hat niedobin itis. core aymem sff heanth ecuve bc xeute ede,wh caneanalof e s bitsionin l lor-ve lita apines so thi n tith presr urr ensomuc medrogh pc fe hasgoen l oimn rentea, y e y bisegited i th ut th anlieromhe lal anoit, i ett w theraiclnwtoe't cot s bbngctits, t car prt he inst adiusd t la ssn. rs an foemtmos grssots bbng hu iusy. l e titi tt n

that iton' invoeict coacwi aemr ngssta in t ed, l ott sn cot. airm faparcur clnt jst araros mpgnou ct llns doar amti theyo restti rorngndhat clud, ienoned a maobbin camig wi voe cugrpseaed meaomne angofen ineangitrerts, d setes otate tevion adrad a taet dit aeisme a of tnoptudn giraon coitn ilngn inls gge iassiad thtrasrooobin caai. u e yi tign upali

gizio tde asciio, siss ateritis iu t eimeerto ntth meer coes tth afr, icis oen eenvearofhe biampigdn n lyictitunr es deinio. toa tn te se nttsanbe eto igg elyas iorti a teigce ghg. dotknthexten tohh gotinto tis wle iue of licataent. buwh seby ryg in o hasoi o a th an'tang apoti soetng anryig inuee , e ntt n' gogto unt is obuneow'm trngo ndutefe e stf e bloeswhisgoinn o pill auof t ig ilucethvae o

coi. ha i wole dffent bjt indie] > re plee. thpotil tellienc sisntwekidng bu iinhmenttth y ar ulinwh tyy wrtemo t thr ies ouwh wys ea an nanwi it arcur x ovio beusth a tren te ond stinto it theyaiif ey sart guti ts,e llus y a jnast and itg ewetr t pele >>hawod t ex sge. h poitsso o bewhedbeus e ntts 'tounan thefe sn g giraon rer. anls ifobis st s aeengor ent

itutrelyeadi th mee oi kwhait abt wt sions in toe is nong to nessilcot aontt. d th i e we re saticovyo s. ts isa sunth prfeor thuwaalng ou sobo sd iss w u t isne iisthprocs, re nottulymangy nc. th'rot in ha giers lobyt. wh isorithkou scsebereweon snd loofmeis. limedfor tsscled enheou egier thes,hena ohe gazaonf 'sinus e nesofthinvua bbstis lbyg rm atrierhis tgr fitgier. e ra ancor anof

congss nhe pepl yodo'tha s wat meerfgss. yoht di p th s. oudo ideifth blsft bjtattare bnot e rtul pplyome it itdo dilo tobbst e e of ofia ela20 yr a mot ofnce frobyng titi yodot veo ta t a wa asi biln e ares 1 osy gssot d y s ofhaasirt bbng th ithenl ime gog roronhe lbyg soseotsen f eure tiste addio t 2007l ha ofsothbederid e -clehostearsp an on gveme af

inodedeqrentor mnalre royis po t criutns t fera ditnd ldehi ntibis enhaton r coiza mb oconress wi aot wileooin hoe atsfied ves meetgsrgiz b thr nen ena f apies o emero nges ndth iricaforeon weiltaabosooou ha cefywhen yfid thepoha u. a obis dniol th ethic rus itrespto gs temer of cre stf. 'lta autt a mu. i watourn t t eiagtisatn t, icisot bdand y

tns ut t be t fti n e lbng scsuact wll lkouwh imh oar ico he atit albou nthethy isos bk e93. ignay etedtoadress ncns autect es blitanma yule nai rmyasd aeslt ofho ncern i tggedyer y hathirti o rues forgnriip. foei priipisan ernoutdeepy ouidth u. clde invl. i de fei oti. ubefoign veren

ar. restti ireir ith engen e .s. wha consded ital acies whh iltk abt in a mite thkethgs kows t e.spern,helo i haers eagithat obyivie ty ve e ti tloy unrhe dclure u t prnclesa fei gornntr ren lica y. as reltf th, stf e reraon nre usto renovnmtsndorgn lica pties if yaveone heclnt ou, ecofwh igrsregtrio iot bad. itoencderaros loyi, r sue.

ndilusrodi a ki stic cmucatio adcebo iluci t u. veme teitti i gti ttr,t onctg anon ju sneisw u ougeinthis do hee h uplou dec bbngamai arin ougrsrts mpaalin hemea,he ha esturces tud yuposdlend so ilus tainoter ppl foheact dte. ifouut totrothg the u.. ohe fei vnmtr plit par ateqregtrti.

[iauib kpi iinraivhe atf fi he iown oanes tip fmeer o core tgo forgn nt iluce thewit reectopocylad t rgnouny. thfioinht eea gier >>has ierti ueio nil the restti h toe titi itut es. b f yar tinop ovseand ou e bicly inth fhe ppse etaing thcaly ithou rui risaon cae eyrenginin licalacvsaffted d es.bc th e u. ps. f,evoureving ren gen or aut- dou ly itd

on nyininthnied stesndan ame y hae a of. lil nsntsowhor ng ovrs a lp fei potil rts n ction thdoesn'treir restti. ty er te a d thheu.ovnmt, y knit tecicly wd reqreegilaon. se a ema. th wldrier er ta lof the'ceaiy siifan amntof ait s erly lh i fals undr t een satnctpoed beuspeleon ueran andot nto mp wh it dotunrsndowro thsce thre isaenri i"t neyo tesabt k tas,sof tang neor

ant ofoign vnmnt todudes aacits tde f eo un sngt a rsi a esonbo wth tt uld stuctity. at ireptedsniay evrysix hs iuave to floup whegtrtin, u ctllha tinud yo ctrt thhe clnt. yove tyacthowu u e idndorwhat ilung af exireerytng emed thderiioofhe aivie t cri t anyoacal he t deil -notonenfy yo y tk , t ery onctithny fial saf,

d a prenti oth mea reesnttisou. i ts hnmi osuasua da. avea phe l anddius sondso. ce g b toat re. im cnfed whinheworan wd isitth l th i pt. he'saigntstbetwn thda ot of ole prenngorgn rriofo t edo heoisr peinonhathere do noloerav a sufe eepon [indie] > ahitoe owhe ntra.

teven uderfera,you will se toimeth prs u e ppg in on belff ren vemes tht sti. reto iroemf focent th l ienrc bth dertntofustce a un ine cmaldi it unle iisan arc colat,he i nda insgaonr niri o wh i ingonh u uno lbyis ohlde reten dar tty art. rntothtcs cgrscto

inringhefoig lesliotoig t t r. th tn okt li ay ansehahesulde ncneabt,ha a t pocyobct ldfo onhi e anwh tytapeple. tis al torhe t scda no t ls,e rlesre ghneanasesf han somof eotr scda fm is e re s en gnictl hehted scrutiny. as i mentioned, one of the key elements is even though the congressional ethics rules are

basically rules, part of the rus of each chamber the first day, this past esdahey sweain the mbe and ty veheoafrthe ak an nthi ty i th apt thul ie .s hoeorh 114th cnges da mirhi ith sete poio othe learth etcs re the'll sr teretis d lis thetcs ite the learteiclyust tnuer ofsta. yogi seby gifn olion he rle ar bo ta autr teth outo nc taurt, a meerstf eou gehe fttor hkou lun or inr,hearth es n sced. hsetecott nhi eyan oo u. e ultatenconshrn

deththu hoe. t. t nde 207 waea e gierobis he rtyheidt ole e gi res. whh a ol them tok th outo dieryo gthatit the gend ceifha u re tblbeusyo ma aal sten th a fera feny. hahoat lst 200 w thebases we tmemrs ts gdal auto th sisnhihe ehic lstaringh heenate. eol a pttsilain e tend e hs an orniti o te invialobismoys

cano givnytnghacots as ft galsi vae. whleisrlois relyanve keyoot tre em a cup ofcoffe ncetia tr. u ll isaitebi iriceauitth extis th ffer lot moth up ffe, t t ue. tke an enagn lk outh tyca pleiv yb te onrt sptsvens. vaueat te hhe fe luorostieto entbasi loyis nn hd osoutll xct xte ofubc exptnshaweilta bo. unr e hoe res gier lbis agin caotgi a fts gale ofalnd tat he appes athg venoon by

eobyi ano lyyth fi, ttny oicr mpyeof eir ifou awi t frm th h a gited bbst oure n albyt urlfyoustllcn gve anne and mb o ngssr ffory g d tat trvenf y fit only ev ithfi dsn rebue yo stll npeitd b th hoe es uhae t se le wh spt tic. enofme qon [iudbl >>e ke vpeop o refenwork on l fds dbbop anlafis l ovown opetticas inntesndhislo thein hoi a acunor

ic >>hais gratustion tat heirexctnf th thghichs teris a ceiofopeon ndshp. urgenne peon frndwisomene enif yo a aisrebyt, yocagi tm gi. rsalfrndioenot me ttou bamerids t thbeu ue rkng ral h erna ..

brdeperceponnhi is mbs a mls anotr thgs vlu fr pliti coites th mnsou kw, caai cmieeana del pa sif apac nt lyseo i thewa tfa mb ocore tspe d t emupin hl,

ha is ompmisie ftth fea he at the in a ute bythampan-nae w, peitesavtoe scse rule a dilod. consqutl itcore tt wahghhis exptn pls- d ot apl rot gazaonbupotil gazaons t ot ha t scse ntbuon anheofn e ceio isw theca wt is coon no as t oticexptn. pa of ame. sillthis t exptn atlls an gazaon lung obinfm,la fi rortre octi

sissorraono onr a ceioason asth foondris a noingth yvetse a fo f sical. isconsidedotar mal d nsuely uer is eeio a i e atis ued a t he haised fruely -ag se e ceio ibo t hoe d na f wt ecd wde attde en, asaly anhi th iise, m, semarfninst o nvti or pailar susebybotnorot gaonasel bune gup lor un coenon entth a op tinvial gen ndtr arossnwhe eratlet eoe,

clungemrsd af e tedindavsom fialpocyonct or fos lad t t meersffiadues d t intaonsrode he poorofheve a notby lbyt irpt par d idi d notut thi on e idfunng ent ainmeer o core d fca td em avmes, paicatasngas initis pidy t gazaon aobiscaotuya ble r meer of core yw, no at atressciiodier orheir dto

npfiorgizio thgazao ielcan p at ifits chitleve isg ne fo a1c gazaon. eiftulefoth exute an aa itebi deren th biculis tatno mpyet lve a th exute an c cct ft omwh caed a prohitd ur ananpern eit thekg so kindof ofal ti t agcyingsiesas acora ctrt, idngn acorar ndtsrsinusiess hais rgute bth en. thexptnser--ye. ndi stn]

> , hencs eyre cotrainwi. so tml biss adniraon ab ia gift to onin core. that irobay adad expl thferamucaon mmte seby at noin tr uses i w'tbe ved. gift 20 o20on ,5 o s a empd. thoopi eptn sapie. rnalaonipr frndipprtyuct mecoepas e our na res thth jo eepon

participioinn en retetoffiadues ifhegey n ovou aratndg coerce poor ade soatn th u acy gute poa d av iit pve tgey smetn th nt efr del veme a prot encs ssn tohavey er mirl welatnd ensima leith agcypva dre arotherisio thathav t mt f thexio topp tt ill nge in.

