forensic evidence, but some police, campus police officer is just keeping all this evidence in their office. and all of these things just mean that, that it leads us to believe that the campus system is the same as the criminal system, and the criminal system doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to sexual violence. so that ends up chilling reporting just by operation of a bunch of, as i said, pretty much unintentional things. .. you -- the lack of reporting can be seen as a veto on the system. if you have fewer reports that means your system is not doing -- >> right. the point i was trying to make if you have a lot fewer reports at any given campus, no parent

should take that as a signal that there's a lot less sexual assault. >> right. right. which is why the mandatory survey idea is the way to kind of level the playing field between the various -- all of the schools because they'll all be collecting data on the same basis, and separating data collection from getting victims services which, as jessica said, is what that's -- what reporting should be about, is helping them to access what they need rather than depending on them to solve our crime problems for us. >> i think this is a very cyclical problem, though, and it's what we keep talking about, is what their goal is on day one could be very different day ten and six months down the road, and it shouldn't be just an us versus them, us being criminal versus

administrative process because what i find is that after, you know, there is a discouragement. you asked the question are people discouraged from going to the criminal justice system. you can see there's already a built-in perception that you're not going to get justice or be treated properly through the criminal justice system unless you're doing it right, and i think we're doing it right where i'm at. but where i find our difficulties is if they're not truly vetted, then they come to us after it was a five-page paper that was the sanction, and then now they want us to do something about it, and at that point we're so hampered that then they say, see, you never take cases anyways, and it's just a perpetuation of the reputation that we're not helping them and that we're not there for them from the beginning. so if there's an ashland approach where we can collect, you know, i can sit all day long, i can wait a year, two years, whatever until the survivor's ready to move forward and move through the system, just help me get some of that evidence at the get go, from the beginning. >> so you're saying they're coming to you after they are dissatisfied with the weak

result of the administrative process. >> yes. >> and it's, i mean, that's the whole reason, right? there's, this is just the right thing to do human element of this program, but we're still criminal justice. and so, you know, we say this gives options to survivors, but it also gives information to law enforcement. it had to be beneficial for both. what we coloradod. so traditional -- discovered. so traditional law enforcement is only beneficial for law enforcement. we go forward in the way that's best for us, and i'm overgeneralizing here, but that is true. it needed to be beneficial for both survivors and law enforcement to be effective. and what i could say is, i mean, i hear the try here to get something from the administrative process that can be helpful for the criminal justice process, and if i could say the one thing i have seen throughout the years that would make the biggest difference is to some mandate that anybody who is interviewing a survivor of sexual assault be trained to do so. and for that option, to be

recorded. so the victim has the option to demand that that is recorded, because i can't tell you how many reports i've within given where somebody did a synopsis of what a survivor said, and it was nothing of what the survivor intended. >> right. >> so if those two things happened, i can take that case, and i can corroborate it five years later. but i have to have that audio recording of what was actually said by the survivor by who interviewed them. those two things could actually make a difference. >> and your interplay with the 60-day on title ix too because it depends on who that lead investigator is, what and how they're trained so where their pushes and time frames are and where that steps on the toes of the criminal justice system. >> so does that work better with the single investigator model? >> i would think so. >> i don't know about that. i'd be curious what the advocates and the survivors think about the recording, because i've been in conversations that say that is chilling in itself.

that by recording it, it does put an extra burden, their testimony's going to be impeached at some future point particularly if their recollections change or if they come out of trauma and they have a whole different perspective -- >> but if the interview's done right, then the recollections aren't going to change because the interview will not ask them to remember things they don't remember, but will rather ask them to say what they can remember opposed to a typical -- i mean, as you well know, chief, two different kinds of investigative interviews, and this kind of investigative interview is acknowledging they may not remember everything. we don't want you to remember things that you don't really remember because what happens so often is the victim will try to boot strap their credibility by making up things they don't really remember, because they're so worried whether or not they're going to be believed. and that's the exact opposite of what you really want the victim to do. >> and, again, if i can address that, again, we had all these same in the beginning, right? we had all these same ideas, but

we went out and talked to researchers, we consulted with victims, we consulted with victim advocates heavily. they're who built the program. so what we learned was you had victims who traditionally didn't want the recording if it wasn't an option for them. but when you sit down and you tell someone i'm not going to make you do this but here's why i want to, because i want to accurately reflect your statements, i don't want to sit down two hours later if i'm lucky, maybe it's two days later that i sit down and write my report and guess as to what you said. and i want to, if you disagree with what my report said, to be able to go back to this and make sure that i'm right. and i also never want someone later to say you said something you didn't t. and i have never, ever in four years had someone tell me no. ever. >> but again -- >> but you gave them the option. >> it's never been pushed on them. i explain why i want to. so s and we have had people say i'm not ready to do that yet, right? i need some time. and, again, i'm a forensic interviewer. we do this for kids all the

time. this has been a model that has been replicated well for children. and i'm not trying to say that adult survivors of sexual assault should be treated like children. however, they should be given the opportunity to talk about what they're able to remember in an environment that is accepting and understanding of trauma, and we do not do a good job of that with law enforcement. >> and i think that gets to the bottom line of i wish that we all lived in ashland, oregon, sometimes. [laughter] i'm moving. but i think that it gets back to training in trauma-informed interviews and in forensic interviews. >> and i think that's a very important point, because it gets us back to what we can do. you know? what we, meaning the congress, the legislature. as much as i miss my prosecuting days, we're not going to be, neither of us is going to be doing that. and i think supporting training so critical. but also are there models for how the administrative school

deals with it? it would be useful because -- and i want to sort of address a point that you made, nancy, you know, i think there are due process requirements for the schools as well. because they have the power to have an impact on individual lives that can be transformative, that can change those lives forever. so they have a responsibility, you know? it's a due process responsibility. it's a fairness, it's a justice responsibility that i think is as important as the criminal justice system. the standards, the procedures may be different, the obligations may be different, but they need to be concerned about those obligations as well,

and it goes back to, you know, maybe the victim needs an advocate there too with the administrative process. it may not be, you know, we don't want lawyers sort of dealing with this as a mini trial necessarily, but are there ways that we, the federal government, can help with that add hr.ive process -- administrative process? number one, training, as senator mccaskill has said. we've heard about training, and the lack of it. and the diversity in how universities approach these these issues. but are there sort of models that we could incur? >> well, one thing that i think sort of gets lost is that, in fact, universities can very easily meet their due process requirements, their administrative due process requirements at the same time that they meet their title ix

requirements because, actually with, both of those legal regimes require equality of procedural rights. so if you just give equality to both sides of the proceeding, then you're going to be meeting, you're going to be meeting both of those obligations. the administrative due process obligations as set out by the supreme court and enforced by many, many courts is -- many, many lower courts -- is, you know, notice and a right to be heard. and that's just for state institutions. private institutions proceed under contract law, and all they have to do is follow their own procedures. now, everyone has to follow their own procedures as, you know, the state schools have to

follow their own procedures as well, but they have these constitutional requirements as well because they're state actors. and, but even in the case of a state institution, the requirements are really quite minimal in compare isson to -- comparison to the criminal justice system. and that's critical because it's, because it makes it possible for schools to put the complaining student and the responding student on an even playing field. the criminal justice system doesn't do that, and it -- and there are reasons. there are good reasons for why that is, because the criminal justice system can throw someone into jail or put them the death, and that -- those kinds of issues are not relevant in the campus context. so for the campus context, what

they need to be doing is protecting the living and learning environment of all of their students which means equality and is also what title ix requires. so all of these things actually you can have a very robust administrative process while meeting the legal requirements on all sides, and there's a tendency to assume that the criminal justice due process requirements are the same due process requirements for all proceedings, but that just isn't true, and that's not true based on supreme court precedent as well as many, many lower court judgments in these cases. >> i totally agree, nancy. at our university, and i don't think we're unique, but we have

following office of civil rights and what they've provided as guidelines a number of us not only title ix coordinator's office, but also in student conduct, we've gone through title ix investigator training and have made the shift in our conduct process when we're dealing with the issues of sexual violence. so we're not using the traditional model which is more adversarial. not -- we try to be fair, but now that i've been introduced the to the investigator training, i see a huge difference. and we've, this is just, you know, the student conduct officer reporting that adopting the title ix model and following through very well with it, we are getting more education and

more cooperation from the respondent, you know? help immediately. first thing, you know, you don't -- you're cut off from talking to your student, which drives me crazy, by an attorney saying this is my client, and you'll talk -- you don't talk to him or her directly. you talk to me. the title ix investigation kind of just melts all of that away so that you proceed in a very objective, fact-finding manner, and everyone seems to get more onboard with it because they know you don't have a particular outcome that you're searching for. the outcome will rise from the facts. >> do you think, do any of the schools that you work with or that you're familiar with, are any of them using students on

their decision making boards? >> yale is, and i think it's a bad idea. i think that students are discouraged by the idea that now not only might they have to see their assailant in the cafeteria, but they high to see the person that they told their story to. >> do we have any idea -- there's probably no one here that would know that, maybe, nancy, how many schools are still using students to make these decisions? >> no. i don't know that. >> that's something we need to find out. and maybe we need to even think about -- >> i would say that, you know, just because it's sort of tangentially related to this that, you know, one of the things, one of the problems in this area -- and i say this as a researcher -- is just there is too little research on what is actually going on. >> right. >> and that is connected to the transparency issue. in a couple of different ways.

