well as jack among perhaps. jacks said in a very offhanded way again, i think democracy is great for countries. [applause] there is so much more i can say about jack, but we need to hear the governors. i will point out that he was the dean of columbia college. he and the former dean of harvard university law school wrote a book called dean cuisine he is a cut, chef. if you know anything about jackie and know that his reach went well beyond the united states where he was involved in and was the inspiration for the

creation of ball death of a world of, other legal defense funds on behalf of other constituencies of color. indeed, i would say women, too. and finally if you know jack you would know that he was involved in being an inspiration for and helped set up the legal resource center in south africa, the european round of rights center in budapest, has worked on behalf of rights in recent years. this is one of the great human rights lawyers of a time. and we cannot honor him enough. i tell students because i talk with them, i have had that honor you may have to lean a little bit to it here jack because this was a lot softer. but you are in the presence of greatness. and so we honor jack greenberg today. he has done every honor lvf can

get, what we have one more for you. jack greenberg. [applause] [applause] [applause]

these courageous woman who are getting up on the stage better than i could. i am here as a moderator. i think you are your and your there. i could say age before beauty, but that would not be appropriate. [laughter] i am here this morning as both the moderator and a child of brown, which i could not escape if i wanted to, but i don't want to. for example, when i sat in front of nelson mandela for the first time just about for five days after he and other prison, i wanted to figure out some way that i could connect with him in a way that none of the other journalists at because there were hundreds of them, as you remember. so i introduced myself as a child the brown, and that was

that. we were like this from then on. so that is one of the things that has made my way all these years, but i want to begin by saying thank you, legal defense fund. mrs. marshall and your husband, people like constance baker motley, donald hall well, vernon jordan, horace ward, so many lawyers who made it possible for me to have those freedoms and honorary degrees as well as to become really close to nelson mandela and to go on a journey to the horizon. had it not been for brown i think i still would have become the the star, and she can eat your heart out right now based on my journey to the verizon, but it enables me to go where i wanted to go, and that was to the university of georgia.

but i want to hasten to say that 60 years ago when the attorney general was three years old, was a little bit older. i was in the seventh grade, 1954 decision handed down. not a word was spoken in my classroom. and i was writing a book several years ago, sort of an autobiography. and i thought, i can't remember ever hearing a teacher talk about brown. and so i called one of my seventh grade teachers who was still around. i said -- she said to my dear, i'm sorry to tell you, we did not state -- say a word about the brown decision because the white powers that be had forbid them to speak about it on pain of losing their jobs, not just temporarily, but forever. that was in 1954. so i was in the seventh grade. thank goodness there were murmurings in the black

community about this, but there were murmurings because the punishment still the black people in the south was great. there were not allowed to double lot of loud talkers about this. but in the end while we had been brought up in a separate but equal base where we did not have first-class citizenship, our parents gave us a first-class sense of ourselves. and so many years after that when a black people decided that it was time to speak up and do something, they came to hamilton holmes and myself and the rest is history. we desegregated the university of georgia. 1961, and i am happy to say that today, as you have heard, there has been so much progress since the beginning. the use, the implementation,

that when i return, as i often do, to the university of georgia, there are so many black students saying, go dogs. now, not to the docks here on the stage, but to the wonderful governors, governor doug wilder. you will all reid is details in the program. i won't go into it now because we have just a limited amount of time, i keep being told. and, of course, governor duval patrick. we are so proud to have both of you with us this morning. all of us are. i would like to start with you, governor wilder. you were in your early 20's to my belief. okay. nobody do math out there now. >> do it. you are proud of it. >> on my. >> do you remember hearing about it that dates back. >> i do remember. and brown changed my life

entirely. but for brown i would not be your. and it has very little to do with education. has very little to do with being able to go to school. i'll the schools i want to were segregated until howard. virginia union was african-american. and so what brown did for me, i had just come back from fighting in korea, front-line duty. and i never could understand how i was sent to. to fight for the freedoms and the rights of other people, and i didn't have them. >> because the army was -- >> no, the army was not segregated. the army was not segregated at that time, but the country was. and harry truman had the wisdom, through executive order, not

bargain with congress or anything else, this is not right, this is wrong. and he did that. i'm fighting for these people's rights. i have none. i had really pretty much given up. i had been reading. what they were doing. they might have a point. i was so distraught. i was always involved with wanting to do the social benefits. and so i had my degree in chemistry, but when brown came out i said, wait a minute. you mean non-white men have said that they have been wrong? you mean that this system could work? hey, let me give it another thought. and so as a result of that, i immediately said to my am going to get out of this big rita was working in toxicology in the state milk to the state medical

