going. watch his words carefully, i've put down my mandate but i'll pick it up again. his hitman are working to get rid of rivals and his ethics committee -- i'm running over time, to obey his instructions. his p.r. operation briefs the wires services that he's innocent. but this is a controversial sport leader that can only travel to bow huh, russia and switzerland. what america can do is engage with clean decent football associations around the world and create a new organization based in another land and invite sponsors and tv networks to go with them. i can't see coca-cola and mcdonald's and visa preferring the remnants of blatter's organized crime family. and there is one other crucial thing that u.s. soccer should do. spl of you -- some of you may remember when the u.s. olympic committee was in disaway over the salt lake scandal 16 years

ago they called in senator mitchell and ken dubestein to investigate where they had gone wrong with the ioc and make recommendations. external respected, nonpartisan investigation. this committee to help u.s. soccer set up a similar independent committee to find out what on earth has gone so badly wrong and it being covered up. also u.s. soccer could do what your government does, which is put everything online. the forms are inadequate. and then renew, reorganize and reinvigorated soccer could say to the world this is how it does. we are not in america pushing around but we can do it. it is all wide open. join with us and the 209 national associations would come with you finishing. next monday, the absent mr. gillaspie, who i think is treating you with contempt and the u.s. people of soblger, the men and women and the whole

sport with context when he can't come here and defend the u.s. soccer activities in concocaf and fifa. so he's going over to zurich next week with a private meeting of what is left of the leaders of fifa who aren't in jail. i urge and i hope everyone else would urge mr. glady to e-mail blatter and say when i get to zurich i want all of your pay slips and everything you paid yourself,yer perks, your bonuses, your per diems because if it is not there and i'm going to come home and help america kick start the reform. that is what you've got to do as a country to get credibility back internationally. thank you. >> thank you mr. jennings. let me start with mr. flynn and ask a question. you heard mr. jennings just say that u.s. soccer had to know. so the question is what did u.s. soccer know, what should you

have known, and in particular, with the indictments that allege racketeering bribery, fraud, money laundering, what is the reaction of the u.s. soccer federation to that the charges at fifa the executives and the board members and also what does u.s. soccer federation know about concacaf in similar circumstances. it is perceived as the most corrupt of the very regional associations. what does u.s. soccer federation know? >> thank you, senator. i knew nothing about any corruption -- let me interrupt one moment. when you say you knew nothing, you speak just for you personally? >> i will say i or anybody that i've worked with has not brought anything to my attention cold hard facts, regarding corruptions within fifa or can

cackaf. that being said, there is a couple of things i'd like to point out -- in terms of, mr. blazer has not been involved with u.s. soccer since 1986. he has been a member of concacaf and fifa but not u.s. soccer since 1986. in terms of mr. blatter and mr. warner's activities, i would like to point out that those were private, individual, secret transactions that with the full resources of the department of justice and the fbi took four years to bring to light. we are a soccer organization with our greatest focus on developing all aspects of our sport in this country. so i wanted to point out that those private transactions also

for for regional sponsorship and regional broadcast rights. that has nothing to do with u.s. soccer and our rights and our tv and our sponsorship. so i think that is an important point of distinction i would like to make. >> mr. flynn, thank you. let me ask a follow up yes to that. when the u.s. department of justice and the u.s. attorney's office announced indictments, you and your colleagues at the soccer federation would be surprised there could be some activity occurring at fifa or can cackaf that would result in indictments, that would be a surprise to you? >> senator, i was not aware of any part of that investigation in the department of justice. >> but the fact that someone was indicted surprised you? >> i just wasn't involved. in my focus, and that of my day-to-day focus is to stay focused on the domestic side of the business so i just didn't have any knowledge nor anybody

that i worked with had any knowledge of it. >> let me try to tie something together because it may be confusing as to why we're having a hearing that involved mr. bery for example. by question to you, mr. berry and mr. hershman and mr. jennings and even mr. flynn we've heard mr. berry's testimony about the conditions involving the preparation for the 2022 -- excuse me, 2022 soccer world cup. what is the relationship between the testimony that we're hearing, mr. bery about corruption bribery, racketeering, criminal activity, related to fifa and the findings that your organization has made in regard to what is going on in preparation for that world cup. how-is our hearing, are these two contrasting type of stories that don't belong together or are theyin mattly tied to each