one is that if schools have an incentive to pretend that this is not a problem and they're successful in pretending that this is not a problem, then the last thing they're going to want to do is empower their faculty or anyone else to be conducting research as to the extent of the problem and, therefore, how to fix it, right? you need research on the extent of the problem before you can determine whether or not you can fix it and how to fix it and whether the ways that you're seeking to fix it are actually effective. so, you know, i don't know the answers to that question in part because there is a enormous research gap. and part of the reason why there's an enormous research gap is because of the transparency issues. >> and while i don't know who's

using students or not, but my school did away with hearing boards a long time ago and just used the investigator model, and being a victim advocate, i can say that we have a lot more victims wanting to go through the administrative process when they're told they're just talking to a trained investigator. they don't have to face their faculty, their students, their suspect. and so i think that is a more victim-friendly model, and so i do think we need training though on not only the investigators in the administrative process, but the police, anyone who is talking to a survivor could be something that we could have more of. >> and that may well include, you know, the dormitory -- i don't know quite what the terminology is on all of your campuses, but the person who's in charge of the entryway -- >> uh-huh. >> the student adviser who often may be the line of first

reporting. in other words, you know, at midnight when a distraught student wants to talk to someone, if it isn't the roommate, it may be the person who -- >> the ra. >> exactly. >> right. and i think that's where other training could be, because the first person someone's going to tell after a sexual assault is going to be a friend or their resident hall adviser, and how that person responds is going to influence if they want to report it to anyone. so if the first person believes them, supports them and knows the resources, that person's going to be more likely to go through the process, so we also need to be training our community. >> and they're going to be more likely to go to that first responder if they understand what happened to them is a crime. so i think we need to get some very baseline knowledge, and i know this has been talked about at other round tables. just so people, all of this conversation is assuming that people get to a certain stage in the process, and i know that so many survivors say what happened to me wasn't, it wasn't rape. >> it's interesting because it

is so fascinating to me that in this day and age there are so many young people that think rape can only occur between strangers. they don't think if it's rape between people who know each other, that that is the same thing. >> uh-huh. >> and you're right, there is a baseline. and talk a little bit about some of the statutory challenges we have in states. i know that new york has a -- and it's, you know, i think every state is different -- about incapacitation and consent. let's talk about that. that's not something we can fix, obviously, in washington. but i think it's important that we acknowledge that there is work to be done at the state level in terms of underlying statutes. >> well, there's certainly a gap between the college definitions and the college policies on what is sexual assault and then our state statutes, what we can actually prosecute. that goes back to what you said before about sometimes people do

go to law enforcement, and they're sent away. in new york state, obviously, a forcible rape is a rape. if someone is intoxicated to the point of being physically helpless, so they're sleeping or they're unconscious, that's a rape. that's a sexual assault. but if a person is voluntarily intoxicated but still functioning, walking, talking and participates in the sexual act, they're not presumed to be unable to consent. that's not -- it's not like driving while intoxicated, you know? you're .08 and you're presumed you can't drive? it's not the same. if you're intoxicated and you did that on your own, you're still considered legally able to consent. so that's, that's sort of a difference between our state law and what a lot of the policies that we have in the colleges that we have in our

jurisdiction. say where a person is, you know, not consenting if they are intoxicated to the point where they're not making a rational decision. >> that makes me thankful to be a prosecutor in colorado, and it goes back to your initial comments and questions about what does consent mean. like, you're talking about the definition of consent in the overplay with intoxication. in colorado we do have the physically helpless standard, but we also have an additional standard of incapable of appraising the nature of your conduct which is going to encompass the bulk of what we see -- >> right. >> will -- which is the intoxicated, you know -- >> voluntarily intoxicated not at at the point of -- >> but not all the way at that passed out stage, so we're in the gray area, and you need that state protection in order to -- we often alternative live charge those or look at those as two different theories of prosecution, but certainly i have greater options before me. so that's a very, you know,

important note. >> what about rape shield statutes? do we need to legislate rape shield statutes for the university-based administrative process? we have them in the criminal justice system. that is, that it would be irrelevant and not appropriate to bring into the adjudication process any evidence that would have anything to do with the victim's prior sexual conduct? >> i would hope that every university in the country would be committed -- [laughter] without any legislation. >> no. we've talked to victims who -- >> i'm sorry, but -- >> we've talked to victims who have been asked questions that would -- >> okay. >> would be highly objectionable in a criminal courtroom. >> ask that's really, you know, what occurred to me when nancy was talking about, well, all we need is a quality, you know? what occurred to me is if you have equality -- i've heard about situations where the

accused could literally interrogate the survivor. well, giving the survivor the right to interrogate the accused may not really be quality, especially when it comes to certain areas like past experience. so senator mccaskill, maybe there needs to be some kind of limit. >> right. i mean, i think that that's about -- when i say "equal equality," i mean equality of equal rights. you can set up the proceeding so no one cross-examines anyone else, is right? and a lot of schools even that use, continue to use a hearing board kind of model have adopted a system whereby no one, neither of the two students are allowed to talk to each other. they have to give their questions through the board. so that's, you know, that's an

improvement. it's mainly just, you know, and i think that this, you know, getting back to becca's point about this making sure that students understand that what has happened to them is a crime, i also want them to know that what happened to them is a violation of their title ix rights. it's a violation of their right to an equal, to equal educational opportunity, and that's, you know, that gets -- they don't understand that even more so than they don't understand the fact that it's a crime. >> alexandra, i'm sorry, i interrupted you. >> oh, no. i was just going to say i know a student who lost her disciplinary hearing because she had a previous sexual relationship with the offender, and the board decided that based on that previous relationship it was okay for him to take cues

from her body language, that even though she was saying no, she really wanted it which was literally the school saying no means yes. >> you asked a question earlier, and i don't pretend to be an expert on administrative process by any means, but what i hear from the prosecution side where we still have some problems, especially if -- so the high focus and if a school is underpinning a complaint, there's this enhanced reaction and almost feeling that i need to make sure that i'm being so appropriately consistent with title ix that you can get an overreactionary response, and we can get crosswise with our local law enforcement. so, for example, a timely warning requirement. if a survivor's not ready to move forward yet but they're struggling with, like, legal is struggling with, well, is there a serious or ongoing threat, i don't know if there's an ongoing threat because they're not telling me everything.

so in the exercise of caution -- because i don't want to get crosswise -- i'm going to do a timely warning which which can s from the beginning. so overlegislation is almost sometimes finish. >> yeah. i don't know about this timely warning thing. >> and so that's a problem. >> i mean, we need the timely warning in sexual assault cases? >> we've actually had some success in circumstances that we're dealing with more likely than not a consent issue especially as it involve ares maybe intoxication or drug usage , the incident isn't what you're telling people about. what you're telling about is how the incident came about, and it's a very fine line. >> uh-huh. >> and we've been able to work with language that, we've been very careful. we don't want to be in a position where we're using

language that can come across as blaming the victim for being in a circumstance. and yet the circumstance did add to the situation, the confusion. so using language very carefully to say that there was, in fact, a report of a sexual assault, so we're being transparent, and we do say something happened on this campus. and then just sort of trailing out. because sometimes the report momentum come to us. it -- doesn't come to us. we might be dealing with the background of a serial rapist, so you need to get something out there. but you don't have enough information to move anything forward other than to say this is still a pervasive problem on campus, it's not gone away. your timely warning is actually a readvisory that the world hasn't changed enough that we can move forward there here. >> i also think there needs to be some reality about how this crime is perpetrated. a timely warning? what exactly is that going to do? >> right. >> because to me, and, again,

i'm not an expert at all on the college process, but i'm just thinking from a common sense standpoint and somebody that looks at these cases and investigates them, this is reinforcing the myth that people are jumping out of bushes and sexual aassaulting people. that's not what's happening. so if it's nonstranger is sexual assault predominantly, think warning that goes -- any warning that goes out they're going to think that's not going to happen to me anyway. it's always a surprise attack because you're never thinking the person that would do this to you is going to do it to you. >> right. >> so that timely warning just seems so counterproductive and also just reinforcing what we are all trying so hard to to fit to get out to society that that is not the reality of these cases. >> will right. >> i can live with what chief zoner and detective hall just said, but when you're facing a potential cleary audit at the