examiner's office. let me get out of here. i'm going to law. man so much to me to see what brown would do because brown was more than just a decision. it was a changing of suasion, a changing of direction. was causing people to think and to talk about what cecile was talking about earlier and was of the others were talking about, putting race out there to be discussed. that is what it did for me. >> did it happen within your community as well? where people still frightened, as they were in georgia? >> no, what it did, it made people start to talk about it in the barbershops. made people start putting voter registration, are you registered? if you are not, don't talk. may people start believing that there was an opportunity. you saw that for the next ten years, i would say, for 54 to 64. there was a sea change in america, and that is so much for

me, for the country. that is why. but what they said earlier, it is not over yet. and what thurgood speech she quoted from, and i remember it well, aba convention being held there, and he could have gone. and he was roundly criticized for even saying that. and yet the community -- brown gave the community hope. brown was almost like joe louis fight. [laughter] >> on that note let me go -- let me go to governor patrick. you chided me for describing you as the boy is looking governor in an article i wrote about the memorial service of another ldf board member, dr. kenneth b. inman. he was just amazing. and he is always looking, but he did not like that too much. but on that same tip, i want to say that while the governor here

was in his early 20's you were not even born. so i want to know when you became aware of brown? you had a number of years before you -- well, i guess when you started school, maybe. when did you become aware of brown? what impact did have a new consciousness? >> shirley, can i first say that i was born two years after brown. can we to settle this? [laughter] [applause] also, whenever i am with tutwiler, i think this is what a governor looks and sounds like. [applause] i -- [applause] when mrs. marshall was quoting justice marshall's comments about what really in the celebration in the hour or so after the decision was handed

down still resonates with me because i think brown started as much as a result. in one of the things that goes with a job like this is that people give you the most extravagant introductions when you're out in the public. my favorite was from this gentleman had an of and at the -- you will remember this, but at an event at the democratic convention to cycles ago. he got up and talked about how everybody makes a fuss about governor wilder being the first black governor elected in america. he said, being first does not mean a thing unless they're is a second. [applause] i think that is what brown was about. and while brown was not mentioned by name by my third grade educated grandparent's who -- with whom i grew up in

chicago, it was a presence. it raised everybody's expectations of themselves, not just of the country, but of themselves. and in a very fundamental way what i got from my grandparents on account of brown was this basic, almost ordinary set of middle-class expectations that you were expected to chief. you were expected to be resilient. you were expected to make them proud because they had faith then you, and i think it was not unusual for the other kids on welfare on the south side of chicago in the 50's and 60's. >> we heard cheryl an eyeful talked earlier about some of the amazing things that brown has achieved. governor wilder -- and you alluded to it, but let's be a little bit specific. when you look around this nation , even around this room,

tell me some of the things that you are proudest of that brown led to? >> you know, in the words of the negro national anthem, born in the days when hope i did -- on board or dead, can you imagine a people that had no hope, no aspirations? and no one even preaching it other than in their own families even though we had segregated schools, we had the best possible teachers. i mean, there were dedicated. they did not want the clock. the disciplined you. you cross your t's and dotting your eyes and kept her mouth shut.

[laughter] and what brown did in terms of that aspiration, it made people believe, as the governor so beautifully pointed out, that it is no more than the normal expectation of anyone growing up, anyone being a part of the fabric. i remember one of my teachers and virginia union, sam proctor. you know him well. and he would say, being a part of the politics, being a part of the decisionmaking process, being a part of making certain that you have a say so in society -- and this is what brown did. brown made it possible for you to believe that anything is possible. for me, like i said, i never did believe that it could happen. i never did believe we would have a society that would be willing to admit they've been

wrong. >> or that you could be governor. >> oh, yes. no, listen. [laughter] that is an eggshell. [laughter] it did not mean as much to me as it meant to break that membrane, to get through, to make it -- you know, our life had been like a semi permeable membrane. you can go through, but you can't go back. what i hope to see, and this is why i'm so happy and proud of him because he made it known that it was not just an episodic thing. was not something -- low, these people went crazy, but he and i now are looking for others to step up to be. we see that in the white house now. so i am convinced -- as a matter of fact, you would be surprised. this did not just happen as i got older.