other. >> thank you for the question. at the end of the day when fifa made the decision to grant the bid for the 2022 world cup to occur in qatar, it took responsibility for the human rights impacts of that decision. >> how can you say that? why is that true. >> because fifa as an international organization with a billion dollars plus in reserves has a responsibility under u.n. principals to ensure that its operations do not turn a blind eye to or directly involve serious human rights abuses and it is pretty clear that human rights abuses and labor skplonation are rampant in qatar today. not only that but the amnesty international shows that the government has yet to do anything serious or substantial about the basic labor exploitation so the question remains why fifa provided -- why fifa did not go more deep lie into -- deeply into the questions of labor skplonation in the process. now fifa has said at this point in time that 2026, for the 2026

process, they are going to incorporate human rights concerns but why has it taken until the 2026 process for these questions to be raised. >> mr. jennings, let me ask you, is there a relationship between what you describe in your testimony and the testimony that mr.berry has described leading up to the preparations for 2022. how do they relate? >> take a step back. u.s. soccer has failures, so do the leaders of english soccer, they should know better than to bid for that world cup because we all know in the bisz you have to pay to play and i don't think the u.s. pay bribes and i'm sure the english don't. you don't get in a race where you will get bears off the planet. it is wrong to put a tournament there on a strip of land that is boiling. and you have to wonder why certain people despite that at

fifa voted for the world cup to go there. and it is worse, they have another meeting now knowing that can't happen, what blatter calls stakeholders, which are all members, and no fans and now moving it from november to december. now if you want to die young, come to england come to stand outside of manchester united and all of the clubs we're going to stop you having football for seven weeks because jack warner took the money. i hope it is a painless death. you can't walk into somebody else's sports culture and just take it away. but that is what blatter is doing now. and who is questioning him? i don't see any of the officials from u.s. soccer saying no, no. we're friends with the english and the german and the dutch and the western european federations that will have to stop their game because of the dirty slime

bags at fifa. that is the background to it. the money went in from somewhere. i'm not saying where it went in. as long as the investigation is still going on. and it went in. and the low life of the executive committee voted for something which is ending up with the death of migrant workers. it is -- and i just would say -- well the -- one other thing here, we have a saying in european football when officials or administrators can't remember what happened, i don't know, i wasn't there, i can't remember, we say oh yeah well when they were younger they must have hit that big wed futbol too many times because the ticket rackets go back to public knowledge in 2002, again in 2006, again in 2010, richly documented that racketeering was a way of life for can cackoff but that never reached the

soccer federation. >> let me turn to senator blumenthal. >> i appreciate you being here today. it is my understanding you had no knowledge about this corruption before may of this year when the department of justice issued its indictment? is that correct? you had no knowledge? >> that's correct. that is correct. >> did you have suspicions? >> there were moments i would describe if i had a level of discomfort i would not participate and i what just get myself out of any -- any situation that offered any level of discomfort to me. >> so there was evidence that caused you to remove yourself from discussions or meetings? >> i wouldn't say evidence. i would say i think it was the comfort level. >> when did that lack of comfort level begin? >> i couldn't pinpoint any particular time. >> years before the indictment,

correct? >> i wouldn't necessarily say years. it would be hard to pinpoint the time. >> months? >> i think it would be fair to say greater than months but once again hard to pinpoint exact time frames. >> did you make any effort to investigate? >> there is -- if there was cold facts, i would have brought that to the attention of the appropriate people. there was nothing in the way of any facts that i could take to anybody else and obviously would consult our outside council but that is as far as i would take it because it was -- it was something that -- as i said, it was a discomfortable level. >> but you made no effort to investigate and your outside council did not tell you to investigate? >> no. i just passed along my level of

discomfort. >> would you agree in retrospect that u.s. soccer acted inadequately to investigator provent or stop -- prevent or stop the on going blatant criminal wrongdoing at fifa? >> i wouldn't describe -- i wouldn't say that we would do it differently. what our focus has been is trying to -- we really have two choices. we're one of 209 national associations. and we have really, at the end of the day find a way to participate in a manner consistent with our mission and our core values and we think one of the ways to do that is in starting in 2013, we finally had somebody on the fifa exco with u.s. soccer. that was a start in terms of getting a louder voice and a seat at the table. >> let me just interrupt because i think what you're stating is -- is fairly well-known

history and i want to ask about what officials at u.s. soccer came to learn and very bluntly why those officials did so little until the department of justice indicted chuck blazer and others who had long standing ties to u.s. soccer and particularly in light of the lack of comfort level that you had. in retrospect what is the explanation? >> i -- i didn't -- hold on.