ome ndf disose. unr th7 a rm us nar hiel heelcaotob a meerof sf ehe brchf ngssorwo ar a fmbeoft u. hoe,amde bn for oneea. mnewhon he ernaofce pena aff e mb of nges clobyhe

rmrssr tsffn th fi f oneea afr hempymt ds wi tt ceasal. d n t cmiee af --i'm sorr e rsaltf alioy iyokebo a rtn saryev i dn'remb ect wh iis. doot memb teoar gu bt acaly gog benlye enor afohe iwh t at silaly eopltat lel p oaov coite af fone arth a ibed fm obinanmeerof e tt o t mmitstf th atifouom o t ate cmmte fo

e yyoan -and y ee issary thshd uno loy y nar stff a oofthcoite. in txti bncth rus e almo colite se-ios reriiom he oama mistti. yo wkeon rtul ttinlv inspif pti awe spsie r u cnote iold i at r e re oyorife. atomety akee. ou anown th deison toss a wrmi mpy le ywe evienl otti agcyyocan vere inold tt.

u cant tu aun he thwhha pmi ppcaonevf s 27esate ueesnblfo aarea o ur agcybut wenot ct iold y a banero eing voedfo two a thseisfhe eloe. et saou a barr frei ivoedn t fo o yrs anbilv ith rtil tt for e ye nor person rsne deneshetopotal emoesnt agey nntbhe fme en. y attpto inuee

thr fme gey a tt fr eyeea anagnhe xeti helene, bcin no th eyant attpt luceany- ly rm eloe t any ecivscdu eloe r o ar dfor a f bh osgrpsseornd ve sioexveran emoys nn rrent y ren ti bor thexute anr ar la thi bor opinuporissn th rstctn ios bytheba admtrio anthe e otaw th we on plen oba'- idtbs ed t t de th

thsu ofosth une iflncof bbst olcaapines yo apind a pon- annyeshldnowhat me bcay t poitalappote th idt eso a.meerinhe nehbho o3,0 op inhefera geren a et sllernt he eralororbu tht sllaolun ofeoe. on ut 00 o tse a suectosintl potmtshareir seteonrmio threhebi bckgu chk d thgecy si of-- i sai i a

th quklbu n ke8 ntomo ido que nefiatn, t nfmaonbual the lkarapined b e esen. ruid o ign d ethi ed, nd udehat plgehecnoep ftfr rsr loyi. frg te frg tees u ald ou fo emp, eyon t thwily atnd ent ceio setnghi a loyianvesps by lbyt n oranatnha rein bbst ar plee not bbyolic apine n mistti wn ey avfothreinr thdmisatn a fftoay dwo yars asi

vihaw. y. is an fft rent th kdofhgand thes ay venobn any exptn. erisanr ei d notut re atelanf youer a egted obstyo caobe - wihouta iv. ig n the ll peleapnt he misttime ai touout t th ruletil pls. chnialwoea.

youreurrtla bbstou caotge pital oimet de th pic otrrolet leth hepo was tt ogial lobis gier lbyts ta at egted bbst isldo hatefi.lew arrestedreot ug uin eseul. e nfen a so rt d e hepeleou mit inofsea i loyi a we t er reir teten lobyg scsu wod t rquedtoolw th. igalegied loyis rerobid

fr rtipin feraadso brd. the ar up t geinst iut. threis a lot oreti. ju ts stumhe aintti cnd so tha stre loyi iapindo he bos in prentialapit reesti ara assiaonr ist th a alwetsee. mo ioal i ecuverdth a mistti ios reriio onomein wi risreloyis whi t whe us cole intaontootofci anpotilevets depedi uon taon e tu of iut potil evtsanen

te wise re ssod you kno geray idor t moatnaon coite cae litaltuh chsts rt al so ootr es. yis, as lanoupse bined onhepotil def e moat atna coitesal pridt seiay i ar oth. e ncwod t ep cotrutns om restedobis o aow th to ptipa i finae unls so tha ncdemy estaon qesonoud

ntneit no t to mtwibbstin theteou b the ithoe g hot thr e mnybbs th ce nt ewhe ou ri t nserioofhe aorblca a whe w a bbst fthe rp anhtalk aut os etgsn tcls. todgoacon t o wh? >thstctnn meinanhe wteou s t vepat a foalxeti oerr le the s uerain th wldoteeine wteouitpeoe o rectllrested bbst wth t-- naib qstn] n t eenwe budi ehe

, tt suos o eth ehe >>t owth my th ce d nt > am jst ndinho wl t rle a imse m jtonri, ne anvilnga w ny ple he tuly bnfin fon gierg aedal bbst r ang obelf fei geren a norestin t answ it loyi scsue tnd ren agendiclurac arnoealynfc. icuedhain t lt seio. erae reuludit no the e sof som peleho bty ioteit ced woe.

ren en risatn typale utha eors t wewit chevcoplnceatr th goi aerfes or imalenti. ion i aery nsivforgnpic eaasththjti dertntyoknwi g yo tt. bu thscerit a go aft itnd oudot coly enhe m do meinguttisra. erit rllisffeiv tholicend prtil tt iwith t etcsul mbsmeeran sff e ryonishaif eyro t le ge utp aei coite veatnit iserbl

ssckend meaty bl, very ffulthg xpin ancae arulrat rleiochce rtullyf he no behe lg. g oo a a teyar intos n ppl ae,th you n aev thgh veeeexptns atllonoopis aterwhev, e peivmes d ips ha pttmu bn pratlyaifoby usesinresave been prey ch utow ceaiy i n feivwi t byg gis. ifovla t age ug, e u aory'

ofceilneally srt th cmilpreti. ye >> a qstn outh roindo a obbnvvein paicarss aredr beig ale to rtipe bng voldnre e ea ofn nc wki oth paicarss, t ki, f exaleth feracounatn coite,tle h waiolddeces. iasainabt he yoceof t veme. u e lkg ou sooncongn cin cmi tohe gornnts otgoveed t rolngooru spodlta misttil prensombo there aeparateolyo rent smeonmi i

tdminiraoneang thnyss fmic th we loyt il eyer ithe ivte ct. dootoihaiman eer s rested loyi oatth tuiowa b th tuio cininth th lviheovnmt, gonebhvolty amadmistraonul a nothe rolng or le. aloh,thrarotr kind ofreth anme in py. naib qstn] >>esicngpele om inapind. ect. iis dfent?

>>t th te he point ld wer beng aseni fialof dessiaonthat does not mean you necessarily a registered lobbyist. if you dn't personally spend 20 percent of your time your not going to be listing as an individual lobbyist. it employs other people who do. [inaudible question] >> that is a great question.

the replies -- applies regardless of where the activity takes place and because nobody wants to get members of staff tried to we advise clients who have lobbying operations, we put special emphasis on the staff in the field to deal with these district offices who are less likely to be aware of this. let's have lunch and dinner. [inaudible question]

>> there is certainly an effort. they have to take the same ethics training as the staff on customer hill -- capitol hill. >> i have heard situations where if you want to get to a member of figure these two contact things, people we will lobby the local mayor or state legislator and then talk to the member about how important the issue is. if you are a public official on the state legislature, if you make to contacts, does that trigger the rule are not? >> because the entity you work for is not being paid by a lobbyist the kind of thing you are talking about is a form of -- [inaudible question] >> it is done all the time. >> thank you. >> anyone else? yes?

>> how does citizens united affect registration and has it made enforcement more tricky? >> i don't think it really has affected -- i do not think it has affected enforcement of, you no the lobbying laws. it has given rise to a whole new kind of you know undisclosed influence over the ability of nonprofit organizations to make expenditures on behalf of members of congress without having the contribution disclosed if it is done by a a nonprofit, the so-called dark money. it has given an knew set of tools to a knew set of lobbyists.

yes? >> wondering if there is another group of people who are faced with the same kind of rules when they leave? [inaudible question] you want to go to k street is there another precedent for that? >> the economy? i don't know about that. what happens is somebody is on the ways and means staff you know hired by a lobbying firm. still very valuable. they are not talking to members of staff on the committee. first of all depending upon the level they can talk to other offices.

and the process is valuable. they wait it out before they can actually direct lobby members of staff. >> this is public policy, not private policy. there are rules, if rules, if you are in the intelligence community and some from the defense department where you have a lifetime ban from working with organizations and the private sector after you leave those organizations. again, public sector policy not a private a private thing. >> right. exactly. yes? [inaudible question] >> that gets back to his. we don't want this one day

and then the next day you are in front of them. members of congress voting on this and the staff think about themselves and their staff they want to earn a living someday. makes it possible as a practical a practical matter for members and staff to become lobbyists. a lot a lot of them have to think about when their careers will be over and it may not be something of interest to them they want that option open to them. ..

is really up to the branches of congress themselves, the committees interpret. anyone else? yes. >> you now -- [inaudible] on the other hand how they themselves -- [inaudible] i think again jim can certainly speak to this better than i. no sophisticated lobbying shot adjust their ability to who they know and how they have contacts. nobody pitches on the basis that

they take the money out for drinks. it's the background, the relationship, the inside knowledge and the people subject to these revolving doors that they are pitching now. but there is an impression not briefly and that is how works. but i don't think the sophisticated firms pitch that. >> this is a very personal question, but do you have a good volume of clients on the issue of lobbying legislation nsx? >> yes, definitely. we had five clients whether they have to register and how to comply with the lda and certainly before in registration act.

>> i do get around the law? is that we've been? >> sometimes they want to know if the law placid man and sometimes you have to register and there's no question that those considerations can shape what a lobbying or advocacy or public relations firm may be willing to do for its client. >> you are keeping from being in the newspaper. >> that is the idea. [applause] >> i don't know what his prices per hour unless you work or a very big organization. nice job. so we have had a long day. we will go until 6:00 with the discussion.

[inaudible] david on your account what we will probably do is keep learning and we will talk about it tomorrow coming in at 9:00 and catch up a little more on where you are with your presentation and report. tomorrow will be the review and groups in the last panel of students here would like to go through all of this. and that is it. thanks, joe. >> congress returns to capitol hill live monday for a short legislative week.

>> friends, colleagues countrymen, especially the people of ohio's eighth congressional district thank you for sending me here. let's today welcome all of the new members and all of their families do what we all know to

be a truly historic day. [applause] today is an important day for our country. many senators took the oath this afternoon. her team for the first time and a new republican majority except that it's their responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us and we know a lot of hard work awaits and we know many important opportunities to wait as well.