department of ed, you are probably going to -- >> right. >> we need to look at this. >> -- think about this differently. and, again, if we're identifying challenges here, i think that one should be very up front and foremost. >> well, we are capable of overlegislating. laugh. >> the other extreme that we've been -- >> we have done this on several occasions, i height add. [laughter] i might add. >> well, and we've been on the side of before timely warnings, and it's been spoken of today about hiding the reality of sexual assaults on campus. i think one, you know, they should neverso specific that they would out the victim. they should never be that specific. but it does say -- >> if the campus is small enough, you can do everything you can. >> i mean, if you're dealing with a small campus and you say it occurred, then you're asking for social media, you're asking for all of that. >> right. >> i think we've got to really look at this. it's one thing if it's a jumping

out of the bush withs, you know, a darkened part of campus where someone has been physically assaulted and sexual sexual assaulted by a stranger, but it's a whole other thing if it's a drunken fraternity party where a young lady is assaulted by three or four young men. >> and my guess is, and this goes back to nancy's point and the general point made here about the lack of reliable data, information generally on these issues. but my guess is that her likely than not the victim -- more likely than not that the victim and the assailant know each other. .. audits, we sincerery appreciate that. as to the negotiated rule making that was a guiding principles to speak for clarity and the language we came out of that and make things simpler and this is

one issue that i hear colleagues speak of. help guide news these timely warning issues and the notification issues, because i also hear from advocates on my campus that they want a timely warning for all sexual assaults and if that correct or not, but i think -- >> we have been questions as well. we knew you had a sexual assault. why didn't you do the timely warning. not bit the doeut b my it didn't meet the threshold. we have the person in hand, everything is all set, but responding back to educating the public on what exactly all these efforts are for is very helpful. >> something else i want to bring up regarding regulations is to say that the clery crime statistics are very misleading. i never hear that, so i'm going to say it. clery defines very carefully

what areas our crime is to be reported. i'd say well over 50% of sexual assaults that we are aware of on our campus are occurring off campus. they are student to student, they are in a house or a loft apartment, or whatever. they are among people who know each other. they will not fall into the clery statistics because they occur off campus. it's important, you know, if we want people to make educated decisions and be aware, it's important that those crime statistics reflect as much as we know about where sexual assaults occur. >> i would mimic what mike just said. that's an incredibly important. and i can carry it one step further. in our university our

fraternities are not part of the official student greek system and so any sex assaults occurring out through the fraternities are not being captured in clery as well as all the off campus or those different kind of group residences that are not official residences on campus or officially sanctioned by the university. >> and there are more students living in those locations than there are on campus. so it's even worse because it has been good instance are simply not being captured. >> in defense of timely warnings for a second, i think one of the most powerful tools for change that we've seen is taking the law into own hands and filing federal complaint. it is hard to file a clery complaint because you don't, you are dependent on your schools information to know if your school's information is correct or not. i know students have had to truck off to some remote office and take cell phone pictures of records with their phone to make sure that, because they weren't allowed to take them out of the

office. one thing that a timely warning does is it allows people to know that they're being counted. i think if there's a move away from that we really need to see an increase of department of education proactive investigations, because students aren't going to have information they need to do that work themselves. >> one thing i would suggest with a timely warning is it any changes are going to be made to that, that you consider carefully some ways in which to give the victim control over how the timely warning, if the timely warning is given and how it is given. whether that be allowing her, or him, to veto a timely warning in the case, or making more of an opt in situation, but if what we want is, or what our concern is

that, that certain survivors are going to not want a timely warning, but certain survivors are, then the way to resolve that dilemma is to put the decision in the hands of the survivor. you know, acknowledging that there may be problems in terms of, you know, asking a survivor to make that decision at that moment in time with these policy choices is, it's rarely a perfect situation. so i just want to put that on the table as something to consider if there are going to be changes to the timely warning. >> and i would also not want to see a timely warning used as a way to get information out of

the victim that they don't want to share. because timely warnings are about a threat, ongoing threat and may be the victim doesn't want to report yet. they don't want to tell you who sexual assaulted me but my are a told you that this happen. i don't want them to save if you don't tell us they will have to be a downward because there now isn't on the ongoing threat. i would not want to see them used that way either. >> we've got a problem with the timely warning. you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. >> right. >> so you guys need to put your heads together and give us some advice on this. speaking of equality, should we contemplate legislating that all title ix violations that occur in all code of conduct violations that occur all be handled by the same process, regardless of who the alleged perpetrator is, and get away from the reality of some campuses that the athletic department has their own process

if the accused person is an athlete? >> yes. >> yes. >> i think it's just core that all students must be treated the same, regardless of who's the victim, whose the respondent, and what their status is. i can't imagine any equality -- if you don't have that. where i thought you were going, and i got uncomfortable was that the, you know, we are talking about the students, but there's also faculty and staff. and i know on our campus the faculty will have a different process because of the faculty handbook that's developed over time. and so that's what i thought you were going, but i don't have -- i have no discomfort, and

actually i would applaud that all students are treated equally. >> do any of the universities represented here have two different systems, one for the faculty department and spirit know, out so do not. >> some schools do. >> the human resources process or those that are staff, ma mike had to go through human resources hearings. we have the faculty hearing process for academic affairs. we also have crimes that occur that have no affiliation with the university that happen on our property, if visitors come and we do with those as well and none of this applies to the administrative process, which is obvious. >> i think the mandated reporting that seybold, not a bald, but is in place now, really also addresses that issue. we not only emphasize with our 80s you must report, but it also is the same message is to

coaches. you know, you must report up until it reaches the title ix coordinator. you know, there needs to be a lot of training of faculty and staff but i think that maybe already in place. >> one thing i would like to just bring up is the fact that when i hear training i think of a two or three hour training session we can check a box and so we accomplished that but i think it's more about building a culture were causally talking about the issue so i have a really good relationship with our athletic department and it's not just the one our training i go in but i called coaches just as a hot in the report so that they know if something happens they can call me and we can work together through the process. because our numbers are going to go up to do more and more work you're doing on campus, those numbers will increase and i think with your help to really let everybody know that's a good thing, because people do get word and they think i do want to

all these clery numbers, and how can we show -- i struggle with that with parents. i do a parent organization with the first year students prevent and i learned how to paint it in a very positive light very quickly and let students parents know we are no different than any other college a across the country. but how we are different is were doing something about him being proactive. so that does reflect a higher number. students to wear to go, they feel comfortable with the process and so i think to change that public perception is huge. and that's going to increase people reporting the numbers on the campuses as well. >> darcy, i think you can take that one step further. rivet joint task force for the athletic department for that same reason. you do start building those lines of communication and systems approach for when those kinds of cases pop-up. >> looking at positives of -- athlete as a positive thing. we so often vilified athletes. just like the number of

perpetrators is a small percentage of the population, same thing with athletics. athletes don't want to have that stigma. how do we get athletes to be allies with us and not working against the? >> and you've done that at connecticut college. >> we have a really good relationship with her men's ice hockey team. they have taken green dot as a major initiative for the team and that stood behind as their mantra and that just help us raise a huge amount of awareness around the program and really created a success. >> do they make the pocket green? >> ncaa regulations, you can do that but they did get green dot jerseys for the annual game. >> can i raise an issue? we've mentioned it a little bit here, but very often it sort of the element in the room, alcohol use. you know, we've mentioned it's not a defense. it's not a defense to the crime of sexual assault. we are to repeat that again and again and again.

by university presidents had said to me, i wish we didn't have so much alcohol abuse because it leads to all these problems. from an enforcement standpoint, you know, as though they had nothing to do with it, as though they could do nothing about it. but we are here about enforcement. is it something that needs to be addressed more forcefully and aggressively? because so often is involved in nonconsensual and other kinds of crimes, sexual assault. >> i think it's important that we are clear about what we mean by and fall. i think it's true of a lot of students are drinking or have been drinking when they are assaulted. i don't think the alcohol is the

but for there. i think often because it's when they are assaulted by people they know, they've been out in the social of vibrant and there's alcohol involved. i've heard a lot of stories, there's only one i've ever heard where it was really alcohol that played the definitive role, where it was, sort of, the college rape story of the popular imagination which is woman wakes up and has no idea what happened, and this was not an ambiguous situation. she was passed out, picked up putting the car and driven away. so i think that we can talk about sort of bystanders in social situations i don't think if we stop college drinking we'll stop college rape. >> i agree. sex assault does happen without local so our goal is the weapon that perpetrators are using to cause sexual assault. i think we have to be careful that when we focus on alcohol it's not about stopping

drinking, people shouldn't drink, don't drink, you won't be raped because that's not going to stop sexual assault. we need to talk about perpetrators who are using alcohol as a way to be able to perpetrate sexual assault. i think that easily gets confused. >> i want to say we thought so much about this specific problem because we do find that in law enforcement i've seen some truly awful community presentations about how to keep us safe and women safety. it just makes me absolutely cringe, and it's a very slippery -- >> don't drink and have a by the? >> all these things i think of her well-intentioned and their extreme ill-informed. i'll read you a brief, and m.o.u. for an edge city wants to purchase in the program we put into because we believe so much about it. caution shall be used when providing any committee education regarded risk reduction strategies to avoid shifting the focus from the offenders responsibility to not commit a sexual assault. for example, risk reduction

strategies should be framed by how the perpetrator targets a victim by either intoxicated or isolated persons instead of how a victim's behavior allowed an assault to occur, i.e. the victim consume alcohol. that's a very important clarification to be made if you're going to go down that road. we don't as the professionals in this trying to effect change need to be perpetuating those myths. >> those ms. stabenow at some people when they investigate the cases like they shouldn't have been drinking or this would have happened. and that gets annoyed at people's investigation, beat policemen or administrative spent if you're going to be echoed a criminal investigator need to understand the vulnerabilities, the accessibility, and our perpetrator makes victims appear to lack credibility and oftentimes all those are wrapped up in a drug facilitated or alcohol facilitate us all. the difference is in showing how they pre-medicated that, not have the victim allowed.