>> i was aware of some level of discomfort but it was all -- i think in general a general feeling. so i had no hard evidence and we wanted to continue to participate and try to influence the organization of one of 209 members. the second choice we have is to opt out, and to pull out. and with that comes a series of ramifications. we no longer have a seat at the table. we no longer are involved in the competitions, olympics world cups, any competition for the youth and the paraolympics teams and it has far-ranging ramifications for u.s. soccer and soccer and the business model of soccer in our country. which we have, through ounership of our professional ranks and all three divisions, invested hundreds of millions of dollars,

if not billions of dollars building the sport over the last 20 years so we can continue to build and we can compete on the field in such a manner that would just accomplish on the women's side for the men. >> i understand those two options. but wasn't there a third, which is to begin asking questions begin an in -- inquiry begin shining the light, blow the whistle, holding accountable officials who might be guilty and we now know they are, of wire fraud, conspiracy money laundering bribery, that directly impacted the quality and integrity of the sport that you are responsible for upholding. >> well, we did support the 2011 ethics committee, as i mentioned in my opening remarks. we pushed for full disclosure of the full report. as i said we -- front and

center we are one of six nations that nominated prince ali to run against seth blatter with great peril for the chance of hosting in 2026. and having the fifa executive committee seat we continue to feel that is a proper course of action to reform fifa. >> and i want to make clear, mr. flynn, that my comments are directed against the collective you, not you personally. the executive officers the board members, the organization of the u.s. soccer federation. and i want to ask you as a matter of fact why mr. jill atty declined the invitation to be here today? >> when the notice came of the

hearing, we anticipated rather broad and specific questions potentially and it was determined with outside counsel that i would appear before the senate sub-committee hearing. >> what is the reason mr. gel oughty didn't? >> i this it was a comfort level that i had more knowledge of the day-to-day operations of the event and there were questions related to that. >> don't you think he has an obligation to answer the questions that we've been directing to you? >> senator i would answer if you are not comfortable with my answers, we'd be more than happy to respond in writing to your staff anything directly related -- >> will you commit mr. gel otty will answer these questions. >> i'll do by best, yes, sir.

>> what is the continuing role in fifa. >> to the best of my understanding, there is a special meeting the 20th and 21st next monday and tuesday and from that they have to do a four month in the to move forward and a new election for a president. >> will u.s. soccer take the position that he should be in fact excluded from fifa? >> our position i think was pretty clear when we -- in the last elections, nominated and supported prince ali. i don't know who the candidates i don't think anybody does yet. but rest assured we'll look at all of the candidates and their platform from human rights to corruption to reform before we make our decision. >> one last question don't you believe now that u.s. soccer has a responsibility to do more. it's silence in my view has been deafening in many respects, to expose the wrongdoing and to

condemn it? >> i would like to address the answer to your question -- i think a real prime example of what we have done is the recent reform of concacaf sweeping reforms, from greater directors to greater transparency, we think that is a footprint we would like to bring forward to fifa recognizing we're one of 25 on the fifa ex could -- executive committee and one of 209 organizations within the fifa organization itself. so we pride ourselves in our leadership and we understand at times a limited capacity that we have for reform. >> my time has long expired and i'm hopeful that we may have another round of questioning. i want to refer to senator danes at this point. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. mr. flynn, i want to follow up on some of the questions that senator blumenthal was asking.