even after i was elected, read about me being elected. a boy came up. was in church. his father was the minister. elected but the father and said, is that doug wilder and he said, that governor wilder. isn't that doug wilder? i told you, that's mr. wilder. and he said, but as the been dead? what he meant was anybody that he had never read about that had been an achiever in america must have been historic and dead. that is why i said happy. >> governor patrick, let me apologize for saying you were not born in 54. i majored in journalism, not math. >> i was born in 54. >> right. right. okay. i got it right then. but i want to know, as you look

around the landscape today in addition to in this room, what do you see that brown enabled? that brown made possible? massachusetts, chicago, anywhere, what do you see? >> my campaign strategist, a guy named tom rubin, young guy to my jewish, smart as they come. and he tells the story about sitting with his three young daughters about a year ago watching television. he watches the news like political junkies to all the time. and he said that is @booktv that think it was -- it might have been the day i announced the appointment of mcallen has our interim united states senator, an african-american man and a

wonderful colleague and a terrific senator. he said, you realize that he was living in any city where the mayor is black in the state with a governors black and the junior senator was black and the president of the united states was black, and that is the frame of reference for is girls. see, part of, i think, what brown was about was that it enabled americans, black, white, and everybody else, to imagine a different kind of community. it is not all about what we achieved that day were in the years since, but that we imagined it. people used to say when i was there, it might have been elaine, i can't remember, that -- >> she said a lot. >> and all of the profound. we sent the kids and to

integrate the schools because the adults would not interpret the neighborhoods. now all whole lot of people are leading integrated lines. and that is important. >> governor wilder, we have more black college graduates than ever. isn't that one of the legacies of brown? >> yes. when you consider that it was against the law to even educate people of color, when you consider that people were punished to the extent that that availability has been put there, but it is not enough, as has been pointed out. you still have to look to make certain that they get to the point where they can get in the college or they can graduate from college, but they have got to graduate from high school. they have got to be able to get a job. they have to be able to have better health care. they have to have those kinds of things.

brown addressed the totality of it. and if you look and listen at the last traces that were quoted this morning by sissy marshall when she was speaking about how you break down, how you knock down the wall, how you break the door, as thurgood was charging on. look, this is our collective job yes, i think it is important. i think as the governor points out, we are in an integrated society has such. we have to benefit from it to the extent that all people rice. >> we have just a few more minutes left, and i want to address some of the things that people say brown -- that remain challenges for brown, and we want to do this very briefly. i no -- i wrote a story recently about howard university and some of the challenges before it and the fact that so many black colleges, we never thought that it would have such a deleterious

effect on black schools. also, i go to the sweet auburn avenue where i first met dr. martin luther king. there are no more black businesses. our village that we -- the supported us is so dispersed, and our kids are not -- what do we do about it? and what is the role of el etf as you see this -- these challenges in a society to brown going forward? and very briefly because i want to say something at the very end. go ahead. >> all of that in a sound bite. i guess -- no, actually, i don't do that very well. i don't think brown is responsible for everything that has gone wrong in a sense in the same one that i don't think brown was supposed to have solved everything that was wrong that think it was -- you know, what we're talking about is

piercing the membrane are having a different kind of way of imagining our community and our country. the rest of it is up to us. >> and ldf. let's talk about specifically briefly held the f. >> ldf then had to carry that message for. when al the f, when they were trying the case is, they would go into a community, the lawyers would form a protective squads that were necessary for the communities, the churches, the sororities, the paternities, and all of them. and so our job is to really engage that collective effort, more communities, humanitarian effort. al the of cannot do it by themselves, as you pointed out, nor should they be blamed for not having done more. but we should try to have a more collated effort in terms of, you

cannot allow a society and these youngsters and these people to believe that someone else is going to do it. we have got to be a part of the process ourselves. >> and that is why want to and. i spoke to some of the young people who are at centralized rule today. they were in little rock. they were given an assignment to go back and talk to people who were there when they desegregated in that vicious way centralize cool fifth dividend one of the young bloods girls talks to her great aunt who was one of lured nine. and she said, i never knew what a big deal it was until i talked to her. and then she went around talking to our fellow students today. and it was like when i spoke at the university of georgia. jenkins told me there were graduating on may 17th to my school kids that come to georgia. i said, oh, wow.