>> the conversation also comes to often we get asked, how many beers is too many in order to consent? as if there's some hard and fast too much beer will. state laws are a giant quilt of mixed bag. it's really hard to say the people, in the state we have an intoxication standard that doesn't even talk about that. they talk about mental incapacity. people don't even see themselves, and what we are talking about in that law. so it's really hard to just try and draw black and white in this area. and again i think we need to shift the dialogue so we are talking about how this is a factor in the crime, but not because of the crime. >> do we have model state statutes around incapacity and consent that have been put out by the ndaa, by the national district attorneys association, or by doj or any of those? >> i sit on the public policy committee for the sexual task

force and this is something that is come up routinely. because anybody who spends any time investing these crimes will soon become frustrated by the amount of consent cases that they can't take if they want to. >> we got to try to pull together the police chiefs and the national das association and justice, and try to get them to work on a model state statute on consent or i would think in this environment it would have some political success. >> colorado, imagine the two different subsections earlier, but we expect almost 1% of the time consent defense but within the statutes that we have we are able to work through that and what consent means. i don't know that there's a model that's been proposed out there, but colorado is certainly a workable series of statutes that we can provide through either one of those. >> we will pull some of those statutes and take a look.

>> i'm surprised there isn't one. >> i'm going astray for a second ago you asked about where you might be able to ask -- help on the administered site. i'd like to bring up one thing from the law enforcement side, and it does have overlap with the university. we still have an extreme shortage of sustained programs and the ability for survivors to come forward to give exams. while selfishly that's helpful to me on the forensic evidence collection, there's that site but there's the well being and safety and medical support that the survivor is lacking in getting, and i've been working hard and establishing one in my committee. we have all kinds of -- >> there's not one in boulder? >> no. i know. we are progressive and we are educated and intelligent in this area but it's -- it becomes a lack of fund. you can say go get a grant but everybody is competing for those grants. and nobody thinks it's their one job or role to provide the same exam. i have university speech women of america, rise up.

there should be a sane exam in every committee in the country. availability of sane exam. >> we start to see legislation go that way i protected ethic west virginia start of some of the state-by-state legislation that you can't discourage and/or you must provide one but the palm is you got a lot of students who are going to the university-based medical, so hours and nobody is equipped to do that and have been that way and is often what's stopping them from a portrait i think we did a lot of work and help in funding and availability and support for medical in the road of getting sane programs established and accessible to our survivors because that's a huge hurdle for us. >> and the impact of the collection of evidence and the retention of that evidence is tremendous in our field. and for the hospital. so even if they don't report a law-enforcement, the hospital is meant to hang onto that for ever and ever. >> we have legislation that is

proactive and soon you can discourage, you help, you get it and we're sending every test kit down now but there's only, like our survivors have to drive 45 minutes to 50 minutes to get a sane exam. that's enough right there that people are deterred and will not drive out there. so we need more well-established and available seen programs. >> i think it's something that we need additional push behind. >> we'll look at that as we look at the grants that will try to put in. it's sad to me because i was involved in establishing the first rape kits examinations in the kansas city hospital at st. luke's in 1979, and we are still talking about this? it's sad to me that we have not, this has not become --

>> we vetted programs before but they failed because of funding issues. there's different models. there's your rape crisis center-based kind of model, your medical facility-based model. so there's a difference of opinion, a philosophy on those but it comes down to funding. >> right, okay. >> speaking of funding, it really comes down to funding for all of us. we just rated new regulations for clery, all of these faqs coming out of time i put a lot of time and money. i'm lucky that work at a place where we have a dedicated victim assistance service but there's some people who they are title ix coordinator's who are there have many hats doing prevention, doing response and there's just not enough funding. i know i watched the last round table, there's a great out there but they can only get so much money. i'm grateful for because that's all i've been standing office now but there's just not enough to do prevention, to do crime statistics, to do response. >> one of the things we're going to try to do as we drafted this

legislation is to address the problems with heard about, but also see if there's places we can simplify and make things less complicated. because the worst thing is to have someone in your job that feels they are so overburdened by filling out reports that they don't have time to check to see whether the underlying policies are taking root and whether or not they are really making a difference in terms of establishing protocols and processes that are supportive of victims. this is an area we can definitely over legislate. because it sounds good and we want information. and the saddest part is a lot of information we demand, there are very few people that actually consume it. that's really a waste of time. >> that's a large concern, to have mass quantities of support and not have the information. i think having the funding there for the crime statistics is so important but as a prevention person i'd be remiss to say that's where we should be throwing our money. we can be doing a lot of work

around prosecution in the criminal justice system and the judicial process but how wonderful would it be if it wasn't a problem? i talked to since all the time about culture change. it takes time but it's not an overnight process but it is doable. take any cultural aspect and we can talk about how it's changed over 30, 40, 50 years. i truly believe that we can work with college students to then become the future jurors and future prosecutors and defense attorneys so that they are changing that culture over all. and i think it's a challenge that we're waiting until college to be talking about these issues but these things need to be coming up in elementary school and middle school and high school because when students get to as the 18 and have a set idea of how to treat people. you can just undo the and 45 minute orientation program. so how can we change that culture from when they are five and learning about consent because someone is tickling them and not stopping, and so they're learning if i say no, it doesn't matter anyways. so how can we change that?

personally i think is where the money should be going. >> i do echo that sentiment. it's one of the strong urges i have to share with you that we really are dealing with people have been socialized for 18 years on the gender role, on respect, on civility, on differences that are still present of boys will be boys and girls need to be polite. and we can be reactive but i'm with darcy on that. let's get the education industry. let's get a more pervasive and let's get into place with a quality starts the conversation much earlier. >> is there anything else we haven't talked about today that any of you feel -- we have skipped over lex it's interesting because i had a list of questions and as i looked through them with covered almost all of them just in the natural course of talking about the things we've talked about in these two hours. is there anything that we've neglected to address that we

need to bring up before we finish today? >> i guess i would just like to say kind of building on this discussion a prevention that enforcement is often really good revenge but if were going to talk about what we're going to require a schools, we need to make sure that somebody is holding them accountable, but also circles back our conversation about money. because the department of education it's a big enough, on the ground conducting investigations about identify the gaps between what they can see on paper of the university's policies and a survivors are actually being treated. >> on that regard i would encourage a collaborative process with the department of ed, the office of civil rights rather than an adversarial process. we've been exposed to a voluntary compliance reviews that were then crafted in reports of something else. so i think if you want compliance, if you want enforcement, it has to be a

different flavor to it, so to speak, to encourage compliance through training, through education. as it stands now there's a fear that if you call the office of civil rights or you call the department of bad for guidance, you're waving a red flag and the focus then becomes on you in terms of resolving a problem. >> sorry, i have to respectfully really disagree. i'm on a campus where the department of education came in, identified a series of violations and said sorry, are not going to find and out of compliance. that's just not what we do. i think that's one of the reasons why we're seeing today is title ix's 42nd birthday and why we're still having this conversation that schools no just as perpetrators do that they're never going to be held accountable. that does feel in some ways very gendered to me that were expected to be as give perpetrators and schools second chance after second chance after second chance. >> we are working on -- i think

that there's value to both points of view but i think there's value to cooperating, but then there's also value to bring the hammer down. and we've got to figure out, if no school ever think spam is going to come down, then that's also a problem. and, frankly, we talked a lot about the statute, but the only real penalty that they have is to remove all federal funding, which we all know is totally unrealistic and will never happen. so we need to have some kind of middle ground of a problem. they are adamant about wanting to stay with a voluntary compliance program. i've got no problem with a voluntary compliance program with maybe a first offense, but if the campus -- if you're back on the campus and have not kept their end of the bargain, they have not done with agreed to do, then there needs to be something other than an idle threat. and i don't think they have that right now. >> and the hammer has to be

something that doesn't punish students who are, after all, dinner, potentially the victim. so to have a penalty that is in effect a nuclear option without any other kinds of graduated responses, and also to have the penalty hit the people who are trying to protect and trying to give those rights of equality two, doesn't seem very smart either. >> it's hard. >> it is, you know, to kind of follow up on both the enforcement and the technical assistance and the training that we were talking about earlier, you know, one good way to sort of, one good place to put our money as the federal government is to require training from not only law enforcement or, you know, the frontline first