how many years have you served as either ceo or secretary general of u.s. soccer? >> roughly 15 years. >> 15 years. and i understand mr. blazer, the indictments, mr. blazer and 14 others, is that correct? >> i couldn't tell you the exact number. >> it was more than ten. yeah. and you mentioned the cold hard facts, not having cold hard facts and at times having discomfort. i want to step back and i guess over a 15-year career and we'll get to the happier part about what happened to women's soccer and congratulations, by the way. it needs to be recognized. truly a tremendous accomplishment. >> thank you. >> but regarding the discomfort that you felt at times the failure to step back because there was a line crossed. if we look at what the indictments read, the bribery,

the racketeering and so forth can you tell me about a time when you experienced discomfort and you stepped back because of what you were seeing? >> now as i stated, the discomfort was in generalities. ly tell you in terms of how mr. warner being one of 41 nations, 35 voting nations in concacaf how he ran a meeting, and went through an agenda and had hand vote votes, sealed votes, those are the kind of discomforts that i -- that led me to some level of discomfort. >> and in your distinguished 15 year career leading the organization how long ago was it when you first started sensing perhaps something is wrong, perhaps a bowe bolts are -- perhaps a few bolts are loose and there is discomfort. look ago the the indictments

these things don't happen overnight. these things are building. when did you start having some concerns? >> it would be hard to pinpoint. as i said, they are generalities and they related to the manner in which jack warner and mr. blazer ran their meetings and how i think u.s. soccer would be -- like to have a greater influence. but being one of 35 voting nations, and mind you, mr. warner came from the caribbean and 25 of the 35 votes are from the caribbean it just give me a level of discomfort that we weren't going to make progress in terms of transparency and some of the things that i would have preferred as to how u.s. soccer operates. >> and did you ever express any of those concerns to mr. blazer? >> i did not. >> is there a reason, if you were seeing these issues

knowing what you know now, why you may not have confronted him or perhaps asked why he's doing what he's doing? >> generally speaking, it falls into the two choice equation and framework. trying to participate, one of the key things we try to do as an example is try to host olympic qualifying and host events and we have to at times balance that with the potential to opt out and with mr. blazer, i just felt that we had other things to do that could help build our sport as well and there was some concern that if i brought it to mr. blazer's attention, that i may feel some level of discomfort in a different way. >> and did you see other piers experience discomfort in other ways who maybe tried to confront mr. blazer? >> that would be hard to

categorize it that way. if and when we reached out to talk to other national associations, other federations once again, we were one of 41 and one of 35 voting members and there really weren't anybody else -- there wasn't anybody else that had the same -- maybe the same feeling that i did on a personal level or that we did as an organize. so we operated as best we could within the framework. once again we're in concacaf by virtue of being a member of fifa and we felt we had to find a way to participate, work our way through and fortunate enough by a close vote, 18-17, mr. gillatty was elected in april of 13 and we think that was a step

in the right direction, i step toward reform and that is the model that we felt was in the best interest of moving our sport forward in a very difficult and tricky environment sometimes. >> i have one final question and then i'll wrap up here. back on women's soccer here on a happier note, the most watched soccer match in u.s. history as many television viewers as game seven of the 2014 world series. i was looking at the financial numbers here with the united states soccer federation and just looking at the veems in the men's -- the investment in the men's and the women's national team and i have two sons and two daughters so you see where i'm heading with this. the spending on the men's facial team was up 50%, fiscal '14 over '13 yet the spending for women's soccer went down i

think 13% of fiscal 13 versus 14. just in broad strokes, any reason why the men's soccer is up 50% and the women's down 13%. >> let me first say that thank you for your comments about our women's national team. we're quite proud of our track record with women's soccer. we are recognized as a world leader and i give you a few small facts. u.s. soccer's writing campaign is the reason that women's soccer was admitted into the olympics in 1996 and continues to this day. we are the top paid team in the world by far on the women's side. in 2003 when we hosted the women's world cup the winnings -- there were no winnings for any team first, second, third, fourth and the winnings this time was $2 million. we continued to push fifa in the right direction. related to your direct question