>> next, former secretary of state hillary clinton speaks about empowering women in business and global economic asperity. following are remarks from are remarks, there is an accompanying discussion between cherie blair, wife of prime minister tony blair, had a foundation aborting female lunch partner were spared this event was hosted by georgetown university by georgetown university and to do for women and security. he runs an hour and 40 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. it's a pleasure to welcome all of you joining us for this special event. today we celebrate the international council on women's business leadership.

previously established at the state department and now relaunched here at georgetown's institute for women, peace and security. on this occasion we have the great privilege of hearing reflection on the power of women's economic participation from the founder of the council, the honorable hilary rodham clinton. it's always a pleasure welcoming secretary clinton to our campus and i will have the honor of introducing her in just a moment here at first i wish to say a few words about the council. the international council of women's business leadership was founded by secretary clinton during her tenure as the 67th united states secretary of state hear the mission of the council is to examine the most pressing issues as they pertain to women's economic rectification. members of the council include rahman at global women leaders

from the private sector, government and civil society. we will have the chance to hear from for distinguished members a little later in the program. the issues the council will focus on are deeply resonant with the mission of this university. the economic empowerment of women promotion of gender equality, equal access to capital and market and the building of capacity and skills all reflect our tradition of social justice our commitment to equal opportunity, our dedication to the common good. these issues are at the very heart of how we torched down and see the fireplace in our global family. i wish to express my gratitude to ambassador rivera for her ongoing leadership for women peace and security ambition and welcoming the council to georgetown. at this moment in time we

recognize that no nation can achieve its fullest potential economic or otherwise if any segment of its population is abuse neglect date, oppressor disenfranchised. if their voices and talents are ignored their promise and possibility remain unrealized. it is in this context that we are greatly honored to house the international council on women's business leadership in the league deeply in the impact that it can make throughout our world. in the words of secretary clinton, including more women at the top of organizations, businesses and the public sector is not just the right thing to do it is a smart thing to do. it's good for business. it's good for result. it is now my honor to introduce our speaker today. for nearly four decades and in various roles, secretary clinton

has championed women's issues. she is strengthen opportunities for women's political, economic and social engagement and has long been a voice for the disenfranchised. in her acclaimed speech in beijing in 1995 she declared that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights and the defining moment for the global women's rights movement here throughout her career of service and not just the dennis first lady next as united states senator and most recently a secretary of state she's worked not only to highlight women's contributions but to create and institutionalize new policies. her efforts continue to ensure greater recognition of the roles of women in economic development, peacebuilding and political systems around the world. here at georgetown we are

honored by her dedication as the honorary founding chair of fire and to two for women, peace and security. ladies and gentlemen it is my deep privilege to introduce to you and welcome to the stage the honorable hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause] >> hello georgetown. my goodness. [cheers and applause] hello. [cheers and applause] thank you called very very much. it is always great to be back at georgetown. i want to thank president degoia

not only for those kind remarks but his real understanding and commitment to the issue that we are here to discuss today and that is the empowerment and participation of women and girls and particularly in the economy. before i turn to that subject i want to express my personal feelings about the loss of dean carol lancaster. carol was a great colleague over the last eight years. i traveled with her worked with her and when i was secretary we looked for and created a lot of partnerships with the school of foreign service. and so, my thoughts and prayers are with carroll's family and friends in the entire university

community. she would really have loved to have been here because she would've heartily approved of this meeting and she was instrumental in the creation of the first ever anywhere in the world george town institute for women peace and security. so for me, this is yet another wonderful opportunity to talk about her work that georgetown is doing in partnership with so many others and the model that georgetown is providing through the institute which is on the brink of being replicated in other places around the world who recognize the significance of taking the subject of women, peace and security and integrating them with then a world-class academic institution like georgetown.

one of the partners, one of the new partners for the institute is the international council on women business leadership. this is a council that i started with ambassador verveer when i served a secretary of state because we understood from the data that we were able to gather and will be sought as the challenges confronting women here at home and around the world that economic rectification and needed much more attention and i was very pleased that so many women business leaders from around the globe were willing to join this council and the council has now moved to establish its permanent home from the state department to georgetown. leaders have traveled from across the world from every hemisphere, every continent to

participate and i want particularly to thank the cochairs, cherie blair who is here with us today and bass broke marciniak who is traveling in asia. of course i am deeply grateful to my friend, your fellow georgetown alum, the first ambassador for global women's issues melanne verveer for spearheading so much of this work. when we convened this in january 2012, there may have been a few or maybe more than a few foreign policy traditionalists thinking is it really worth a secretary of state's time to start a program on women's economic participation? is this really the kind of issue that demands sustained and high-level attention? well, as i wrote about in my

book, hard choices, that described the four years i was privileged to serve as secretary the answer for me is very clearly yes. when you are in a position in the world we have around us today such a secretary of state you of course have to deal with the immediate crises with the brewing crises, the crises over the horizon, that you also have to look for ways of leveraging the kind of outcomes that you hope are achievable here in our country and more importantly around the world that will lead to greater peace prosperity and progress. and of course there is a very compelling moral case to be made and we should never shy away from or quit saying that women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights. but there is also a pragmatic

economic case that undergirds that moral imperatives. i remember during the 90s as first lady traveling across south africa i saw women working in their field, and their market stalls, carrying water, carrying firewood, selling crafts. i asked some of the economists were meeting with him how to do you evaluate the contributions women make to the economy here. i'll never forget one replied, we don't because they don't participate in the economy. [laughter] know what he meant was classic economic analysis, he meant the formal economy the economy of the jobs one does and offices or factories the work that sustain families that created opportunities for these women to gather some income in the

markets or to produce enough food to feed their family with maybe a little left over is just not counted. and that got me thinking, what would happen if women stopped working in the informal economy? well, i said to the economist, wouldn't your analysis mean that you wouldn't be counting what they were doing in the informal economy, that the economy would stop. well yes, that is a point he said. [laughter] and it is a point that we are finally beginning to grapple with. because it is true if more women have the opportunity to participate fully in the formal economy, day, their families and communities will prosper. for example we know in india where women spend an average of six hours a day performing

unpaid labor the gross domestic roddick would grow by $1.7 trillion if women participated in the formal labor force at the same level as men or even if the work they were now doing, like in those market stalls, if their activities were more respected, that they would he included in the calculation of the formal economy. i know there must be some economic students here. and i hope you'll think about this issue. how do you evaluate the work of the so-called informal and economy? because yes we want more women to move from the internal economy to the formal economy. that is what the council is focused on. we also want insofar as soon as possible to evaluate the contributions from the informal economy. unfortunately, a new global report released just this week

again confirmed despite some small improvement, the gender gap in economic participation and opportunity remains high around the world and the consequences are significant. because if we close the gap in workforce participation between men and women around the world, gdp would grow by nearly 12% by 2030. so at the state department, as we begin to try to integrate women's participation opportunities and writes opportunities and rights into our foreign policy objectives, we began to look for and not for the creation of more data. because if you present this kind of data about what it would mean for the gross domestic product of nations and regions and even of the world that is acceptable and compelling, head start nodding, even among skeptical leaders in both the public and

private sectors. that is why the clinton foundation, my daughter chelsea and i are heading up an initiative called no ceiling. we are collect and in analyzing a vast amount of data to map out the gains women and girls have made in the past 20 years since the conference in beijing but also to highlight the gaps that remain. nearly two decades after the night nations third world conference on women in beijing called for the platform for action full participation in every aspect of society, a growing number of readers have come to understand how this is. dcb cannot afford to leave talent on the sideline for money on the table. we began rolling out the thinking behind this agenda at the conference concerning a pet

coming to asia and pacific economic community that the united states is sponsoring in 2011. aipac san francisco declaration is an example of momentum that is building. it focuses on the most serious obstacles facing women in business. access to capital, access to markets, skills training, capacity building and leadership. and these challenges has guided the work of this counsel as well. let's look at two. access to capital and leadership. globally researchers estimate the financing gap for women know small and medium-sized businesses come away with the acceleration of growth occurs, that's when most of the jobs not in their country but the world come from the gap between financing women's businesses and men's businesses is around $285 billion. yet we know with more women had

access to credit more businesses would get off the ground more jobs would be created more revenue generated. similarly, women still face fewer opportunities to rise up the corporate ladder and hold leadership positions. only 5% of the ceos of fortune global companies are women. this is despite the fact that it has now been very convincingly shown that when women have a seat at the corporate board table their perspectives often improve corporate averments and performance. through our counsel's partnerships and programs, we have made some encouraging progress in these areas but we know there's more to be done. laws and regulations are still on the books in more than 100 countries that limit women's economic participation.

there is a substantial gender gap and internet conductivity and mobile use. that limits women's abilities to take advantage of new opportunities and as our economies evolve and more women to enter the workforce, new challenges emerge. when prime minister abbé was elected in japan he said one of the best things he could do to get the japanese economy moving again would be to get more educated innovative women in the workforce. he called it when in economics. i had a chance to sit down with the prime minister a few weeks ago at the global initiative in new york to talk with him about what he meant by this and what his government was trying to do about it. he spoke about the obstacles discouraging japanese women, educated women in a highly

developed country from entering the workplace and the cultural shifts that are needed to break down the barriers. expanded flexibility in the work ways, access to childcare and other care what is productivity and allow more parents, men as well as women to work full days without stress and heartache. in japan it is especially difficult problem to kaz as prime minister abe explained, japanese women are primarily responsible to both childcare and other care. they are not the kind of alternatives that exist in many other societies. there is a very low rates of an agreement later coming into the country, so there is not a workforce that can be put to work returning to work. so when he talks about trying to get women into the formal economy he is opening the door to the whole debate around work-family balance and around

the care that is necessary to be provided here there is nothing more important than caring for one families members. how is that accomplished in a way that will benefit individual families and the entire country. now we face obstacles here in the united states as well. for a time primary breadwinners are now women. yet american women still make less than men for doing the same job. a lack of flexible and predictable scheduling affordable child care, paid sick leave and paid leave we are one of the few countries about it, keep too many women on the sidelines. a few weeks ago while we were in the hospital waiting for her granddaughter, little charlotte to make her grand entrance, one of the nurses came up to me and said thank you for fighting for paid leave. she went on to tell me she sees

families every day who struggle to balance work and parenthood. in fact she does it herself, even while she's taking care of someone else's baby, her thoughts are with her own who was watching her child. what if her child gets sick? how will she be in two places at once? this is the constant interior dialogue that goes on for the vast majority of women mothers in our country. so we know that we've made progress. the women on this count will are clear evidence of that. some of the brightest minds in the world are gathered here. business leaders diplomats heads of multilateral organizations, senior government officials issue expert and they are helping us think through how we solve these challenges. i will give you a great example we just heard about from our counsel. one of our counsel members from

indonesia said she had done a study of markets because most of the people 90% of the people working in market which is still a place where most of the people the world, not supermarkets, but on the ground local market get their food the goods they need to run their households. she did a study. 90% of the people working in the markets are women. there are no toilets available for women and the numbers they represent. think about it. it is such a simple thing. there is certainly no childcare. so was there a safe place you can leave your child why you are bustling around trying to sell in the market place? may be your hours are going to be severely restricted a cause

there is no place to use the restroom. i recently met with my husband with the new prime minister of india prime minister modi. he's very focused on simple issues. gross as they get older it cannot go to school if there is no sanitation. women can't get very far from home because there is no toilet. we in this counsel look at everything from truly the most basic barriers that enable girls and women to go on to higher education, enable them to be in the workforce, away from their homes for some. during the day all the way to how we get women on corporate boards and into executive positions. we are really hears today to invite students at georgetown to help this problem solved, cheap

ink through ideas that you might eat you are aware of were thinking about and share with the institute are women, peace and security as we continue this work. in a few minutes, there will be a panel discussion with leaders from the united kingdom israel, indonesia and the united states so we can get into more depth on some of these issues. but this is finally on the global agenda. we've come a long way since i've had those discussions back in africa in the 1990s where it just didn't register that there was a problem. the informal economy everybody knew that but it didn't count for anything and there was no real effort being made to open the doors to try to help more women get into the formal economy. so we need to be looking up what has for in communities around the world.