responders but also those trauma informed interviewing techniques should also, every title ix coordinate on campus should be required, and that training should be provided by the federal government. you know, it doesn't have to be provided by, you know, staff of the office for civil rights. it can be provided by, say a technical assistance provided who was identified by ovw, by the office and the department of justice which is what to do with the campus green teas, you know, the number of different ways to do it. but the training should be as uniform as possible and, therefore, issued, you know, is should be controlled at a very detailed level by the federal government and should be required. and you also deal with the funding issues, because if the

federal government is providing that training, then schools don't have to come up with the money to provide it themselves. >> you know, from my perspective that's how you get, that's part of the way that you get these various messages and information about multiple goals and the fact that there are title ix writes as well as, you know, the right to be free from crime and things of that sort. .. and things of that sort. >> i agree with nancy and something in terms of the administrative process that we have discussed i really recommend looking to the association of student conduct administrators for best practices. i recognize clearly their outlier institutions. they are institutions not doing

the right thing. >> there a lot of them doing the right thing. >> there are a lot and i would look to the association that provides leadership. >> okay. >> one final comment. i just want to touch briefly on the prevention side of it from a different perspective. i do believe i acknowledge that law enforcement isn't going to be the right answer for everybody. however when you break from traditional model of law enforcement and start providing environment that encourages reporting and identifying cereal perpetrators, and to da's that is form of prevention and it will have impact on the college campuses because we're not only sending a message to victims that they should be heard and whatm happened to them is important and taken seriously,ld we're sending message to offenders they can not keep people silent the way they have

before. i believe if we focus, no matter how you feel about law enforcement, if we he focus on fixing some of the issues with our response right now to some of this, some of these other issues will be affected in a positive way. >> i think i love you. >> ditto. >> i think all the prosecutors are going, yes. thankau you. and by the way, i think it is, you know, very interesting that you have kind of reworked the traditional law enforcement model. one of the things i think we need to do, we need to figure out a wayo to make that model title ix compliant. if we could do that, i think we might be on to something that could have a real positive impact on empowering victims ank ultimately holding perpetrators accountable which is what we want to do, first empower victims and take care of victims but second hold them accountable and i know right now it is not title ix compliant. i already talked to the white house about thisou challee and i think we'll try to get our

heads together to figure out if we can somehow legislate away to make that -- a way to make that model title ix compliant. it is tricky because of the reporting stuff but it might be worth it. >> i apologize if i said this already but we have over 40 campus law enforcement agencies sworn reached out of and said i want to do the right thing and do this and we have to tell them that you are amazing and that is so great and i'm sorry. >> right. >> so i think it's a positive thing they're reaching out. it is an unfortunate answer that they can'ta provide the model. >> let's figure out a way to make ithi title ix compliant. that is one of the things technically not compliant. i think what you're doing embraces what we want to see happen within title ix. we ought to figure out a way to get that done. >> that would be great.ha i. >> ipp think we're in a better place with title ix after the faqs came out. i want to give ocr credit for

having done, you know, from my perspective you know, acknowledging that there is a wide diversity among how well schools are handling this issue that might not be enough, you know, whatol we set up was this three-path approach where you had privileged reporters and you havewh confidential reporters ad you have responsible employees who where their confidentiality is ultimately the decision of the title ix coordinator but the, the confident alf employers, that middle category is now based on the judgment of the school. and so, the school could not identify anybody including people who are sort of very obviously should be confidential employees. they could refuse.

they can refuse under this system to identify them as confidential employees and so that might be a place -- >> if you hear of asy school that's done that, make sure let me know because i will have them as a witness at a hearing. because that would really be bad if they tried to take mental health professionals or health professionals or, and tried to -- >> no, i'm not talking about those folks because those folks have privilege based on state law. i'm talking about the folks likl womens center directors like i used to be, who do not have privilege based on counseling license, for instance. but are, would be, are likely to be considered by students as being someone who i can go to confidentially and my report will not be automatically advanced to the title ix coordinator. >> right. >> andico part of the, you know, the idea of you have options is

that you have options. >> right. >> so there might be a way under title ix toti retain the sort of enforcement idea but still give options. >> right. >> but, that may not be, it may not b be advisable to leave that entirely up to the school to determine. >> right. >> and to actually identify some folks on campus in certain roles. that should be confidential,pu regardless whether they have privilege. >> in this model the only person who would decide whether someone was confidential or not would be the victim. >> right. >> it wouldn't be the schools. >> m and the hank-up we've seen for this truly to be effective because due to time we didn't talk about the other side of the program which is investigation you would have to make your campus law enforcement not title ix reporters. >> right.p >> in order for this to truly be effective so they could identify serial perpetration.

i think people would have to hard time saying campus law enforcement is not a responsible person. >> we have to work on it. >> i want to thank all of you. it has been terrific. we learned a w lot. and i think we are better informed than when we began and you all are doing tremendous work and i appreciate you taking time and traveling to be here today and helping us with this please continue to communicate with us as we, especially once the legislation is drafted and you have a chance to look at it, we will tell you with certainty that a piece of legislation being drafted does not mean thai it will look anything like that when it is finished. so there will be plenty of opportunities, plenty of opportunities to shape it and change it and tweak it and amend it and we will look to you for guidance on the best ways that we can get the very best package possible to get at this problem that i know you all work at every single day. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> homeland security secretary jeh johnson will testify before the house homeland security committee today. on influx of unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the u.s.-mexico border. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c pan 3. -- c-span3. today house and senate negotiators meet to start work on differences between their

respective veterans health care bills. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span3.

>> now securities & exchange commission commission chair mary jo white outlines new stock market rules. her remarks are part of an event hosted by the economic club of new york. this is 45 minutes. >> if people could please get seated. thank you. please get seated. you're making me feel like a party-pooper here.

i'm bill dudley. i'm vice-chair of the economic club of new york and also president of the federal reserve bank of new york. i want to welcome everybody to the 438th meeting of the club and our 107th year. the economic club of new york is the nation's leading, non-partisan forum for economic policy speeches. more than 1,000 speakers have appeared before the club and this is established a very strong tradition of excellence. like to recognize the 24 members the centennial society who have contributed to insure a sound future for the club. and i would like to welcome the students here today from brooklyn college and law school, columbia university business school, nyu law school, fordham and the new school. their attendance is made possible by our members. we're honored today to hear from mary jo white, chair of the securities & exchange commission

commission i for one am happy to see she is at the sec performing so ably to lead that institution. chair white arrived at the sec in april last year with decades of experience as a federal prosecutor and securities lawyer. as a u.s. attorney for the southern district from 1993 to 2:00 thee specializes in prosecuting complex securities and financial fraud cases and international terrorism cases. after leaving her u.s. attorney post chair white became the chair of litigation department at deobo and employment ton in new york. she underred undergraduate degree, phi beta kappa from william and mary, master's degree in psychology from the new school of social research and earned her law degree at columbia law school. chair white, the floor is yours. [applause]

>> thank you, bill, very much for that very kind introduction. it truly is my honor to speak before the economic club of new york. i also want to acknowledge the presence of two of my esteemed, i guess former colleagues or at least the agency's former colleagues, harvey pitt, the former chairman of the sec and former commissioner annette nazareth. it is great to have you here today. i also can't quite resist saying that whoever arranged for the yankees to sweep the toronto bluejays for my arrival i will be eternally grateful. i'm really happy to be here on this particular day. i may not be able to say that the next time i'm here so i wanted to say it today. what i want to speak to you about is the current state of our securities markets. an issue that know is on a lot of people's mind and one that i think is well-suited as a topic for the financial capital of the world where we are now. the u.s. securities markets are

the largest and most robust in the world and they are fundamental to the global economy. they transform the savings of investors into capital for thousands of companies, add to nest eggs, send our children to college, turn american ingenuity into tomorrow's innovation, finance critical public infrastructure and help transfer unwanted financial risks. the state and quality of our equity markets in particular have received a great deal of attention lately with the discussion that actually has expanded well beyond those who regularly think and write about these markets to include everyday investors concerned about the investments they make and the savings that they depend on. i have been closely focused on these issues since i joined the sec about a year ago and i welcome the broader dialogue. two weeks ago, actually just a few blocks from here i spoke about the sec's plan to

strengthen our current equity market structure and make it more transparent. in addition to outlining a focused review of our own rules and targeted initiatives i emphasized our commitment at the sec to comprehensively review and address core market structure policy issues such as the overall fairness of trading in high speed markets, changes in the number and nature of trading venues and conflicts of interest at broker-dealers. today what i would like to do is continue and actually broaden that discussion about these fundamental issues focusing on actually the changing nature of one of the most basic of securities market functions, intermediation and at its simplest, intermediation means services offered by market professionals to execute the buy and sell orders of investors. services offered by brokers, dealers and exchanges. just as in other segments of the

economy powerful forces of competition and technology can transform these services and they have done so. a central challenge for us at the sec is to adopt egg regulatory approaches that insure intermediaries harness the forces of technology and competition to better serve the needs of investors in each of the markets we oversee. not just in equities but also in fixed income and derivatives. now to understand this challenge i want to talk first a bit why competition and technology are so important to how we address market structure issues generally and the role of intermediation in particular. i will then turn actually to contrasting markets to i willlous straight the complexity of our task as regulators, as we and when we grapple with these forces, namely, how the equity and fixed income markets have been affected or have not been affected by competition and

technology. you know just like the u.s. mark crow economy all of the securities markets operate within a structure of rules, technology, market practices and other constraints that establish the boundaries for interactions between buyers and sellers. it's important to recognize that this structure does not just mean regulation. but also the much more complex interaction among regulation and other factors like competition and technology. every incremental change in these interactions can produce significant, sometimes unintended economic consequences that may actually not become evident for a period of years or even decades some this dynamic reality means that we should not be chasing regulatory solutions that fix the market structure for once and for all. our markets are not broken and they are not static and in that sense our work on market structure is never finished.