if that was 2014, i don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but it could be and i'll be more than happy to follow up and provide in writing, it could be because of the 2014 men's world cup is a peak year and would create more activity so i don't know -- >> it is what i was sensing looking at but it might be worth a follow up of investments because i hope we continue to invest in women's soccer as you already have. but the men's program is growing significant and the women's is coming down and we are so proud of the what the women did and want to continue to invest. >> and as a father of three daughters we are quite proud of soccer. with two failed professional women's leagues three years ago we took it upon ourselves as a federation and we run the women's league. rather than fund 25-30 women and cut the team down to 23, we're providing a first division

women's soccer league for 180 women's professional soccer players in this country and we think with the success that we had in canada ten days ago that we'll have additional ownership and investment as well. >> mr. flynn we're about out of time. thank you for that reply. senator klobuchar. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on some of senator danes question and we're proud of the u.s. women's team. and are you aware that we're put gt together a resolution from the senate asking for equal compensation between men and women in fifa and the soccer? >> i am not aware of that. >> well be ready for it. >> okay. >> and i just think given the u.s. emerging role in fifa and given what we've seen in the last few years with the corruption, i just think that while i appreciate that you say changes are being made. >> i don't think enough changes

are being made. and i have some additional dollars from what senator daynes was talking about. the u.s. women's team for the victory was compensated $2 million, is that right. >> that is correct. >> and the men -- the german team in 2014 was compensated $35 million. is that right? >> i think it was $32 million. >> $32 million, okay. so it is $2 million versus $32 million and the losing team in 2014 which was the u.s. men got $8 million. >> i believe it was $9 million. >> $9 million. so we have a situation where the loosing team actually got more than four times the amount of money as the winning women's team. >> correct. let me point out, the winnings just as a point of reference, i think or background, the winnings payments go to the federations, so the payment to

our players are guided and governed by separate collective bargaining agreements between the men and women. that is a point as a matter of background that is important. >> but just to go back to this. they say women's sports don't get as much attention but we have a situation here where the -- there is record attendance and touchdown ratings, fox broke tv records in the u.s., making the world cup final the most watched soccer telecast ever in the u.s., male or female. and yet you have this disparity of $32 million versus $2 million and i just -- my argument would be that certainly the u.s. should take a lead in pushing from our quality here n. tennis they have equality. wimbledon last year decide to have equality in prizes and wimbledon is old school and soccer is supposed to be

universityu -- and up scale and yet you have a disparity that i think is outrageous. >> we do agree. and we'll continue to push for greater payments for women's side in the future. >> i appreciate. can you say why it was played on artificial turf when the men as was played on grass. >> yes. in order nor canada to receive the bid, senator, they went through a bid process. canada was the only nation that submitted a bid to host. as part of the bid from our point of view, unfortunately, it was the bid included playing on artificial surfaces. it is not something that we liked. we appealed to fifa and the canadian soccer association to no avail. we -- when our players came to us and wanted to participate in some legal activity, we fully

supported that. and at the end of the day, we posed the question to our women's team, if this is what we are faced with do we want to move forward and play, or do we not want to play and the women unanimously decided it is not perfect, we don't like what they felt and we agreed was a lack of respect, but we were moving forward and in many respects i think everybody would say we're pretty happy we moved forward under not the best of circumstances but coming away with our third world cup it was worth the investment. >> and thele is ray range i'll end with that, the salary range of women and men. men, the minimum salary is $50,000 is that true? >> for? >> for a male player in our collective bargaining agreement. >> and women 6,000 to $30,000. >> i'm not sure what the reference is for that?

>> this is professional soccer. >> yeah, i can't speak to major league soccer, if that is what the reference point is. it is guided and governed by a collective bargaining agreement. the women's national team players, that play in our league, is well above $6,000. and to play -- to play for their country as well as their clubs is well above $6,000. i would be more than happy to follow up and give you more details -- >> just going back to just the corruption and everything that is happened and my colleagues have done a good job and i'm sure there is more mr. jennings would like to talk about going there you through that as a former prosecutor i find it abhorrent and i'm glad the cases are being pursued and in general, and the reason i bring up the women's issue is the u.s. has had a shorter history on the international soccer stage but