we need to scale and sustain ideas, collaborate, bring more models that have a great partnership between the public and the private sector and civil society because if you look at the data that has been generated at the world day by the imf, oecd private-sector analysts, we in a time where the global growth rate is not yet when you see, not yet fully recovered from the great recession and crisis is of 07 zero wait 09 we have made more progress comparatively in the united states, but we still have millions of americans who have not recovered their income, who don't have job security, who are long-term unemployed. so why would we ignore any

solution that might work? if you look at the data and i invite you all to do that and we are going to be producing more data through the clinton foundation no ceilings initiative. it is very clear that the more women we can get to participate fully and get eight equal pay for equal work, the faster our economy will recover in economies across the world lakeway's. the gdp projections that have been calculated if we could get women's labor force participation to equal man are really staggering yet undeveloped countries that can be 8% 9% 10% of an increase in gdp over the next time, 15 20 years. less developed countries are to be 30% to 40%. so this issue about how we create jobs in the global economy today for men and

women, how would really help prepare young people for the jobs that are going to be available through education and training, this is going to be one of the most significant questions for public policy and private sector decision-makers as those of you who are students here graduated go out into the world of work. we need more entrepreneurship. we need to encourage more young people to start as this is. we need more seed capital. we need mark kraut funding. we need our access. we need more mentoring and teaching about business plans and how you deal with the economy and the stresses you will face. we have a whole menu of issues that will be relevant to men and women. but if we pay extra attention to getting women into the formal economy, it will be good for everybody.

we cannot get ahead in the united states or anywhere by doing what we used to do because that is not the world in which we live today. we have to unlock the potential of every person and grow the economies of every nation. it is the only way we are going to be able to grow together and create a middle class that is dynamic and strong and creating jobs and opportunities for generations to come. with this new grandchild of ours, we spend a lot of time looking at her and a lot of time thinking about what we want to do for her and there certainly is no doubt that her parents and grandparents and extended family will do all we can to make sure she has every opportunity to fulfill her own god-given potential. though we also worry about the

world that she will inherit as an adult. what will be the opportunity available to her and to others in 20 to 25 years as they enter adulthood. here in our country we call it the american dream. others have different variations on that, but we've always believed every generation by working hard can do better than the last. we've been confident and optimistic through hard times. we have rebounded. we've shown resilience. though we need to make some adjustments. our system has to be better prepared to deal with realities of the world we are in today. you are getting great preparation here at georgetown, one of the premier places for your education. but you should not have to be someone who goes to georgetown,

or in our case, or other former president, who also happen to good georgetown. [laughter] to be given the tools and to have the support of your community as well as your family. bill and i talk a lot. we came from different backgrounds, but boy did we have extraordinary opportunities. he from arkansas, me from outside of chicago. in addition to the public schools and the public parks in the stable economic opportunities that were patched together by a respect to families over time, the hard work that went into that we believed that there was this unlimited potential out there. that's what i want you to believe. not just you, people your age not very far from here who maybe

didn't finish high school. in the workforce could not dream of being in this magnificent cast in the hall but who are part of our larger community, our web of responsibility. we will do so much better if we remember that we should find a way to help everybody and this council is looking specifically about how we hope girls and women to fulfill their own economic potential. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause]

emacs so now to expand on what secretary clinton said about doing what every country wants to see growth economies, create jobs insurance visit asperity for his people, we are going to have a conversation among four remarkable women, who as you heard, come from four different parts of the world and they comprise the sectors that need to work together, the so-called golden triangle. the private sector government and nonprofit civil society philanthropy. after we have a conversation among ourselves about we are going to open this to the student for your questions. so think about what you might want to ask them. i am going to ask the panelists as they introduce you if you

wouldn't please come forward and take your seats. so, i want to welcome back cherie blair to georgetown. cherie has the cherie blair department providing skills, technology, networks and access to capital so they can better contribute to their economies. she has had a distinguished legal career and is well-known for her work in humans rights law. today she also chairs on the strategy, a law firm and of course she is married to the former prime minister of the u.k., tony blair. cherie, happy to have you. [applause] anne finucane is the marketing officer for bank of america and member of the company's executive damage meant. she also leads bank of america corporate social responsibility

program, which uses capabilities of the company and its global platform to work with a range of partners. she has repeatedly been on every list is one of the most powerful women in banking and we want to welcome you back to georgetown. [applause] the honorable mari pangestu is the former minister of trade and later the minister for tourism and the creative economy in indonesia. she is a powerful leader who has been called the woman behind indonesia's economic growth. she is regarded as a well-known economic expert on trade and she's also been on the faculty of economics in the university event in a shed and is widely published as a professional economist.

bear in mind that indonesia is southeast asia's most populous country and its largest economy. [laughter] and ofra strauss is the board of the ofra strauss chair group at the portfolio five countries and thousands of employees around the world. she too has been rancor. it lias one of the top businesswoman in the world from fortune to ford's two "financial times." she is also the president at jazzman, a program that works with jewish and arab women who are engaged in small and medium-sized businesses in israel. an example of the effectively combining free enterprise and social response ability. we welcome ofra with us today.

[applause] >> so thank you all for being here. cherie we heard secretary clinton just talk a bit about the importance of women's participation in india me and certainly the role that women entrepreneurs have been starting small businesses and program them. their potential is largely untapped around the world. you have a foundation that has been doing extraordinary work in training and mentoring women and entrepreneurship. give us a sense of what difference that makes and how you partner with others in a collaborative way to ensure this work can go on. >> while the difference it makes if you can participate in the formal economy is fast. the economy itself that is

gross, but also the impact it has on their families and communities. research shows time and time after again that women reinvest all the money that they make back into the home and a wider community, so it makes good business sense to help women participate. as for the foundation, what we've tried to do this work was small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in developing countries and in particular africa, middle east and asia to help them expand and grow their business partly by giving them capacity training, partly by giving them opportunities of mentoring and particularly by harnessing the power of technology. one of the ways we have done that most successfully is by not trying to do it all ourselves but by partnering with others. that is other nonprofit associations working in the area

and also the private sector government. a great example of that is our mentoring platform, which was highlighted in fact in the international council with goodman business leaders last report. in relation to that, what we do is we team not. angst approval we have a platform that operates in 55 different countries and we've reached now 1500 women mentees and we matched them with men and women mentors from across the world. so how do we find our mentees? by partnering with other organizations such as the u.s. state department and other ngos already working in this area, asking them to they have women on their programs who would then it hit from a consistent year-long report over

the internet from somebody who tries to help them grow and expand their business. where do we find our mentors? people come along and apply to join, but we also have great business partnerships. for example, partnerships we have with tank of america were at the moment you've got 125 mentors for bank of america. and as well as the individual partnership on the platform we also support the women so they can talk to each other. we have a network of information advice and we've recently entered into a great partnership with facebook, where facebook now has a special area on facebook for the care of all women mentees training on how to use facebook to expand and grow the marketing of their businesses. i think you will agree that it's interesting not only to see the impact made on the women themselves were overwhelmingly

it 99% of the women mentees in the last intake increased spare confidence 94% of them gained in their business knowledge and 84% of them got new business opportunities because of the mentoring platform. what is interesting that bank of america is 100% of the mentors also found they grew in their own knowledge and confidence and experience of the world, which i think can make bank of america brother happy. interestingly and we heard this today too, in the council today, off in many women set up businesses and many of those businesses fail. 27% of mentees at inc. of america said had it not been for the advice and support of their mentor, their business might

have gone under. there was a real need here to support women in this way and the great about the internet as it means that i can be sitting in london or new york or mumbai and i can be supporting a woman's in kenya or israel or indonesia. so really it is a resource for the world. >> thank you cherie. mentoring and training are truly important. but i remember meeting with some young entrepreneurs, some of you i'd worked with on a project and they all had developed a terrific business strategy and they wanted to really start their businesses and access to capital is not so easy. anne, you run a big tank or you close to run that bank. i am wondering, how can financial and to tuitions you

more creative in responding to this need? you know it's not just a world over without the united states. it includes the united states as well. remember traveling with hillary clinton once when a woman in desperation said to her, we have a terrific business plan. we know this is going to work. we've got a niche but we can't get the first loan. and then she said the best ideas die in bank parking lots. so anne how'd do we create a way to solve some of this enormous challenge? >> we certainly don't want people to die in bank parking lots, so let me see if i can resurrect that a little bit. of course, banks at their best are like a financial transportation system.

they should be hoping economies move forward through the movement of money. it is true that for the most part are getting small business loans for commercial loans to people that have a track record. the real difference when you don't have a tracker to what you do would be true in the u.s. and outside the u.s. one mechanism a couple mechanisms that try to use and were not alone. the financial services industry are getting more savvy about this. so they are community so they don't require the same amount of history in terms of making money or game plans but they do require a hands-on approach. cdf five gives money to those that have a lower credit rating or perhaps no credit rating

along with an education. so the banks are fueling this. they provide a blow market lending rate to the cdfi along with grant dollars. the cdfi interned and give to these early stage very small companies for micro-finance very small loans at 350 60 $200,000. it can be for housing or more specifically first loan business. we've done a billion dollars of research over the last several years, but we haven't focused our attention on very small business is as much as we could have. in the last year or two taken a very specific amount of money $10 million worth of lending and worked with elizabeth street capital tory burch and trying to find these women and get the movement going. we are beginning to work with

cherie outside the u.s. to the foundation again. it is. a day nonprofit a government to get money flowing into the small-business, very small. >> so ofra let's move to another kind of challenge, all in the world of growing a small and medium-size business, which we know as the secretary said is the great accelerator of growth in economies. a couple of years ago i visited the jasmine project in tel aviv, which was working to support arab and jewish small and medium-sized businesses run by women in israel. i later learned, i didn't on my first visit but they later learned you had an instrumental in its leadership and it was a

project that was indeed make a difference. so why did you get involved? ura businesswoman. why did you get involved in being so catalytic in making this project succeed? and do you think that is missed when men and others in business, because we did all that good men and miss can contribute to efforts at peace and security? >> well, i have a few minutes to talk about really my most important subject, the idea of which is business, to talk about israel small businesses in peace. so excuse me if i will not cover all of it in three minutes. >> no one of little longer. it's a very important topic. >> okay. but it starts really what the fact i realize like all of you in many ways i was privileged.

i was privileged to really get the chance to be part of a great business which my grandmother by the way started. i thought it's obvious that i get the chance. i thought it's obvious that i would have to work really, really hard. i get any job i want in the world, by the way. and the first opportunity was here in the u.s. i was accepted to work so it really start with giving chance to others and to me especially. when i became the chair of her business i thought it's opposite if you work hard and do everything you can, you get what you thrive. the first interview i gave as a chair i was asked, how was it to be a woman in the business

world is quiet what do you need? then i realized, when i looked at the numbers i was the only chair person in tel aviv top 100 companies. so it was really nice. but then i really realize it is not the case and i really decided to use the fact that i am in fluid so and yes it's not always that nice to help other women become part of the business world. whereas in the business world really is all about the bottom line. so it is a great business case. look at the numbers. it's very easy their articles to create business case we die. so it makes sense to invest in women. but still i am involved in this issue for the last five years and to move the middle is

difficult because like every business we start. entrepreneurship, division you need a very detailed program to make it happened. so i am on this journey. i will share with you some of my experience and a lot of it is not yet shown in numbers. so within our business any business, in the pn now we have expense this. one of them is really salaries for how much we pay what we ask in any board meeting. the other one is how much money we can spend. so when the two parts of pml it is not only how much we pay but who do we pay for. how many women today have in our workforce? really if i tell the organization i want 50/50 women on management and everything we do that it will move and will

happen. it doesn't. it is then about educationsn't. it is then about education. it said that the next generation. it is about doing it together the whole management, men and women. and then it is about okay how much money we spend on procurement. that is the only question i knew how to read there until i became part of the women council. and then i learned on diversity and suppliers is an issue. so it is a long question or a long answer to how do i get to the witches called small businesses. actually, when i came back from our meeting, i asked the procurement manager and our company, hoodwinked by a friend click said what do you mean? how many women owned businesses, how many men? he said he never asked it.