the speed with which technology and markets change makes that impossible. instead we must always be focused what in our market structure can be improved for the benefit of investors and companies. taking this approach actually requires us to expand our perspective both in terms of time, considering developments well past the last few years and in terms of markets understanding the differences among markets rather than simply excusing them as an inevitable consequence of different products and structures. if we stand actually too close to the particular problems in a particular market at a particular time we may well fail to fully understand the broader forces that are at work and the regulatory choices that are available. so consider the connection that some have asserted between the rise of high frequency trading and the implementation of regulation nms in 2007.

regulation nms as most of you know is the commission's most recent comprehensive set of rules designed to carry out our statutory mandate to establish a national market system for equities. regulation nms includes a so-called trade-through provision that generally prohibits trades at prices inferior to the best quoted prices. some have argued that this provision facilitated the fragmentation of volume among many new trading venues enabling high frequency traders to flourish by exploiting the fastest connection among these venues. given the current prevalence of high frequency traders in our equities markets some put the number by the way at about 50% of daily volume. one might reasonably ask indeed whether regulation nms did in fact change the rules of the game in favor of speed. as a regulator assessing our markets however we can not rely

simply on the temporal juxtaposition of regulation nms and high frequency trading. the issues and forces at play are more complex. this can be seen actually in the data from other markets, both in the united states and around the world. many of which are also now characterized by high levels of high frequency trading, but none of which have their own regulation nms. in this light the rise of high frequency trading emerges as a more complicated story than simply the unintended consequences of regulation. take for example, the e-mini s&p 500 futures contract is the one of the most actively traded products in the united states and which is not subject to regulation nms or sec oversight. and unlike trading in the equity markets which is spread among multiple exchanges and off exchange venues all trading in the e-mini is centralized on a single market, the chicago

mercantile exchange. the cme does not use the pricing structure, you may have heard of the maker taker model used by most u.s. equities exchanges. indeed in most respects the market structure for the e-mini is nothing like the market structure for u.s. equities. yet empirical studies indicate very much like the equities markets that high frequency trading firms account for more than 50% of e-mini trading. now comparisons like, i think this rather basic one demonstrate the need for really a wider lens in evaluating market structure issues and proposals for changes. that wider lens immediately and inevitably brings competition and technology into view. perhaps nowhere has the impact of the forces of technology and competition been more profound in how intermediaries has changed and intermediation has changed over the last 20 years in equities and listed options. at least since 1934 when

congress first mandated regulation of trading in the u.s. securities markets, intermediation has been defind by respective functions of exchanges, brokers and dealers. exchanges provide facilities that bring together purchasers and sellers of securities, generally for a specified fee. brokers as we all know are agents. they engage in the business of affecting transactions and securities for the count of others. generally for an explicit commission. dealers are principles. they engage in the business of buying and selling securities for their own account and generally are compensated implicitly through trading profits. some of these dealers are high frequency traders. now to complicate things a bit further, the neat lines that congress drew in 1934 have not resulted in models of intermediation that are clear-cut or uniform across securities markets. most obviously the functions of broker and dealer have often been combined. there is a reason why we call

them broker-dealers. the conflict between investors interests and intermediary's interests that can be created by this dual role has been a source frankly of serious concern since the sec was created. another type of dual role in conflict has arisen when exchanges and dealers have acted collectively to control competition among dealers in setting their prices as occurred in the 1990s. in addition to conflicts of interest, intermediation when it is unnecessary, inefficient or uncompetitive can also unnecessarily increase the costs to investors. the explicit fees charged by exchanges and brokers for example may be excessive in the absence of effective competition. serious concerns have also been raised about excessive intermediation by dealers. so given the importance of intermediation in our markets and the related persistent concerns of conflicts of

interest and investors costs we must continue to rethink the way we look at intermediation in particular for a given market we must ask whether intermediation has appropriately harnessed competition and technology in the service of investors. are the benefits being realized by investors? are there unintended consequences that are adversely affecting investors? is regulation appropriately tailored to the competitive dynamics and technological developments of the market? stepping back to look at the contrasts between actually the equity and fixed income markets may actually help us better understand these questions and the inherent complexities of the regulatory decisions of the sec. in the u.s. equity markets competition and technology have had a profound effect for over many years, fully generating enormous benefits for investors and issuers. equity markets today are host to a diverse set of exchanges, and

alternative trading systems that match buyers and sellers. dealer intermediation is substantial in both types of matching venues but many orders are not intermediated on these matching venues. they are being executed by broker-dealers before they ever reach such a venue. off exchange trading now represents more than 35% of equity volume compared to just 25% five years ago and the majority of this volume actually reflects broker-dealers executing directly the orders of both retail and institutional traders so, today, even in the very lively debate about the various aspects of equity market structure, one would be quite hard-pressed actually to find concerns being expressed about a lack of competition among equities, exchanges and other intermediaries or that they have failed to take advantage of new technologies. at least with respect to the exchanges, this is actually a

major change from the past where a primary concern was for years the potential for dominant markets to stand in the way of forces of technology and competition. this was certainly a concern in the forefront of 1975 when congress amended the exchange act to direct the commission to facilitate the creation of a national market system and it continued into the adoption of regulation nms with fears that competition, sparked by the new rules, would be limited to the new york stock exchange and nasdaq. well we're now living in a much different world where many are questioning whether the pendulum has swung too far and we have too many venues, creating unnecessary complexity and costs for investors. over the last 40 years the sec has worked hard to further the statutory objectives of the national market system which include the efficient execution of transactions, price transparency, competition, best

execution and an opportunity for investors to meet directly. but as previous commissions have noted repeatedly, these objectives are not entirely aligned. in particular the goal of competition among trading venues when we generally call fragmentation where order are spread amongst competing venues. too much may distract from competition and opportunity for investor order to meet directly by creating opportunities for excessive intermediation. the sec has sought paths to balance these objectives in advancing the interests of investors. no one however could credibly claim that this task is an easy one. for example, one serious challenge arose in the 1990s in the market structure for nasdaq-listed stocks. certain dealers on nasdaq had taken action to discourage competition on quotes and to maintain wider spreads which helped preserve compensation for the dealers as intermediaries

providing liquidity. institutional investors responded to the increases in their trading costs caused by the wider spreads, finding ways to directly negotiate better prices with different dealers and take advantage of an alternative trading venue known as ecn, electronic communication network. both institutional and investor dealers traded on ecn, retail investors had no access to the more favorable prices quoted on the ecn but brokers that handled retail orders directly benefited from the artificially wide spreads created by the collusive scheme because they either traded with their customers directly as dealers or sold their order flow for a fee to other dealers. now the sec ultimately addressed these issues actually in 1996 by requiring the nasdaq quoting system be opened up to prices of all participants, not just dealers and by emphasizing brokers that handled retail

order flow were required to consider opportunities for price improvement on the displayed prices. these steps served to empower the ecns, unleashing competitive forces that led to a major shift in trading volume from the nasdaq dealers to the ecns. by 2004 multiple competing e-cns and nasdaq matching systems shared approximately 70% of volume. trading on these matching systems was highly automated. ecns disseminated market data directly to their subscribers as well as to the public. ecns also used the pricing structure used today by most exchanges. finally speed and electronic nature of the ecns proved attractive to proprietary firms that exhcanged in high volume algorthymic strategies. before long these became known as high frequency traders. in 2004 that i have been just talking about sound familiar to you they should.