may 17th. what a great stake. they elected me. i ask them to mike and see you don't know the significance. want you to look it up and write to me. i give them my e-mail address. a white kid and a black kid look tough row to be the next day and said, thank you. we are not teaching our children our history. if you don't learn year history you're going to be in a position where it is going to be repeated. so we want our kids to keep on keeping on. we want to give them the tools that we learned back in the date and that ldf continues to utilize as it helps brown recognizes promise for all of our students. thank you so much, governors. [applause]

[applause] >> we have come almost to the end of a program. i want to, first of all, think governor duval patrick and governor wilder. [applause] let me be clear that these are the only to black elected governors, certainly since reconstruction and the history of this country, and the history of this country. and i also want to say that both of them also are two black governors who are connected so

strongly to al etf pier your governor patrick talk about having been a lawyer. governor wilder was a cooperating attorney in virginia these are men who are deeply connected to help the f and to help deal of work, and i am deeply grateful to them and to charlene hunter for moderating that terrific conversation. i want to do two things. the first thing i want to do is read to you the words of cheryl braun henderson that she sent me last night. the younger sister of linda and the daughter of oliver brown, the plan to from chances in the brown case. she was trying to make it year bastrop read this on our behalf. to the director council chair and members of the board of the naacp legal defense fund on behalf of my family and fellow plaintiffs in brown versus board of education we regret not being able to join you at the national press club for your commemoration of this historic decision. it is fitting that you note this anniversary with a conversation with two african-american men,

former governor douglas wilder and massachusetts governor duval patrick whose political successes offer hope and inspiration. for my family and all of those involved in the five cases that comprise the brown decision it was a source of pride to stand with the naacp al the attorneys to use the rule of law to topple the goliath of oppression. their actions brought our nation to a crossroads of values verses political goals, the benefits of their legal strategy are reflected in contemporary society and how the 14th amendment is applied and the protection of our rights as people of color, women, citizens with disabilities, midlife, and older adults and issues of gender neutrality. today we know that the ongoing struggles with the meaning of the 14th amendment are fueled by those seeking to legitimize the concept of a 21st century ruling class. in may of 2014 we take comfort in knowing that the naacp legal defense fund is there to speak truth to power.

on may 17th 1954 at 12:52 p.m. when chief justice earl warren an ounce to the unanimous opinion in brown versus board of education, for a brief moment we believe that the founding documents and three of this nation would have meaning for all of us as citizens of color. thank you for remembering the sacrifice and courage of our families who were ordinary people engaged in an extraordinary work on behalf of their communities, states, and this nation. please join me in giving up costs of the families. [applause] [applause] >> we ended the conversation with the governors talking about what we should be doing in the future and what ldf should do. many of you know that all the f continues its active work in the area of voting rights. we litigated and argue the shelby, alabama case and have been, says that case, refusing to give up on ensuring that

every american has the right to vote and participate in the political process. we continue to work in the area of education focus in on school discipline, disparities in education, continuing to focus on segregation in ensuring that students have access to quality education. we work in the area of economic justice and employment discrimination, in the area of housing discrimination. yes dalai see you, donald sterling, housing discrimination and, of course, we work in the area of criminal justice where we continue to the death penalty work and other work-related racial disparity in the criminal-justice system. my lawyers are the brightest, fiercest combat his lawyers with all due respect all the lawyers in this room. [applause] they are. they are. they are. they are not exorbitantly paid. into this work for the same reason that i when i was a years old one to be a civil rights

lawyer. at people before me made me believe that this country could be better and that it was my responsibility to make the country better. all year and have been saying that civil rights work is the work of democracy means. is the work you do to keep democracy strong and vital. sometimes it these tweaking some , sometimes it needs an overhaul. sometimes you need to tear down walls and you refurbishing, but it is work that anyone who is a citizen of this country should see themselves involved in. it is not work just for black people or even just for civil rights lawyers. is the work of maintaining a perfect democracy. what that means is you must be a partner with us in this work. your presence here today shows that you recognize the significance of what we do and have been doing to your own lives, and we are asking you as legal defense fund lawyers to reach out or to take our calls when we reach out and find ways to partner with us. there are multiple ways to do it we're always looking for a pro bono council to help us in the cases that we're working on.