has significant pull internationally, particularly with major corporate sponsorships of u.s. companies. and so what i'm advocating here is using that pull for not just reforms, so that in transparency in the international governance structure so we don't see this corruption and it takes getten taken care of and so that women can be treated as fair as men. if they can do it at wimbledon they can do it in soccer. >> and we are the strongest advocate for women's soccer in the world. and just as a point. there were 24 teams in this world's cup in 2011 there were 16. we were strong advocates to expand. on the men's side there is 32 teams that compete. so there is a greater number of games and a bit of a commercial impact but we continue to push

fifa and concacaf to expand the opportunities for women and as a father with three daughters it is the top of mind every single day. >> you can imagine how the women feel when we hear that our women players that everyone was watching and so proud of got less than a fourth of what the losing team did last year for the men. it is just not right. >> i will -- it has been in the public a bit. but the women for playing in the world cup and competing this year will receive over $300,000. just as a point of reference. but i would be more than happy to give you additional information. >> i appreciate it. thank you. thank you to all of you and senator layhe is leading the resolution so thank you. >> senator cloeb char, thank you. let me ask mr. hershman you heard the testimony of mr. flynn who indicated that, as i would summarize his testimony, he's involved in the domestic side of the issues that were involved

the u.s. soccer federation. and i think his testimony would be -- would reflect that he and his colleagues, no one reported to him any concerns or knowledge of any corruption, bribery, racketeering. i couldn't -- i think his testimony would suggest that he had no -- he was ub aware -- unaware of the activity that led to the indictment -- the indictments. that suggests to me that -- and i don't know what mr. flynn does, butez the ceo -- but he is the ceo. >> but what needs to change structurally that this behavior would be known by the u.s. soccer federation. what is missing? >> thank you, mr. chairman for that question. i think you have to understand the nature of the beast. fifa is like no other organization that i've had an opportunity to consult with on

issues related to governance and compliance. i want to correct a state that mr. bery said earlier. fifa is not an international organization. it is not an ngo. it is not a corporation. it doesn't follow any guidelines or standards. what exemplifies fifa is a small clique of powerful individuals whose self-dealing was kept very secret at the top level of the organization. it's no surprise to me that an individual federation like the u.s. soccer federation didn't know, didn't understand what was going on. this organization, as pointed out by the justice department, has systematic corruption. and for years now for over ten years, in the midst of many scandals and even going back

before ten years when mr. jennings was aggressively reporting on lack of transparency and accountability the organization answered to one man and one man alone and that man controlled this organization with an iron fist and an iron grip. and that was the president of the organization, seth blatter. when he wanted someone to know something, he would let them know. otherwise, they would be in the dark. and it is discouraging to me that president blatter sits in that same seat today. let there be no mistake, he has not resigned. he has said he will step aside when a new election is called. well he's said twice in the past in recent history that he would not run for office again and changed his mind. i'm very concerned that he'll do the same thing again. that six months from now he will say the reform initiative is now

complete, i've succeeded and the federations from africa, the federations from asia want me to continue so i've decided to stay as president. that would be the worst thing that could happen for fifa. >> therefore mr. hershman, in your opinion, your testimony is that the best thing that could happen to clean up fifa is for the departure of mr. blatter? >> not only mr. blatter. there are dinosaurs in the executive committee that don't believe in reform. let me say this. we're going to see next week at the executive committee meeting fifa executive committee adopt new reforms. reforms that we recommended years ago to be adopted and that were put aside. it is not what is on paper. it is not going to be the compliance program. it is not going to be the change

in governance structure, it is the culture of the organization that has to change. and you can't have a change in culture unless you have people with -- within leadership that believe in ethics and values. >> let me ask you this then, what is the motivation for that change to occur? what needs to happen through the u.s. soccer federation, others around the globe, today what we're doing here have any consequence on these issues because what a assume, that the opponent to change is financial. there is apparently significant amounts of money that surround fifa and those involved in this -- what you describe culture. so how is it -- what steps need to be taken to overcome that culture today, tomorrow and into the future? >> we need to be -- build a coalition. number one, the sponsors have