i said okay i started to ask. actually, you know what it is about that. it's about the question. it matters, but it took us a year and a half to know exactly who are the owners of the businesses we buy from. that is how i actually said yes when i was asked to be the head of the woman-owned business small scores most of the business is. but what made the difference for me is it's about jewish and arab owned businesses. so in every country, when you look at the diversity, when it is not one color, one shave. no. it is about the same diversity. i am sure is about the u.s. i know it is in every country that we talk about. i had the privilege to be the chair of work in the stations to speak three languages.

in hebrew the women who are part of the organization does speak one language. the inclusiveness is bad thing in all of you, and the news if you open the news, it is about the war and all of the beings that we in the middle east traffic. jasmine is an island. we are jewish and arab women together. it is about making money. it's about feeding the family. it is about business. but it is also really talking about are looking now what does that mean when we share the same goals? thing as peace, if you optimistic voice, it can be done. just because i can do we have

one bad in every arab country you will see adjustment and we will collaborate because at that moment we can not really because of the situation in the middle east. ..

and i have to -- i was just reflecting where the switch comes from.

it came before i was minister working with jeffrey sachs. we were in africa talking about village empowerment. what the money would be used for to help the village. when it turned out the men wanted it to be used for a parabola so they could watch football. the women wanted it to be used for a piping system so that they did not have to spend three hours a day getting water. okay, it is not just about women participation. it is more basic the decision-making from the beginning and that was an important lesson as to how

important it was to involve the women in the decision-making. you are not even talking about informal or formal. it is more basic than that. we had very much that in the back of our minds so that when we were implementing policy use a mainstreaming gender it sounds good but is not easy. we tried to think about it and always tried to influence the men of course. even though we had double the number of women in the cabinet at the time and our president was actually very open-minded and gave important portfolios to women. we were relatively as you

could say able to influence policymaking. i will give you a few examples if you actually had to do it think about it secretary clinton mentioned the example. revitalize the market. 90 percent of traders are women and 90 percent of the people who shop are women. i was aghast because the toilets were not designed for women. it was the men who were designing the markets. i was saying women working in the markets babies children running around. i said, this is not right. that is when i started to introduce you have to redesign the market.

we managed to make sure that their were childcare centers and properly designed toilets. the childcare centers became profit centers. they pay. it is not a huge amount, but it is small business. so these are examples of where we had to deliver the cash transfer program after the rays of the fuel price. again this goes back to my pergola and water example. if you give the women the money you are more likely going to have it be used to put food on the table. we we wanted to give the money to the women and our president supported it. because of the regulation

we could not do it. eventually we started to develop programs where we could give the money to women. the same the same thing with cash for work, all in construction. during a crisis it is not just for men. it has to be for women. you have to to think about it and show the economic value for women. we used a lot of the arguments and i think that we appreciate what secretary clinton did in 2,011 to put it on the table that it is about the economics the business. women have that value. that really helped us in pushing forth the argument as a policymaker as well as

including men. again we transformed it into the business side including the access to capitol and micro financing where we found that women -- i will give you one more example and i am just giving you real examples of how we try to deal with the issue. when you look at the micro instances, 23 percent are being run by women. it turns it turns out to be because of -- and they are smaller businesses than the men owned businesses and next -- less access to capitol. institutional and cultural constraints. why are women less competent

to go to the banks to get a loan? one of the reasons, i am afraid i cannot pay it back because the moment someone gets sick, i'm the one who has to take care of them. i do not want to be in the position to not be able to pay my debt. what happened was some banks bundled the financing package with insurance and savings because they worry about the education saving enough for education of their children. a number of banks came up with microcredit bundling banking services with insurance and savings and talk to women and gave them confidence. that really worked. the government supported that in the financial inclusion we developed later on. real-life examples not even

talking about informal to formal. giving financial literacy and confidence for women to be able to go into a bank and the banks have figured out that this is psychologically they don't even have the confidence to enter a nice-looking office. they bring the banks to the villages whether mobile banking or creating a more comfortable situation for the women to be given financial literacy. those those are just some of the challenges that i face and, and i look forward to working more on these issues. >> you are actually far ahead in some ways because we are starting to catch up understanding that credit and savings and insurance all matter. we are going to go one quick

round and open it up to questions. you have made a big footprint on showing us that we have a gender gap in mobile technology and we have with us on the council a representative from intel. why is this critical to close? what will happen to women in the 21st century economy if we do not address this? >> it is true that knowledge is key. the mobile phone in particular, is the poor person's computer and access to knowledge. going back to access what we talked about in indonesia the businesswoman's apt based in indonesia tanzania, nigeria

i am sure their are students are from the economics department would agree that sometimes the business concepts are not necessarily natural. i met many women with businesses who think as long as i keep producing things and turning them out i will have a successful business when it is in fact about the difference between capital and income, concepts that you deal with when you take on employees. we put together using text message to text messaging basic hints and tips for business women. they get for text messages a week with information worked on with local

universities. specific universities. specific for their countries, in the local language. we have that course just assessed and have just today been able to publish the results of that assessment and it shows quite clearly that if you can give targeted information to the women like the women in the market you were talking about they we will take that information and use it in their business and turn those businesses into even more of a success or stop them from becoming a failure. we believe we can use that more. what we want to do now is take this to businesswoman .2 and actually make it more widely available because we believe that it is great for

people to be able to come to a university and do mbas their are a lot of people out there already doing business. have have not had access to the formal education system that we take for granted but that does not mean they cannot benefit from business training using a mobile phone. that is something i want to see. i want to see how we can work to show how it can be a force for good. >> there are so many good examples today from the kind of information that can come to people who would ordinarily not get it to knowing where the market is on a given day walking for miles and miles. >> we did a mobile app for

rural women selling agricultural goods who had to walk a day at a time to get to wholesalers. we transferred that onto a computer and they saw 200 300 percent increases and turnover which one woman said to me meant she and her children were getting one meal a day and now they were getting to and could go to school. so this is a life transforming thing. this is just only starting. >> let's go to the other end of the spectrum. a a lot of talk about women on corporate boards bumping up against the glass ceiling and management, producing far more women with all kinds of degrees yet they seem stuck in some ways.

as a friend who says it is not a glass stealing or six sticky floor but a thick layer of men. [laughter] how do we and how do you add bank of america -- i know you have been very much focused on what you can do to move women within your company the kind of internal prospects how do you do some of that and what more do you think we need to do generally? >> we all have to do more and that thick layer of men we have to send that out. we are in an industry that has gone through a change, the financial services industry. i would say in your personal life and it is also true in a large company. women's voices at the table have made a real difference.

half of the management of the company vp and above are women and i think that has made a huge difference in terms of just the conversation, let alone the progress. it is not what was wrong with the men but simply that women need to be at the table in the same way in economic terms if women are not in business we are tying one hand behind our back no matter what country you are from. just having the relationship with cherie blair we find women very enthused by this opportunity we have men that are participating in the cherie blair foundation for women because they feel just as much satisfaction. it gets everyone thinking,

let's get more entrepreneurial. we have 15 million people that mostly due mobile banking. yet they have some of the very same questions about financial literacy. we did a big program for years. people think it is like pay joint. khan academy and online education, it is the best. we are doing it and interviewed our own people let alone the marketplace and redid everything and got basic. digestible bites. when you get practical it makes a difference and makes the people in your company feel better. it is all of those things.

i have to thank the nonprofits because they have enlightened us. >> ofra strauss, we talked a lot about the power of small and medium-sized businesses and how it is particularly hard for women to move into the space. give us a quick snapshot of the state of women-owned small and medium-sized businesses in israel. >> to put in a different light we are here in the academic world. it is a measurement of entrepreneurship. what you see in the emerging markets or developing countries is that usually women small businesses open

because they want to provide food to there family and children. in developed countries -- and israel is one of them it is a measure of entrepreneurship. people open businesses because they are entrepreneurs. so when you think about economies everyone talks about entrepreneurship as a measurement or away to grow the economy. small and medium-sized diseases are the vehicle to make it happen. when i started to look at the numbers and understand what it means and where we are on this curve it is a different way to talk to the government about why it is so important. when we look at the numbers what we saw, the amount of women owned businesses is very small.

the other fact and figure is access to capitol, mentor and, women all around the world no matter which country, we have the same issues. so if globalization means anything one thing, issues obstacles, opportunities are the same and we can start to share how to help small and medium-sized businesses. in israel this does reflect things that are in every country, even rich countries have within their society emerging markets. so they are participating in an economy and those emerging markets religion makes them at the outskirts of society or because of the color of their skin.

whatever it is that we share here it is relevant to every country. there are really yes jewish and arabs. jewish women have more access to capitol than arab woman. there are a lot of reason why but again most of them do not have banks. they are here wanting to see record. the other thing common to all of us women, when they give birth stay at home and do did not think about the fact that we don't have records. we have this. we did not work for a while. the other thing is in our country and i'm sure every country as well, religious women whether ultraorthodox

jewish or religious muslims women or christian women there is an issue of going out of the house. small businesses are actually a great opportunity. if we say it is part of the society small businesses we allow much more women to participate. and we are all trapped. we have our friends and family and if we do not reach out and look at other numbers and try to meet other cultures which is exactly what happened to me. i discovered that their are

so many things i do not see within our society. i can imagine in countries which are much larger, small businesses usually represent the whole society because it is about employing one or two and it is a great way to close or give an answer to the number one risk the world economic forum say is a risk. maybe we sit here and talk about one of the great ways to solve one of the things that threatens the whole world. >> excellent. thank you. i will end it here after one more question. minister, you said that we are not going to achieve higher growth and more

equitable distribution of income without women participation and went on to say, we need to figure out how we can forward gender issues and mainstream. now you conclude decades in government what's -- what advice do you have to yourself, of course but, but to all of us as to how we close that gap? >> i think we have to continue our efficacy as well as showing that practices and good examples of what works and what does not work. i believe in numbers. i have been using the numbers that hillary clinton started in 2,011 and the final effect how only 5 percent for the us who are women and board members.

5 percent at the senior level and 50 percent at the board level. the numbers are much smaller for asia. japan is less than 1 percent and those numbers i do use at every level workforce labor participation rate the number on the boards. it is at every level. these are numbers that we use and they are important to show how much you are missing in terms of the potential of women not being utilized. it is half of your human capitol. we make that argument but the obstacles that caused this.

if you start with women on the board we all no the three constraints are the family balance family and career balance. second it anywhere anytime model. for you to go up in the corporate ladder it is anywhere anytime. you have to move to london tomorrow. unless the merit or performance system is changed in that way that you cannot advance in your career. the role of technology helps companies have to change in the way they evaluate how it is different. that has to come from the men who are still running the board and then charge. that is why it is not just about us.

this is the room of the converted. the battle is out there the one that must be convinced. i i think the numbers also show having more women on the board gives you more profitability and better governance. these are numbers we need to push forward. i think i am a great believer in mentor in and role modeling and giving women confidence whether you like or not like sheryl sandberg's lien in all of us here who have achieved some level of success it is upon us also to help the younger women. i am a little bit of a role model. i did not intend to be but but i was the first woman to come back to my country with

a phd in economics to do this or that. [laughter] so women come up to me and say i am afraid i will be overqualified i say look at me. this is a cultural thing. i don't know if it is across countries are not, but in my part of the world if a girl wants to do well that is not so good. it is good for a boy but not for a girl. these are these are some of the myths we must debunk. we are considered bossy. we are often categorized. for the same behavior. these are cultural issues which we continue to face.

we should continue to work on the unconverted and show by example get the good examples out there. a lot of the informal sector women working from home. e-commerce is a great answer for women. >> we have some of those cultural issues here, too. >> okay. tell us your name, the school you are in and your question. somebody's glasses must be starting. >> i am a law student. i am from china.

thank you for coming to share your perspective. i have two questions. my first question is is there any threshold to the program? having a business idea. second, i think we all agree that the women culture is more profound in developed country like us and uk then developing country. is this part of the current or future strategy of the foundation to cultivate the culture in developing countries to reach out to

people who do not have this yet? >> before you answer, i will take a couple more questions >> hello. i i am a student in the sf s. my question is to say that the five women sitting on the stage in front of me have achieved things that many of us could possibly never dream of achieving and probably never will, get on the scale for me a lot of these achievements seem to be directed toward a microscale. my question for whoever wishes to answer how do you bring these achievements into a macro forum identify the flaws in government and financial system infrastructures that exist on a macro scale and bridge that not only between gender

but development? >> that is a wallop. okay. another one. >> thank you for being here today. i i have been involved in the georgetown entrepreneurship initiative one of the things i have learned is how important entrepreneurial ecosystems are two accelerating growth and innovation having resources makes it easier for people to pursue. how do you cultivate those self-sustaining entrepreneurial ecosystems in developing countries so that that sort of innovation and change can be systemic and come from within those countries?