we're always looking for financial support. we don't take government money. we raise money to keep our legal program going. you know, i spent lots of time reading the letters of thurgood marshall. in many ways you run this house to -- just riding around the country try and raise money to keep this legal program going. i would like to stay healthy, and i would like you to support us at any level that you can. you can go to our website. i want you to go there because we have assembled a plethora of resources about brown, and as you heard from charlene hunter, if we're going to teach our children we have to learn ourselves. ask yourself, how much do you really know bob brown? you know the name, maybe what it stood for, read the case of law school. how much do you really know about this case that is the most important constitutional moment of the 20th century and literally transformed this country? we also ask you to make sure that people know about our work.

you can do that by telling people in your network about the legal defense fund. we are all about social media. we ask you to go to brown and 60. we ask you to read about this event and ldl for those of you on twitter. i ask you to join me. most of all, we ask you to be fought partners with us in your network. we want people to still no that there are people who are standing on the front lines involved in civil rights work to believe that this is critically important work that we are doing, not just for a season of our lives but for our entire lives. most importantly, if there's a message you will take with you, what you to take the message the civil rights work is for everyone. the work that the legal defense fund lawyers did we did on behalf of america, not just on behalf of african-americans. we made america a better. yet we continue to make america

better. we ask you to stay in relationship with customer reach out to us, be thought partners with us to litigate with us, donate to less, spread the word about us and continue shore up this extraordinary american institution that has changed all the lines. i would also ask that you keep in mind that brown is a commemoration and a day, but almost as we heard from mrs. marshall about the celebration and then the worker, today is a celebration and a commemoration, and we must take these must recognize what we have accomplished and honor those people who have done it, but now the work really begins. please do not forget about us until next year when we have the 601st anniversary of brown. please remember us and stay in touch with us. i want to take a point of privilege by doing one thing and recognizing one person who is an extraordinary woman. she is the mother of one of my board members, and the mother of

a long time former ldf council. her name is, a bird. originally from oklahoma and today is a 901st birthday. i would like us to recognize her. [applause] [applause] so, we are at the close of our program. i want to thank the national press club, all the members of my staff. i want to thank you all for coming in joining with us in this terrific of fantastic celebration. i wish u.s. and the rest of the day, and i wish you a great weekend. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy events and every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable-tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable satellite provider. watch as in hd, like us on facebook, sun twitter. >> today on washington journal we focused on the private sector data collection is affecting consumer privacy. you can watch the entire discussion on line at c-span.org

here is some of the conversation . >> we are back with senior white house reporter a politico focusing on national-security issues, and this is your reason story. who watches the watchers? big daddy goes unchecked.big da. what are we talking about here? what companies are we talking about? >> guest: well, we thought it will be interesting giving all the attention paid to the nsa spike to look at what other kinds of surveillance a going on. we found most interesting that there are companies across the private sector. some of them are in the business of gathering data. others are and other businesses but pick up get along the way. it is everything from information in your electric meter about what time of day you use electricity to the numbers you get out of the supermarket and drugstore that tell people what products are buying domestic companies that are doing other things like taking pictures of license plates and parking lots to figure out where cars are parked which can be

useful for repossession companies, but also has various privacy concerns. what is happening is because computers are getting basically stronger and stronger data storage and the ability to crunch the date is getting cheaper and cheaper, gradually a web of information is being built where you can, if you want, but all of that data together and really build a picture of individual -- my colleagues looked at this government report that had 75 -- you can get up to 75,000 data points on a specific individual, things you bought all of such you visited. that is one of the keys to the realm. someone gets your e-mail address and get linkage to other permission in your profile in basically tracking as you move around the web. just in the last year or so it seems like there are a lot more ads that follow you from one website to another. you may be looking in a product of a particular website and three or four days later used to see ads from similar products of

the web sites that are not about purchasing anything all. companies are becoming increasingly sophisticated about following your around. >> we are talking about private companies, not the government. >> it matters to some people because it -- for couple of things. companies can use this to market to you. they sell profiles of the companies that make talk about whether you are in financial distress. they may be able to figure out from things that you purchased they have a specific illness like diabetes and and and maybe other companies of one to purchase that information. some people that might not bother, but there are obviously privacy questions. i don't know if people wanted to be published lists of all the people the suffer from specific illnesses. then there are questions about what happens with that data. could it be used by employers, could it be used -- it can go back into the government canadian this information can basically be obtained by the government with a subpoena. it becomes kind of the revolving door were about the government private sector can have pretty,