though it originated well before regulation nms was implemented in 2007, that structure is very similar to what we have today and it was created through intense competition and tremendous technological changes not just sec actions. now we are addressing a number of fundamental issues in our comprehensive review of equity market structure but as we examine those issues through our wider lenses this thumbnail history suggests i think at least two current lessons for our approach. first, even if it were, even if it were a desired objective the impact of technology and competition on intermediation in our modern equity market structure can not be undone by and through minor regulatory surgery. it is the culmination of over a quarter of a century of evolution, much of which has benefited investors. second, given the pace of the technological change and intensity of competition in the

equities markets we must always focus on insuring that our rules are keeping pace. if they do not, as they did not, with the advent of electronic trading our obligation to insure that our markets continue to serve investors and companies will be compromised. so with our expanded regulatory lens that i've been talking about, let me turn really very briefly to consider the fixed income markets where there is no equivalent of regulation nms and nature of intermediation has changed actually relatively little over the years. it is important to remember that while almost 7,000 issuers currently have $27.8 trillion of securities trading on our equities exchanges there are also more than 40,000 corporate bond issues outstanding totaling approximately $11.3 trillion in principle amount and more than one million municipal bond issues outstanding representing about $3.7 trillion in principle

amount. now trading in these massive fixed income markets however has really remained heil decentralized, occurring primarily through dealers where costs of intermediation are much more difficult to measure than other more transparent venues. prices for corporate and municipal bonds are available shortly to investors shortly after the trade occurs the amount of pricing information available before a trade, bids and offers is very limited and certainly is not widely available to the investing public. here in contrast to the equity markets where the concern perhaps is whether technology and competition have taken us too far, one might instead ask for the fixed income markets whether the transformative powers of these forces has been allowed to operate to the extent it should to benefit investors? you know it is striking that the dramatic technological advances that transformed the equities

markets really over the past decade have only had modest impact of trading of fixed income securities. while today there are a number of electronic systems that facilitate trading in fixed income securities they have tend to be inventory-based providing information on the bonds their participating dealers would like to sell. in addition information about the trading interests reflected on these systems often is restricted to participating dealers and select customers. so although new technologies are gradually being incorporated into the trading of fixed income securities, producing efficiencies and some pretrade pricing information, it appears they are primarily being used to support the traditional dealer model. so i'm, therefore, concerned that in the fixed income markets technology is being leveraged simply to make the old decentralized method of trading more efficient for market intermead arris and potential to achieve more widespread benefits

for investors including the broad availability of pretrade pricing information, lower search costs and greater price competition especially for retail investors is not being realized. partially to address these concerns and to help assure that investors receive the best prices reasonably available i have asked finra and the msrb to prioritize their constructive, ongoing work on two important but in my opinion relatively achievable initiatives to improve the quality and transparency of the prices received by investors. first to insure that brokers are subject to meaningful obligations to achieve the best executions for investors in both corporate and municipal bond transactions we will be working with closely with the msrb in the coming months as they finalize a robust best execution rule for the municipal securities market. with finra and the msrb as they work together to provide practical guidance on how brokers might effectively best

achieve best execution. the development of a workable best execution rule for both corporate and municipal bond markets is vital for the protection of investors and enhancing price competition. second, to help investors better understand the costs of their fixed income transactions we will work with finra and the msrb in their efforts to develop rules by the end of the year regarding disclosure of markups in riskless principle transactions for both corporate and municipal bonds. these transactions occur when dealers buy and sell a fixed income security at substantially the same price and time to fill two customer orders. markups, the dealer's compensation for these transactions, can be readily identified because they are based on different prices on the two contemporaneous transactions which already must be reported promptly to finra and the msrb for public posting after the trade. this information should help

customers assess the reasonableness of their dealer's compensation and should deter overcharging. the need for markup disclosure is increasingly important as riskless principle transactions become more common in the fixed income markets and importance of markup disclosure is especially pronounced in the current low yield environment where the amount of an intermediary's compensation can have a measurable impact on the yield that an investor receives. more broadly it would take steps to insure that the benefits of technological advances are realized by all investors in the fixed income markets. accordingly i asked the staff to focus on regulatory initiative to enhance the public availability of pretrade pricing information in the fixed income markets, particularly with respect to smaller retail sized orders. this initiative by the way referenced in the 2012 report on the municipalities securities markets would require public

dissemination of prices available by alternative trading systems and other electronic dealer networks in the corporate and municipal bond markets this potentially transformative change would broaden the access to pricing information that today is only available to select parties. i'm acutely aware as we go about this of the need to carefully calibrate any regulatory proposal in this area to best achieve our regulatory goals and minimize unintended consequences. we'll engage in thorough discussions with market participants as well as careful staff analysis of the pricing data already available to assess how best to achieve our regulatory objectives but properly implemented rules providing for better pre-trade pricing transparency have the potential to transform the fixed income markets by promoting price competition, improving market efficiency, and facilitating best execution. so the overall goal is to fully understand the role of technology and competition in

today's markets and to help these powerful forces work for investors in every securities market including in the fixed income markets. and i think only with this broader perspective, one guided by daily experience of investors, will we insure that our securities market structure continues to support a strong, growing global economy. at the sec we are fully and continuously committed to that objective. thank you very much for listening. [applause] >> thank you very much, chair white for those very relevant, clear and insightful comments. as is our custom, two members have been selected to question the chair. floyd norris, who is the chief financial correspondent of "the new york times" over here. and glenn hutchins, cofounder of silver lake and a member of the economic club board sitting over

here. also if you have a question you can email it to, questions@econclub ny.org. and our president, jan hopkins, may select it and read it. floyd, you're the first questioner. please. >> thank you, chair white, for an interesting speech. the whigs has proposed rules on money market funds and the president of the federal reserve bank are too weak and could worsen the situation if there were another financial crisis. at same time the money market fund industry rather the commission do nothing. what are your views on what needs to be done and do you think the commission will be able to get a majority vote to do anything? >> can i say they both lose and yes, the answer is, we are currently, as a commission quite actively engaged in finalizing the money market fund rules and i expect in the near term that

adoption will occur. clearly in the process of doing that, we've taken very seriously all comments we received, including concerns expressed by among others, some members of the federal reserve banks, maybe all the federal reserve banks but in terms of whether the fees and gates aspects of our alternative proposals in the proposal might run a risk of preemptive runs and so we have certainly taken that in and our economists analyzed that and we're quite focused on those issues and frankly all the other issues that have been raised during the comment period but i do have a good confidence level we will be proceeding in the very near term with adoption of a very robust rule. >> chairman white, thank you. you've talked about an ambitious agenda. i think today if i got you right, a comprehensive review of

equity market structure. you talked in the past looking at high frequency trading, dark pools, payment order flow which you mentioned again today. today you also brought up the fixed income markets. you have a reputation, not for talk despite your great speech today but for action. >> right. >> and market participants here are wondering how you will prioritize the items on your agenda? over what time frame and in what sequence can they expect to see you take action? >> well there are, as you know, many competing, priorities very important ones, the commission has before it, actually including the completion of the mandated rule makes that the sec received under the dodd-frank act and jobs act and they are proceeding. money market fund rule make something not a mandated rule making but obviously a very high priority. i will say this about the market structure initiatives. this is, really across the markets set of issues that i

focused on actually before i came to the sec and made one of my immediate priorities for us to come thoroughly to grips with those in a data driven disciplined way but nevertheless intensively. i think we also have, maybe rarely but we have i think all five of our commissioners who have spoken publicly about how high priority the range of market structure issues. that includes some things we didn't talk about today too. for example, we have a proposed rule sci that deals with requiring enhanced safeguards over technological systems of the exchanges and the large alternative trading systems to really insure that the technology that connects our very interconnected market is as robust as it can be, redundant where it needs to be so that is a very high priority for us as well. there is no question you can't do everything at once but i, you know, i think, i hope you're

right and in your assessment of me from my past. i'm very focused on being able to accomplish everything we've spoken of today and things i've added to the list, within the next, certainly the next year or two. now some of them will be much sooner than others obviously because you have to proceed in a sequence. money market fund i mentioned is a very near term expectation of moving forward. >> madam chair, the sec often grants waivers to banks and brokerage firms that run afoul of your rules or criminal laws. the, free the banks from provisions of the law that would otherwise either deny them privileges or perhaps remove them from certain parts of their business. could you discuss your general views on such waivers and whether you think the commission should announce whatever waivers they're granting at same time they disclose a settlement with

a bank or brokerage return? >> two main questions there. the first is either by statute or regulation where there are certain automatic disqualification was occur doesn't apply just to banks but whomever. there is also a provision for waivers and there are standards set forth with respect to those waivers. they tend to arise. they're not enforcement remedies but they tend to arise in connection, with enforcement actions either by us or some other agency and then the focus is per the standards of the statute or per the standards of the regulation, should the fact of that enforcement action, also mean that a waiver should not be granted if it is asked for to permit the particular company to engage in some other aspects of its business. i think it is very important. i think we do regard the waiver process, when a waiver is requested, we need to be very robust in our review of those,

very faithful to those standards. i think we are. i think it's a very case-by-case to some degree, although we have policy statements to both guide the public and those who might apply for those waivers and make those decisions per those standards. i think we do do that. now in terms of timing and transparency, i know you raised that. i think in one of your columns as well. i mean it is, first if a waiver is granted, it is posted as soon as it is granted on or website. now because of the nature, again, i say there are not enforcement remedies because you have often have division of investment management at least as a line, group of staff analyzing this. the commission does some of these themselves. some is by delegated authority. the timing isn't always the same. so you may have an enforcement action that is resolved, requests for waiver may come in later, even if it is associated with our enforcement action. if it is some other agency's enforcement action, there is