>> we aim on mentees. we get more progress with someone who has a business and wants to take it to the next stage. not to say we don't also have started businesses. we we did have a lot of young women in particular just starting their businesses but found that they need the ecosystem that the third question was talking about whereas the mentoring was much more helpful. it got to the stage where they were not quite sure where next.

we tend we tend to look for people with about seven years experience. we we don't want the ceo but we are looking for people like those in bank of america who are on there journey but still have practical hands-on experience. i want to say something about ecosystems because we have an enterprise development system. we do intensive, general business training and take a smaller group and do coaching and then finally take a smaller group again and then give them business incubation in support. for example in lebanon we did our first project with 40 women and managed to create 16 new jobs. ecosystems are important.

how we encourage entrepreneurship. i am i am not sure i agree the developing world is not full of entrepreneurs. it is just that there is not knowledge of what they are doing. they actually are entrepreneurs. but but no one has told him that that is what they do. that is why the facebook opportunity that helps women to use facebook to get friends virtually to get the customers has been a success. >> i will try to take a brief explanation. there is a seed change that has happened. transparency is so much more

in the forefront of business government nonprofit. it it is not that you like everything you see, but you will see it all. once you see it it allows you to reorder things. because of social media the world that has become more institutional. individuals have a larger voice whether you look at the arab spring what happened with the financial services industry transparency is so much more prominent. there is little you cannot do. i am not saying it cannot happen but it is a huge difference. the second thing you were saying how do you scale these ideas there is nothing that happens to five

you began nothing on a big scale. you pay to it. you see how it is going to go, test and learn and then expand. all of the things we're talking about here today each of us will take something away and apply it. businesses go small and large. you do not arrive on the stage doing something big. i would say both of those things. i would expect all of those people in this room to achieve what we have achieved and more. that is sort of a a given the hope of everybody that the next generation is bigger and better. >> before i turned for last

comments i will take one more to five i'm sorry. they can factor it into their answer. >> i am a senior in the school of business. i read recently of a study mentioned in a a recent bloomberg article that nine out of ten women polled on wall street said they believe there male counterparts earned a higher wage. what reasons do you see for this wage differential? what are some actionable solutions you would propose back. >> quickly, the first thing is, is if you think that is happening, ask, be both. second -- i i cannot speak

for every industry, but because of the way the world and human resources as a woman in a position that would be looking at what the other people in making you you ask check, and have human resources verify so that you are not wondering. once you no it we will change. >> i will just say we are the result of the last hundred years okay. if you look at the next hundred years, there is much more data. it is much is much more of an issue. the world economic forum used to be a small room. now it is on the main stage. the gap between men and women the access to whether it is capitol, education it is measured.

there is much more data which means that there is more to be done. i think you have much more opportunity than our generation ad. everyone talks about it. numbers are their. even punishment of not doing the right thing is there. i think at least most of those things like measurement understanding it is the right ethical thing, it is about morals, business it is all there. things will be better if we make the right effort ask for them insist on them.

the men will join us in the end. it is not that we are unique. we are unique because the last hundred years it was less of an issue. now the next generation of presidents, ministers talked about those things when they run for seats. i think it we will be easier for you girls and women in the next hundred years. >> yes. i think we are way ahead compared to 100 years ago or even 20 years ago when the study were showing that girls were underperforming academically because they did not want to lose out on getting a boyfriend

empirically shown in our case. twenty years later they are not underperforming academically and i found 60 or 70% of of the girls are getting better grades than the boys. they don't worry about it. we are advancing. the battle is out there. i believe in the economic argument very much. women are the economic drivers. therefore we have to make sure whether it is a policy regulation that must be changed institutional or cultural mindset that must be changed all the way from birth, access to education, equal access to education

about building human capitol all the way to job opportunities. these are all the stops we have to continue to advocate and make policy changes, advocacy, changes. it is not just women who we will make it. it must be meant. there is education we need to do and i am sure all of us in this room and the younger generation will continue to do this together. >> those are perfect last words. the journey continues. i i want to thank the council members who are still here. i know airplane schedules have intervened for some. i want to thank the women ambassadors who are here. i just noticed so many of you are here. [applause] it is wonderful to have you. she spent more than a decade

in prison and burma and is now running her own ngo to move bmr forward. thank you. and sitting next to her the former attorney general of guatemala. so to all of the women leaders here the inspiration here all of you who we will take over we wish you well. the council has a lot of work to do. final thanks to our extraordinary panel. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent in december as the economy added 252000 jobs. last year the economy grew by almost 2 million jobs the strongest since 1999. president obama traveled to tennessee today to announce a proposal to make community college free for some students. while visiting the school he also spoke about the terrorist attacks in paris. >> before i get into the reason i am here today, i want to begin by saying a few words about the tragic events we watched unfold in

france over the last several hours and days. because events have been fast-moving this morning, i morning, i want to make sure to comment on them. i just spoke to my counterterrorism advisor. we have been in close contact throughout the tragedy. the moment the attack took place we directed all of our law enforcement and counterintelligence operations to provide whatever support that our ally needs and confronting this challenge. we are hopeful that the immediate threat is now resolved thanks to the courage of professionalism of the french personnel on the ground but the french government continues to face the threat of terrorism and has to remain vigilant. this situation this situation is fluid. they will do whatever is necessary to protect there people and it is important for us to understand france is our oldest ally. i want the people of france to no that the people of the united states stand with you

today, stand with you tomorrow our thoughts and prayers are with the families impacted. we grieve with you fight alongside you to uphold values that we share universal values that bind us together as friends and allies. in the streets of paris the world is seeing once again what terrorism stands for nothing but hateful and suffering. we stand for dignity and hope for all human beings. that beings. that is with the city of paris represents to the world, and that spirit we will endure forever long after the scourge of terrorism is banished from this world. so -- [applause] [applause] >> and back in washington today the house of

representatives passed legislation authorizing the keystone xl pipeline to bring tar sands oil from canada to the us. the legislation now heads to the u.s. senate where we are expecting debate on the bill next week. you can see that live when the senate is back in session. earlier today the white house reiterated its message that the white house would veto the bill. the white house spokesman traveling with the president on his trip to tennessee said the administration wants the state department to complete its review of the pipeline before any decision is made. >> friends colleagues, my countrymen especially the people of ohio congressional district, thank you for sending me here and let's welcome all of the new members and their families

to what we all no to be a truly historic day. [applause] today is an important day for our country. many senators took the oath this afternoon. thirteen for the first time, and a new republican majority accepted it's the responsibility. we recognize the enormity of the task before us. we know a lot of hard work from eight to five awaits. >> follow the gop led congress and see the new members. new congress, best access on c-span. >> later this month the supreme court will consider whether candidates for judicial office can be prohibited on personally soliciting campaign contributions. next a conversation on that

case and recent supreme court rulings on campaign finance. this is an hour and ten minutes. >> good morning, everyone. i am a fellow at the brennan center and the journalist with cbs news and with the marshall project. project. i am delighted to be here in sunny, warm washington to be part of this interesting presentation. in a moment i will introduce this distinguished panel each of those whom does a great deal more about this important case than i do. this is a case about money and judges and the first amendment.

in my 18 years as a legal analyst's' strikes me that is a combination that always draws quite a bit of interest. when the supreme court takes up the case it we will be interesting for a lot of different reasons. it also strikes me as significant because of the perceptions. if you are a fan of citizens united and mccutchen you look at this case and say, the clouds are parting and the sun is about to shine on this new area of campaign judicial campaign. if you're not a fan of citizens united and mccutchen you look at this and say the clouds are forming. it is getting darker and it we will be a storm. a good way to perceive how people on both sides of this debate field.

we will it extend or restrict and what we will the justices say? how different will they perceive judicial from regular election. the final note before we began it struck me as i was reading this we are taught, our parents were taught, beggars cannot be choosers. this is a case where the choosers other beggars and the people who choose to live and die choose to go to prison who does not go to prison are begging for money. i think that also is a useful way to look at this and figure out how serious this supreme court is about money is speech and the first amendment in a different context. now i will begin to introduce our speakers.

they will speak. matt will give specifics. folks will speak. they will attack each other. a great deal of the trail. when the dust settles you can ask questions. to my far left scott greytak relatively new to justice but brings with him credentials that are pretty impressive. over and over again he has shown that he is involved in these sorts of organizations and this notion of the intersection of civil rights and law. to my left and i have

wanted for decades to say this, to my left is ed whelan. it just sounds weird. a a fantastic columnist, part of the justice department the decade ago, served on capitol hill as general counsel to the u.s. senate on the judiciary, a clerk to a ninth circuit judge, harvard law school most of you i assume are familiar with his writing and views. also the president of the ethics of public policy center, and and i am very much looking forward to hearing his perspective. to my right is tracey george probably also delighted at the whether here. although, it cannot possibly be much warmer there. she is is a professor who brings a broad range of expertise to this topic

federal court legal legal education, written numerous articles about the federal judiciary and the courts and teaches a course that i would probably want to take if i were at school life of the law which seems pretty interesting and probably is not as boring as most law courses could be. to my far right is matthew menendez part of a democracy program. he basically works on the concept of fair and impartial courts formerly a partner at gibson, dunn, and kutcher. he worked in washington as an aide to senator john d rockefeller and obviously knows a great deal about this topic.

in fact he will initially take us to details of this and give us context and perspective before we begin remarks. in the interest of brevity i will turn it over to matt and let him dazzle you with his details. >> thank you, and to be fair, i was an associate at the firm. i will try to keep this relatively brief. as a general background mother are 39 states that use the elections to fill at least some of their judgeships. as we know elections cost money and judges like any other candidates, need to raise money. thirty have limitation on the ways that judges can ask people to contribute to campaigns. of those 30, 22 have

relatively broad prohibitions such as the one at issue in williams-yulee which prohibits all forms of personal solicitation. in this case it did not actually result in any contributions. from the perspective of coming at this issue this is maybe not the ideal taste -- not the ideal case to test the jeff -- test the judge. so i think we believe this is a little more toward the outer edge of where -- this comes from a judicial code of conduct which we call the canons which is the primary means by which the judiciary

regulates itself. one of the questions i get asked a lot is, why did the supreme court take this case the main reason of the federal courts that have considered this for courts of appeal have struck down some version of this as unconstitutional to have upheld it, it and all state supreme courts have found it constitutional i think it is interesting to note that the state courts which are more familiar with judicial elections seem to be more sympathetic to efforts to minimize the appearance of impropriety that can arise from judges directly asking for money. it is an interesting case as well. the first time the court has considered regulation of campaign conduct.

and that decision by justice scalia the court struck down a code of conduct that prohibited judges from discussing disputed or controversial issues that are likely to come before them once they sat on the bench. that category actually prohibited a fairly wide range of topics that judicial candidates were not permitted to talk about. and in the majority opinion justice scalia emphasized if you're going to have elections for judges his view was you cannot deprive voters of the most salient information that they would want to no in order to select the best candidate. ..