pretty detailed information about you and your personal life >> host: do people expect a certain amount of privacy when shopping online and doing the things the you're talking about? >> guest: this is a good question. the presumption up until now -- and this was something that was discussed the recent white house report has been that you are sort of giving consent. when you go one website, purchase something, when you perhaps click through the terms and conditions that nobody reads on various web sites or whenever you're apple product update you are agreeing to let people share and looked at your information in certain ways. that kind of model does start to break down at a certain point. for example, when it talking about somebody building a database of license plates, i don't think necessarily people in thinking that every time the park the car, you know, a mall shopping part one for a sample somebody is recording that. and even if they were then i see it in a lot, not remember for

long. somebody can store than a keep it for one year, five years, ten years, forever because right now and most places in the country it is not regulated. >> host: you said a national survey in this piece that you wrote, taking a look at this issue of privacy, security. most internet users would like to be anonymous online, at least occasionally. many think it is not possible to be completely anonymous online. 86 percent of internet users have taken steps to remove foremast the digital footprint. 55 percent of internet users have taken steps to avoid observation by specific people, organizations, where the government. what do you think those numbers tell us about where we're headed? >> guest: well, i think this stems in large part of this and as a controversy. there were a lot of people basically thought it was no big deal and people would view this as a modest intrusion on privacy. the main program that in as a folks are talking about a month

on numbers and what they're being called. some of the affirmation that we were able to report on the private sector is far more detailed in terms of the profile that can be built upon an individual. there are even companies obviously if you use commercial e-mail vendors that have accessed your e-mail and figueroa were used most rock -- often. there are people that are increasingly concerned about the privacy aspect of some of these things, and it is kind of the fascinating divergent. young people seem particularly concerned about some of these privacy aspects even know a lot of folks regarding gun people was major over sharers in terms of putting a lot of formation of facebook, twitter, a snap chat, these various other absent website where they shared things that perhaps they should not. the thing is they share that affirmation in part because they have an unreasonable expectation that it will remain private.

there is actually feel like is some of the data of fair amount of interest in privacy even among young people letter doing the most sharing online. >> can you master footprint? >> i think you can to some extent. there are different ways you can make your browser not be tracked in certain contexts. you can use several different e-mail addresses. becomes difficult. you end up paying a higher price for things. if you want to go online and getting no pride of the does not sifter your e-mail you will probably have to pay for that service. there are ways you can try to confuse the system which brings up another question which is how accurate is a lot of these information. there may be lists of people suffer from certain illnesses. we really don't know. 50 percent, 75 percent, 100 percent of the people on the wrist that actually accurate. a lot of the state is not coming from the most reliable source.

one person was saying, you take your car into jiffy lube and suddenly they have your license plate and name together. if your son or father or friend takes it and that might link the license plate to that person's name, and suddenly the building a profile of information that really is an accurate. we don't have good insight into how accurate the date is. >> host: politicos' senior white house reporter talking about this new piece. who watches the watchers, beginning goes unchecked, your thoughts, questions. let's take the second part of this. the data goes unchecked. what do you mean? >> we kind of look to see what kind of responses washington in particular, the national federal government has made to this issue of gays change about individuals. it has been pretty tepid. there have been have you legislative proposals probably the most notable one comes from senator rockefeller, the head of the commerce committee who is retiring this year, but he put

out a report last year of about data brokers selling some of these profiles was someone in financial distress and things along those lines. he has been pushing legislation that would regulate that industry, but it has not been a very popular idea in washington. most republicans are opposed generally the putting any knew burdens on the private sector unless there is some extraordinary in the do so. democrats are kind of caught in an interesting lice. some of them, the inclination would be the crack down on practices. some of the big companies that are really at the center of this industry familiar talking about the titans of silicon valley in the internet world, global, y'all who, not necessarily the data brokers that self profile the people, but they are heavily involved in the on-line advertising business and in trying this segment their audience so that advertisers can reach people that they are most

interested in. clearly aggressive regulation would upset a lot of people that tech world. democrats have been pretty quiet on this issue as well, but it is something that in the wake of the nsa controversy president obama has been interested in bringing up saying, well, if we're going to talk about the information we should also talk about the other affirmation that the private sector is gathering come but he has not come down in terms of specific legislation or specific proposals outside of pretty distinct areas. >> no executive action? >> there is some possibility for executive action here. you may have heard in the last week or two, snapshot was hit with an enforcement action. in the ability to regulate this area is murky. they have the right to go after unfair or deceptive practices.

the company arguably tricks you into thinking the privacy policy is one thing and then changes it midstream without telling you. they could be >> at that point i was what you might call a henry