got to take -- and not only the sponsors, but the media outlets that did -- on media rights. they have got to take a stand. when an individual athlete be it tiger woods or ray rice, does something wrong, the first thing that happens is the sponsor walks away from that relationship. fifa has been the subject of scandal after scandal after scandal and no sponsors have taken the lead in withdrawing support for fifa based on the scandals. so the sponsorships -- the sponsors and the media outlets have got to stand up and say if you don't reform if you don't do the right thing, we're going to talk away. the federations like the u.s. soccer federation have got to come together. those with similar cultures similar beliefs and transparency and accountability and i believe that is the belief of the u.s. soccer federation, have got to come together from the bottom up

and force change at the top. and finally governments -- many governments provide sub -- sus tense to sports federation, not necessarily in the united states, but overseas they spend millions of dollars in taxes' money supporting the domestic and international sports organizations and they have got to intervene and let them know that the type is right for change. even here in the united states, while we don't spend taxpayer money on supporting our domestic sports organizations the nfl, we provide them with tax exempt status. i'm sorry, with exception from anti-trust laws, which is worth a great deal of money to them. and so governments have already got to influence sports organizations to undertake transparent and accountable governance. >> let me ask you mr. jennings do you -- what needs to

transpire? the same question i asked mr. herchman. what needs to transpire today and tomorrow that would give you hope that the corruption that you have described would be resolved internally and within fifa and perhaps you're answer based upon your testimony is fifa has no future it has to be replaced? is that different than what mr. hershman is saying? >> very morally from michael. yeah fifa has got to be dissolved. we don't want reform. and we use words like reform. and they think -- it is fine if you went on for years, mr. gotti went on for years as his family got picked off but the operation went on. and i have to come back to concacaf, they're going to have a reform meeting. that would be the thirst wund i think wouldn't it because when mr. blazer and mr. warner were

out, thank goodness, they had reforms. they had reform meetings. they pledged transparency and brought in two men, jeffrey webb from cayman and mr. sands from traffic, from the corrupt sports marketing company and a few years later the fbi are going can you step this way please, sir. so now they're doing it again. and who is this? hor is borel the man who put his girlfriend into vote at the fifa congress in 1998. and i've got the document if you want to see it. they are so corrupt. but the usf -- the united states federation has been crow ardly, a kid from saint kits had the guts to stand up and say jack warner is stealing tens of millions of fifa development money that should be developing the sport in the caribbean. he had the guts to say it. warner and blazer put their poison upon him. he just survived.

but he had the courage to do it. where was america? >> let me ask mr. flynn in your testimony, i just made notes so this won't be identical to what you said, but your testimony was that you could encounter potential political impact yet you indicated you opposed that -- that the u.s. soccer federation opposed mr. blatter. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear. >> you indicated that you opposed and voted for someone other than mr. blatter to chair. >> be the president. correct. >> and your testimony had something along the lines and that could have caused potential political impact and our chances to host the world cup. that suggests to me that there is an awareness that the decision about where a world cup soccer match is going to be played is -- that you would admit, is not necessarily based

upon the merits. if you are worried about a vote for the chairman of fifa having a consequence on-site selection, that suggests to me that you are aware that something is not above the board or am i -- am i overstating that? >> sorry. i think it reflects a management style. and that is what i was trying to impart. mr. blatter wields -- as others have said, a lot of influence in the organization. and in taking our position to not only vote openly and nominate prince ali and work hard for his election, we know that may come with some difficults down the road in terms of seeking support for hosting the 2026 world cup as part of mr. blatter's management style. >> thank you. senator blumenthal.

>> thanks, mr. chairman. mr. jennings, would you agree based on your experience, that american corporate sponsors like nike mcdonald's, visa and coca-cola have been in some sense, enablers? >> inadequate. they have had terrible attacks of blindness, haven't they, when the rest of the world has been categorizing and listing corruptions at fifa and concacaf and documented. the sponsors said we only support the world cup and not fifa. isn't that tough and brave of them. >> maybe i should amend my question to say they certainly would be enablers now if they continue to be sponsored without insisting on reforms, would you

agrow? -- agree. >> i think they should withdraw less -- the money. the money that blatter likes so much should be withheld until something radical happens to clean up the sport in interest of the grassroots. >> and in fact there is precedent for example in the way that nike dealt with tiger woods, following some of the revelations and public disclosure. >> that is a very limited case which got huge publicity because it dealt with a private life of a celebrity. it gets a lot of tabloid coverage. >> but whether it is private life and morality or in this instance, public corruption, it should be addressed. >> oh, yes. and they have the capacity. they have the wealth. they have the brains and experience in the head offices from beaverton to atlanta and to chicago and they haven't done anything and they should be