>> >> about the money spent and how we will use that and the other development is the supreme court decided a few years ago it in that case it was established that spending in judicial elections can raise serious due process concerns to the point which is constitutionally impermissible for a judge to hear a case for somebody that has contributed significantly to their campaign. i would like to note that

restrictions on the speech of judges and lawyers is not rare. there are all kinds of things that they are not permitted to discuss you cannot have experts taking medications you cannot reveal the contents of field hearings and there are a lot of limits on judicial conduct with the boards they can sit on and fund-raising for nonprofits. in that is just to say this is not just an aberration to regulate what judges and lawyers can talk about. that is a basic overview than making it into more questions. >> i am happy to be here today it turns out it is very cold in nashville but they're all the public schools is closed today with temperatures of a slightly warmer than the temperatures is in washington d.c. today.

principally as the empirical legal scholar i ask questions about the decisions about why judges and courts make those decisions and i answered by have statistical and empirical methods. that is what i do i am one of the members of there brief filed by empirical scholars and to of those are my field of lot. but i also teach law i think all law school class is are fantastic. when i teaches and interested. [laughter] the message that i give to my students on the first day is about the substantial power we give to judges and in fact, the most substantial power is given to a trial judge's. date give judges limited oversight and have discretion which is the most

important achievement they will ever have with the legal system. will lead be held over on bail or released? what will the sentence be? what will happen if my ex partner fails to pay child support? very significant life decisions very few cases are reviewed on an appeal while trial judges are not that visible on the highest courts and in the country in fact, for the average citizen they are though lot. and as a consequence we should be particularly concerned and interested in the rules that govern how we choose a trial judge's although the focus is on the courts that grab people's

attentions with the supreme court the most visible example. with that selection of said so a substantial and growing body of empirical research shows how judicial elections affect the behavior of judges and of course, we talk about state judges because federal judges have always been chosen for life tenure with the advice and consent of the senate. empirical scholars have found there is a strong relationship between campaign contributions in the study specifically demonstrate that the identity in the interest of donors impact what judges make whether consciously or subconsciously the recipient subsequent action. we'll get a couple of examples.

the most substantial steady focus is on state supreme court rulings and business related disputes. that greater the contribution and that quantity is the higher the probability that the decision will be favorable to those businesses in general holding other variables constant. pro-business groups increase the probability holding all things = facing an individual or in a tort suit. the impact of a thousand dollar contribution is 3.five percentage point gain in the probability of success. business groups have learned from their success. with the dramatic increase that businesses are the single largest donors in the state supreme court elections. other cities have revealed

their relationship between the identity of law firms and the type of firms in the decisions on state supreme courts. i mean if a plaintiff firms trial lawyers or those like conflict litigation firms that donate to judges they are more likely to support plaintiffs in mass litigation they gained better rulings and disputes about arbitration decisions and also more likely to win appeals in a tort suit. businesses and law firms are the largest source of contributions for judges based on data we have available but also looking and other groups that disagree with the business interests in particular with other pro labor groups that those are also likely to gain a greater number of favorable votes.

it is not just these two nations but the amount that matters. research has shown the door that contributed more to the judge's campaign would be more likely to succeed. these studies as most research does come a faces a challenge to demonstrate that the direction of causality is from the behavior. think about studies you are familiar with. the donors are affecting what members a do or are they really good at picking members of congress who were likely to support their positions? empirical research has tried to hone in on a question to test what is the direction of causality. specifically research has shown the theory is that a donor to judicial behavior has support in specific ways.

for example, studies have shown that judicial behavior changes as elections and draw on your. -- der. if you pick an opponent and contest the election and make sure decision more salient you change what you are doing them a new reset back after the election is over. so they are more likely to hand down stiffer sentences as the election comes closer and will be more likely to support prosecutors several less likely to grant a reprieve. a donor's perception of causality they have given to judges that did not previously support their position. they have given to judges who faced no opposition. they clearly think there is an impacting and in my view one of the most persuasive persuasive, the judge's

behavior is different if they don't face reelection. many have mandatory retirement. those who will not be facing reelection because of mandatory retirement are not affected by past campaign contributions where the judges to do behave differently. i am happy to answer more questions about this or that and make this brief but there is the empirical research. >> thanks for being here i have been asked to be on this bill to be the contrarian acetify can do that to achieve that goal but this is the difficulty and interesting case. i don't think contrary to andrews take with the citizens united it dictates the view on this case. but let me highlight a few issues one is the standard

of review. you see all parties -- parties have strict scrutiny even if it is closely drawn with the debate between the two standards with the income parents -- incoherent but it's it is difficult to see if it applies anything like the scrutiny and the state may conclude it has wide discretion and there is one threshold question. i think the florida bar has a good argument that develops nicely that person to person solicitation presents special dangers of the of quid pro quo arrangements.

it also happens that person to person solicitation involves special powers and is more likely to result in favorable responses for reasons independent of the quid pro quo any fundraiser will tell you you want of a principal to ask to say no. it is the difficult clash of these two points. that said as matt pointed out the petitioner in this case did don engaged in anything that remotely could be called person to person solicitation it was a mass mailing about the power. [laughter] something i learned the hard way. [laughter]

so i think there is a good question if the court will even address this broader issue with this rule against personal solicitation by a judicial candidate if that is constitutionally permissible or not. it is possible that whether or not this general rule violates the first amendment it cannot constitutionally be applied to miss williams yulee because that is a implicate the quid pro quo. but it is all flexible that they may dismiss the case precisely because it does not provide the opportunity to resolve the of class a would be unfortunate for williams-yulee because her loss would remain with the interlining reasoning that if she wins we don't decide

the broader issue. and it takes results for these issues. >> she did not win the election either? >> she lost the election then she lost the case. >> right. i a emphasize all my views on the case, the aclu with its brief to support ms. williams-yulee the experience of other states that have judicial elections that don't have the bar on personal solicitation like candidates to suggest there is no compelling need for this. did in an effort to be provocative there is a tension between the brennans center position that the

judges are so fundamentally different that they are super legislators in they ought to be encouraged and invited to indulge their passion and values as president of thomas said -- president obama centcom hard cases can only be determined once the broader perspective of how the world works of the empathy. if that is the view that the folks on the left to adopt saying that they are fundamentally different that may go to the merits of the case with the incoherence of the case the with that i will hand over six of the is

talking about why the ms. williams-yulee case also sheds light on polling data to show the impact to have on public confidence in the court. with that 30,000-foot view the ms. williams-yulee case is this new judicial culture where judges are being forced to raise maximum money than ever before that in turn it is an arms race. when they become elected they find themselves oftentimes trapped in a culture that it perpetually challenges their ability to be fair and impartial. but it comes out of florida as one of the 39 states where judges are elected this puts the candidates it is challenging presumption.

on one side to reflect the best interest of the community and they send a lot of money to get their view across while at the same time remaining impartial lenient independent so it created a series of major problems with the florida supreme court in the '70s three former chief justice's have written the amicus brief to tell the story how florida's ban did not come about because of a hypothetical conjectural issue of ethics there was not something of the political leaders read about but did 1970's the full majority of the florida state supreme court had to resign over a corruption scandal that involved the justices intimidate a lower-court judges

judges, overturning bribery convictions, all of contributors to ghostwrite opinions from the korea the most high-profile is a justice who was flown out to las vegas by a dog track owner who has a case in front of the of court and a reporter follows the justice and gets a shot of the justice rolling the dice atta craps table with a cigar hanging out of his mouth. these are the issues that led the political leaders. but the importance did not fade away with those corruption in charges. new polling demonstrates the importance that the solicitation ban have two days so we have of show that 95 percent of people think

that campaign contributions affect judicial decisions and even half agree with the statement. but data from last month that reflects the voters' opinions from all 39 states that elect the level of judgeship that shows public confidence. respondents said their confidence would be lower if they could solicit campaign contributions. of this group 81% said it would be lowered a great deal. so to make it clear personal solicitation began does have a real impact on public confidence and there is a measurable value to prohibit judges for asking for contributions directly provide will close by saying that while these are important of lorded knew it then in the majority of

people think today that they are still only one part of a much larger solution. keep in mind the florida bay and was passed in the mid '70s as a complete reform package. the crown jewel is that it change the way it elected the supreme court justices. and moved from a direct election into a system where candidates were evaluated based on merit and appointed by the governor. this is known as merrett election used in 24 states. so the williams-yulee has a window into the broader issues facing the courts including how we select our judges because in the culture of high spending special influence more and more people, the judges, advocates, and advocates, political leaders are realizing that something has to give them more are realizing perhaps the idea of selecting judges is a broken idea and the dishes

that this will fix itself is becoming harder to believe. >> to my left who has been writing notes i will give him a first shot that we will go in that order to respond to any of the comments we have heard? >> the notes are to keep track of what we are saying not necessarily to disagree but tracy raised causality with our contributors finding those that would be sympathetic to the prospective or are the judges being influenced by the contribution? that is a difficult issue for the art of political science to detect.

but i would just say one common now with the fact there are other restrictions on judicial speech it is true but the distinction here is speech related to campaigns. that is different from the others that he has cited. >> you have raised some interesting points to put aside they're broader notion of philosophy, left to right to there is a broad agreement that said nature of the judicial office differs from legislative and executive positions in this is important regardless of how you view the democratic process with the other branches of government have

you expect your governor state legislators to be and the people who got them into office. for a judge it is flatly unconstitutional to favor one party over another to not favor one or the other differing from the of legislative positions i can reregulate differently to account for the due process concerns that are raised by the judicial office? one thing tuttis out and make clear those set spoke to the standard review regard this one of the questions is if it allows them to regulate it here

there are two state interests. gets to the steadied into the judicial process through through campaign contributions and equally important is the appearance of impartiality and gets that the judicial branch depends on the public's confidence in the court. it has the public's trust. the and when we see these high numbers to indicate the way these elections are happening undermines the public's confidence than they are impartial it raises important concerns above and

beyond whether or not judges are favoring contributors. >> i would speak to a couple of things. to the extent you want to understand the rules there florida you need to appreciate that florida is not unique in the change and the message of judicial selection and. we are accustomed to the federal courts that have been the same since the founding there is dramatic changeover time in terms of how they choose their judges said regulate those methods of selection like the candidate issue they were born out of us specific crisis of facing corruption and bribery and we should

think about this in the context of the state's struggling with the problems they have had that might be more subtle and not observed or not necessarily conscious we may not intentionally favor them but if you ask for money and they give it a psychologist is less sense of obligation in to in particular to what extent do bans on personal solicitation good to work it will have empirical research for that distinction between an a contribution in

response to a request. there is psychological literature so that someone does feel a sense of obligation to that individual. the tcp they are very happy about the personal solicitation began that under the one that was a gothicized to ask people to give you money for your campaign. to drive to regulate the effects of campaign contributions on the behavior of judges. >> i have the couple of questions my fellow panelists are free to answer them i have not read every brief but where is sandra