obviously not enforcement action to attach it to at the same time. one of the things i've done though is try to make sure that to the extent one can, that that information is available at the same time when we do have an enforcement action pending. >> a number of us in this room are directors of public companies and we have observed over the years how the role of proxy advisors has grown. at the same time a standard setting for all of us is opaque, it is inaccessible, seems to have a fair amount of conflict associated with it and remind us of issues that your predecessors had to deal with first with accounting firms and later ratings agencies. how do you view this issue and what do you think the role of the sec is in connection with it? >> the issue with respect to proxy advisor, which actually had a roundtable in december, i thought it was very constructive

roundtable, members of proxy advisors were there, issuers there and investors were there, discussion of numb about those issues. since then under my direction the staff has been focused on what next steps the sec should take in this space. there is also sort of going on before that roundtable and afterwards as you know a lot of dialogue between companies and investors and proxy advisory firms how the process might be improved by those discussions and having those issues brought to bear. proxy advisory firms are enormously important but there are also issues raised that need attention and so, i'm currently sort of reviewing the output from the staff on that. >> madam chairman, some advocates, international accounting standards hope you're going to come up there for them. and i believe it allows some american companies to use

international standards rather than u.s. gaap. can you talk about your at that time used on that? >> yes i can. there has been a bit of activity in that space recently too, right you? did a column on that as well but in terms of, passing that what i've said about that, floyd, i will repeat it here again, the commission last spoke on that issue as a commission in 2010 as to whether, moist of us, probably all of you know, the foreign private issuers can use ifrs and do not have to reconcile to u.s. gaap. so the united states is great user and investor of ifrs in that context. the remaining obviously big issue, whether and if so how and to what extent ifrs is to be, might be extended to domestic issuers. that is really the issue that's there. what i've said it's a high

priority for me and it is to get the commission in a position to speak further on this issue in the very near term. i can't tell you what that statement will be at this point in time but i think it's a very high priority for the commission to give, make a statement and provide a clearer, clear explanation as to exactly where the commission is. >> one of the sec's most important and of course confidential jobs is to police the markets and enforce the securities laws through enforcement. the, in fact, sec is one of the few federal agencies with independent litigating authority. at least one federal judge has questioned in the past how the sec used that authority, second d.c. circuit disagreed -- >> did you want to repeat that last part? okay. >> the second circuit has recently disagreed.

okay. you bring a lot of high level enforcement experience to your job as chairman, more than anyone in recent history. can you share with us the principles and priorities you intend to apply to your enforcement role. >> i mean i guess i would say generally first i think it is enormously important for the sec, all law enforcement agencies but the sec to be a very strong, credible, enforcer of the federal securities laws. i think i used i think at the, come back to haunt you a little bit but i think at my confirmmation, bold and unrelenting in materials of enforcement and i mean that. it should be done fairly and based on evidence but it is really important to not only punish the wrong doers that are before you as a result of an investigation and enforcement action but to send a very strong message of deterrence. one of the reasons that i changed that actually the settlement protocol from a pretty much universal, unless

there was a parallel criminal action, no admit, no deny, to requiring admissions in certain cases or i thought, or we think that there's a particular need for public accountability set forth some parameters clearly evolving protocol. we've done i think about 10 very significant cases so far into that protocol that are clearly going to be more because i think that public accountability is both important to the strength of message of deterrents and for the credibility of a strong, law enforcement agency. the other thing we've tried to do also is to look kind of across the many regulations that we have and there are very important ones and if there's a situation where there is sort of non-compliance, a pattern of non-compliance, even if it isn't the biggest fraud which we will never ignore, they're always prioritized we which bring where necessary and appropriate enforcement attention on those two to send the message that these regulations are there for the reason to protect investors

and markets and you should conform with those. so we're trying to be, we can't be everywhere. we have limited resources obviously but try -- i came into a very strong enforcement program at sec. obviously everybody always wants more or some people always want more but if you look at the sec's record in the financial crisis cases very impressive. very impressive. $3 billion is basically in disgorgement and civil penalties ordered to be returned to harmed investors. i think 170, approximately 170 entities and individuals charged including about 70 ceos and other senior executives. that's a very strong record. it needs to be a very strong record. obviously there are complaints about why isn't there more. there always will be. so i think it is, you know, bottom line, kind of full stop, it is enormously important and i've tried to add value to it to the sec's enforcement program be as strong as possible.

>> thank you. >> madam chair, you spoke of putting in new rules on the bond market to increase disclosure on trading. i suspect the wall street firms will be worried about that and as removing substantial part of their profits of the i'm just wondering do you think your commission's job is at you will to try to assure these firms have a chance to be profitable? >> what a question. all of our rule-making, we have, we have a familiar tripart tied and frankly it's broader than that now mission to protect investors to insure fair and orderly function of our markets and facilitate capital formation. when we do any rule making usually by law but certainly by policy, we balance what we're trying to accomplish for the benefit of investors with market impacts. we do very careful, legal, and economic analysis on all of our rules.

we take into account, you know, all those factors, all those arguments that get made and try to fulfill our regulatory objectives as i sort of outlined in the speech but also take account of doing it in the most cost effective way that we can but clearly regulation has costs associated with it and that is necessary part of it. >> i have a question from the floor about argentina. what is your view on the potential impact for foreign issuers in the u.s. market in light of the supreme court decision on argentinian debt? >> i'm allowed one punch, right? i have actually a meeting on that on monday so i don't want to give an opinion here today. obviously i'm aware of the opinion. have studied it. again, i think, floyd, you're prolific you have a column on this as well which i also have read and very good issues raised with respect to that but stay tuned i guess. >> so i will ask another one.

>> okay. i knew that was too easy, right? >> right. the sec has successfully settle ad number of cases related to wrongdoing that preceded and some cases contributed to the financial crisis. can you please share with us what steps the sec is taking to get those funds to the parties that suffered economic harm as a result of the actions that led to the settlements. >> this is actually receiving quite a bit of my personal attention because it takes longer than anybody wants to in most of these situations to get monies returned. so we're doing a number of what i call enhancements to try to speed up that process. i mean, it is a very, for example, last year, we received orders to return $3.4 billion, because of our fair fund mechanism. that is all returnable if collected to harmed investors. i think we so far collected about 2 billion of that. we have collection and

sometimes, we get the money if we can, obviously anytime we can up front. and return it as promptly as we can. so, by the way, compared to that 3.4 billion in orders of returned funds, our budget is 1.3 billion. so we need a bigger budget too. we're really focusing trying to streamline that process as much as we can, both collection and return end. you have to have claims vetted for, being bone fried claims but, anything we can do to sort of speed that up at both ends we're trying to do. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] think we could say asked and answered. thank you, floyd and glenn and chair white. the next meeting of the club will be next tuesday, june 24th for breakfast at the hyatt with one of our members and my colleague,

charles plosser, of the ceo of the federal reserve bank of philadelphia. thank you all for coming and enjoy your lunch. [applause] ♪. >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson will testify before the house homeland security committee today. about influx ever unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the u.s.-mexico border. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

today, house and senate negotiators meet to start work on the differences between their respective veterans health care bills. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. >> religion is a powerful identity-forming mechanism. it's, you know, part of human society is figuring out who is us and who is them, right? who is my group and who is the out group. well, religion answers that question pretty easily, if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if you go to the same church as i do, then you're us and if you don't, then you're them. and you can see very easily how that kind of us, them, in group, out group, mindset can very easily lead to extremism, to marginalization. after all as i remind people, religion may be the most

powerful form of identity formation but just as powerful is violence. how do you know who is us and who is them? well, if you're fighting alongside me you're us. if you're fighting against me you're them. so far from religion and violence being these two things that are at odds and should have nothing to do with each other they have, as everyone knows throughout history been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious scholar and best-selling author, recent is a as lan, booktv july's in depth guest. take your calls live for three hours, noon eastern. sunday, july 6. republican percentdentialal candidate ron paul and september 7th, former chair of the commission on human rights and civil rights after very cat. mary francis berry. e we're discussing amity shlaess the forgotten man, the history of the great depression. discuss the book in our chat room at booktv.org.

booktv, television for serious readers. >> the u.s. senate starts its session shortly with morning hour speeches until 11:00 a.m. and confirmation votes votes on district judge nominations in florida and vermont along with a vote to advance a homeland security department nominations dealing with u.s. citizenship and immigration. the senate is expected to recess between 12:30 and 2:15 for party lunches. it is possible today or later in the week that the senate may turn to a bill reauthorizing a job training bill. live coverage of the senate is on c-span2. guest chaplain, gloria chaney-robinson who is a senior pastor, shiloh baptist church in scranton, pennsylvania. pastor. the guest chaplain: let us pray.