day o'connor? has a she presented her opinions? she had dedicated her life to judicial selection and has warned about the dangers , and as somebody asked her to china in? -- to china is in? i will note that she was one of the five justices in the majority in the case in 2002 and subsequently is there any decisions in particular that she regretted and that

was one that she felt she voted the wrong way and a splay dash -- explain she said it added to the messy elections we have seen so it is safe to say with the state solutions there is an interesting case that we put the amicus -- amicus brief in as well i that that would be a better candidate for supreme court review that the panel struck down the conflict not only the prohibition was a judicial candidates can do to campaign with other political figures with joint

appearances on behalf of political candidates it was three judges three opinions with completely different approaches to show how courts are struggling to grapple with these issues. and with williams-yulee the ninth circuit had agreed to take that case so there was of a three judge opinion that struck us -- that struck this other. >> to address the broader issue so is that broader point it has its advantages and disadvantages it is important to sort through

those approaches and what i find odd is for those that opposed judicial election at the state level they favor a the misery plan rather than the federal plan. it gives power to the bar group's with some variation to have this late as of three year five candidates to the governor that has to select the with the executive that nominates it was more appealing with the misery plan so in a system to look to see the

advantages and disadvantages is. >> but the senator has put out a plan of how to use selected judges after a judge or justice has appointed that gets rid of the direct election. >> while continuing to sit as a judge over the courts below that'd is raising its own question is of judicial ethics. >> to overturn the ban in its attempt to prohibit the practice to solve the problem that it is

unconstitutional and the candidates that can get around the information. >> they can write thank-you notes? >> as you read through then you begin to realize on the one he sent we have this problem and this is how we choose to solve it that it is not much of a solution that there is so many ways around it. the question is that i have is if florida is that the of the a guard of the most aggressive innovation have they gone beyond with florida has done for the direct campaign contribution

and how will it look at this issue? >> there are states that go further to prohibit judges from learning you contributed to their campaign. one of the issues to prohibit the additional elements under inclusion that could be a very difficult thing to do. there is a lot less work to go into enforcing it. but it is more effective and particularly when the principal is a judge whether intended or not that comes

up at other levels but to save days support that solicitation bandages to play as campaign manager they and a judge. but one reason many campaign finance affections were struck down and not in practice of the incumbent protection this is an interesting provision that in many cases would make a direct solicitation it is coercive to be asked directly by a judge with double fit in sheep's

clothing protecting incumbents rather than protecting judicial integrity. that half of contributors our business is to restore of lawyers are lobbyists. is to put into law in 197320% of disciplinary action if they were directly tied to the provision. with bribery with the al lower-court level the case when of judah the florida supreme court. to dismiss the bribery charges. uncle sam nobody last you

could write the opinion so florida properly identified the importance of severing the element to the relationship. >> david did again those you want to get rid of the ethics rules for the judge who takes money from the donor and the lead judge has the obligation to recuse but the recusal is a broken concept including those on

the supreme court but with the issue of recusal and what it grasps on to we need to do something. >> we believe recusal is very important in there is room mitt juice drink and the practice. one of the concerns and it is the fair point of what justice roberts coaster is a long list of questions to show the recusal at the very least can be a messy process that is difficult to carry out with precision when recusal is obvious at&t of

the astute minister but it is tough questions and as you mentioned judges rule on their own recusal motion so in practice there is never the objective review of the recusal motion for about recusal is a case by case basis. and how personal solicitation impacts that it will not work and it is also in justice roberts case it could weaken the public's confidence because they have to step aside.

>> for the studies that show a relationship between campaign contributions and judicial decision making but it is impractical. it is impractical for and -- appellate courts for a couple of reasons that the business contributions so recusal cannot change that impact so rather the fact you have desist orders that care about your decisions and issues support it the that will support you write. so to have a very many more cases it is highly leveraged that 100 cases per year we know the impact is much broader.

you know, the decision is that you make with the dispute will affect businesses law firms and lawyers of a similar issue. recusal cannot get at the underlying problem of the appellate court because they make lot and will decide cases of the parties before them on a trial court level it is impractical because we would not have judges of certain cases represent criminal defendants you will donate to all of the judges and have a chance to be elected to ensure they are favorable to you in a particular case. can they recuse themselves? certainly in the court like williams-yulee was running for the county court in florida in simply to rule

out any judges. is there a man has done a good job but for appellate courts and trial courts it is not realistic. >> it is not the effective means but i think tracy assumes a recusal of the one that has contributed triggers a recusal that i think is an extreme measure but there are all other alternatives but i agree with the answers that judges don't recused as often as they shed. we disagree on which ones. [laughter] but that illustrates part of the problem. there is a culture among all nine supreme court justices that will not be second-guessing a gender's decisions and this is something that each gets

right so they may have greater faith in recusal they and the rest of us do. petraeus see you seem to more agnostic than ever with campaign contributions most recently adopting that causality. >> because she is sitting here mad. [laughter] >> the steady i am thinking of is one that does the best job of causality but it is a fair statement any empirical study is defined by the population. it is as simple and i will be the first to say that we can only draw inferences and the study i am thinking of it is isolating causality

but i don't want that to mean that that judges are be paving and ethically if they favor a particular interest it is simply human nature of the reciprocity principle and that is the concern. . .

>> the reaction was to move to judicial elections as a way to try to take power away from those machines and to make the judiciary more independent from the other branches. and you know, every reform spurs count reform and there is an evolving process. elections were very much an attempt to promote a more independent and impartial judiciary. barry are largely a historical vestige of their time >> i agree largely. every selection method impacts the judge's decision where as matt noted to try to check the perceived abuse of the appointment process and i don't think that we can really perceive it. it's pretty strong on that. but in terms of the specific question as to why voters don't change the method of selection

come in the florida case is that they did change this for appellate judges. they went to a form of the merit selection with a retention plan. but not with the judges that they think of as the judges in their lives. and i believe that that is pretty interesting to try to understand if voters feel the tension between accountability and impartiality is one that they would like to resolve when the judges are closer to where they are. what is disappointing is of course judicial situations, individual voters know very little, they are least likely to vote in the judicial races and in terms of answering the question why do we retain judicial elections, i think it is because of the ideal of accountability and the challenges that of course we do not really have generally. but i certainly agree that there is no perfect system or perfect

judges even if we had a perfect system. >> thank you. >> go ahead for just a sec. [inaudible conversations] >> hello, i had a comment and a question. comment is based on the fact that i began my legal career as a state court prosecutor in miami, florida and it goes to what andrew said earlier that my experience -- i don't feel that it makes a huge difference whether or not the judge to we asked her whether or not there is a campaign committee. the practice is the largest most popular jurisdiction in florida is that the legal community is fairly small and campaign committees organize fundraisers and oftentimes at barnes and all of us prosecutors made 30 or $40,000 per year come for the

free beer and the defense attorneys would come to contribute to that. and i think in the criminal side of things i was practicing and this is my question for tracy as you had mentioned that you seem particularly closer to elections, judges become more law and order focused and get the prosecutors are not the ones donating the money. and so i sort of have a question as to how that actually works because we don't have any money to contribute. it is the defense that has a fair amount of money and i can see on the civil side were certainly money may play a larger role and on the criminal side we have a hard time seeing how those studies would actually validate the suggestion that the campaign contributions to have as far as it affects goes. but it seems to me with distinctions at the county level where everyone knows everyone and the judge can look at the list of who is contributing.

and it doesn't really matter whether or not it is a campaign committee that asks and the judge is going to know at the end of the day who his friends are and who are not his friends. some curious again sort of why there has not been more of a move and i think there was a trip to the south of france involved in that as well. so the issue seems not to be the direct sort of situation but the campaign contribution. >> in regards to the cases involving lawsuits, tort suits litigations of mass and business situations between individuals. what they are testing is a direct effect the law firm does

better in court subsequently were similar firms and businesses do better imports of some and so the businesses want to oppose this, typically the best argument to the public is not you your against the position that favors my business, favors especially if you are a plaintiff in the funding seeks to seek from entities and funding from entities in different criminal cases and they recognize that the best at is about a criminal case and that is the theory behind it in many states are not

allowed to donate for judicial campaigns. >> one of my colleagues kristie thompson should his did a piece on this very issue of judicial elections in the campaign adding that the campaign ads rise up against them and you are dealing with one of the most cynical components of the campaigns and especially judicial campaigns. the idea that the business interests for those that care about court reform and jurisdiction and care about liability and other issues are not going to come to consumers of news and television and papers and say let's band together, they are going to say that this judge is soft on child sex offenders. and so those ads are more pervasive even as there is this

countermovement in this country to be a little but more sensible about crime and the dramatic translation of crime. that going in one direction, the ads are going in the other direction and obviously they are affected because they are pervasive in all of these states and if they were not working they wouldn't be happening. >> i see this also regarding these committees, i think that this is a great proposal that reflects the understanding of the first amendment concerns are far more severe. >> yes, sir. >> we are making an increasingly different situation. >> i am trying this question from memory rather than in recent years, but if i recall about two and a half years ago the judge became a threshold of

2500 contributions, has that gone and how has that been working? >> it is taking place through the assignment system, the judge has received this, the amount differs slightly based on the level of judges reelect trial judges in our immediate court judges that are appointed. they have received that much and they automatically assigned the case and that they were potentially doing this. they are in the process of doing some research on various regimes trying to figure out how it completely loses discretionary

element when you challenge the judge and you take away the appearance that the judge is in our own case and we think it is a very interesting system. >> it sounds like an incentive to contribute. >> one of the issues with any refusal process is there is the potential for this and it's one of the reasons why it is though effective as a judicial regime. >> it gives us the option of keeping it and that is an option as well. >> here's an easy one for you. >> all right, thank you so much. my name is michael and i am a reporter for the center of integrity here in washington dc and in terms of the notion of candidates doing a direct solicitation versus a campaign judicial races are not something that i'm quite as familiar as a

subtle candidates running for office. so i was curious how professional without these different states about different things, in all these cases are we assuming that there is a judge in a campaign manager and treasure, or in some cases are some of these just sort of one person operations and what is the practical difference versus the campaign making a solicitation versus the judge making this as well two. >> while you guys are thinking of a response to that, going online and looking at him of the website i mean for example some of the justices in texas, am of the website that they have upped our professional and they are not one-person shows. i haven't done any studies but it what i have seen not just in

texas but they are often very sophisticated operation because there is more money available and it is an investment if you're a judge and if you want to get judge and if you are a candidate and you want to stay judge from it's part of the price of doing business which is ironically exactly what the donors are saying, that they want to get something for what they paid for and expect to get something for what they paid for. so from writing about it a couple years ago to last year it's a sophisticated operation at this point in most cases. >> there is a big difference between states and between. we have documented many state supreme court race is better multimillion dollar affairs and they are huge and sophisticated well-funded expensive operations and going down to see the case we are discussing today, you

could have a smaller affair where not much money is raised and spent in the case and perhaps you could have a very small campaign committee only a couple of people. and one thing is it doesn't seem especially onerous to have an aspiring judge read the rules and follow you. if they are unable to do that and we need to understand the specifics. >> and we stomped you? are there no more questions? well great. we appreciate you being here today and listening to us. hopefully you have taken something out of this and we will be around to answer any questions. [inaudible conversations] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2, the governor's state of the state addresses, first newly elected governor charlie baker and then daniel malloy of connecticut

followed by what dakota governor jack dalrymple and california governor jerry brown. >> republican charlie baker has been sworn in as the massachusetts 77 governor. he talked about education and economic development. this is a half-hour. [applause] [applause] [applause] [cheers] [applause] [cheers] >> thank you, thank you so