trying to justify -- they should be apologizing. because mr. flynn has talked a lot about the organization of american football. not particularly relevant to not particularly relevance at the issues of the corruption at hand about fifa. nonetheless the moms and dads, my granddaughter plays football in the park. the people at the lower level not just stars have been betrayed by an organization that sells itself in the glamour of brilliant men and women without actually doing to say we're america. >> would you agree that american corporate sponsors had turned a blind eye to the alleged human rights abuses and potential deaths of my grant workers involved in human trafficking in the world cup host nations

should they have known, had they known should they do something? >> i can't cap that. the answer to that of course is yes. >> mr. barry? >> there's definitely been a startling lack of attention by many parties involved with fifa and the world cup to the serious problems of labor exploitation in qatar today. thousands upon thousands of foreign my grant workers in qatar are forced into a terrible system that can lead into forced labor and it's time for sponsors of the world cup and time for the contract swrors and businesses involved in the world cup as well as the host government qatar itself to do something about this labor rights crisis. >> they can have an impact by the virtue of their purse and dollars and investment. >> the sponsors of the world cup with play a serious and constructive role in averting

the labor reits crisis that's happening and the labor exploitation plaguing the construction for the world cup in 2022. >> home run hershman, do you agree? >> i do agree. look these sponsors spend tens of millions of dollars to protect their brands. they themselves adopt governance programs and compliance standards that are best practice recognized globally. what does it say about them when they are willing to partner with organizes that have the record that fifa has. >> and, mr. flynn, do you agree with the views that have been stated here? >> we're happy to have the sponsors weigh in on this particular issue the. as a point that i think is worth making from the u.s. soccer perspective, when these things come to light we have spent a

lot of time with our sponsors explaining the difference between u.s. soccer and fifa and the sponsors welcome that opportunity of discussion with us and we're happy if they weigh in on these particular items and issues. >> in your view mr. jennings is fifa salvageable? >> salvageable? no. not at all. the corruption is so totally embedded. if you cut the head off the snake the rest of it will wriggle about. america with its moral values have to jones otherin with other countries with moral values. it was very good to see your fbi, your department of justice has assessed them like that. i saw that before. i'm very glad they came aboard. you don't go to john gotti and

say mr. gotti there's too much heroin on the streets of new york. can you cutback a little bit. oh, thank you much. that's not how you dealt with the mafia in boston is it. you went after them. >> mr. flynn, is fifa salvageable? >> i would address that by looking at the recent reforms. they've been sweeping. i think they are real. i would like to give it hope that that footprint could be used. i'm not an organizational expert. i think that's one option. and i can tell you the weekend of the women's world cup final there were two other confederations from around the world that were represented in vancouver that were very well aware of the sweeping reforms, were pleased and hopefully that footprint is at least one step

in the interim -- excuse me in the short term to reform fifa. >> but, apart from what has been done have you seen a tangible meaningful effort reform in fifa and doesn't that have to happen for it to be salvageable >> i've seen attempts and, unfortunately, they've come up short. and we continue once again as one of 209 nations to build coalitions and work with like-minded national associations. we think given our structure, who we are, that's a good model for us to move forward. we're open to other discussions, as always, and we will be doing so with the candidates that are all running for the new -- for the presidency moving forward for fifa as well.

i think that is going to be an interesting opportunity to see what platforms the candidates bring forward. >> will u.s. soccer withdraw from the structure that supports fifa if it fails to take meaningful reforms? >> as i said, before i think we have two choices to participate or opt-out. the opt-out is a very difficult and severe -- has severe ramifications to our model for the sport. so i would like to think that we can push for reform given the new platform and level of intensity not only from the u.s. senate but from other parts of the world that feel now is the time to make the many changes that need to be made in term of reform for fifa. >> well as a fan as well as a public fishlgofficial, as a parent, sometimes inaction and silence

signals complicity and there's a point where u.s. soccer is complicit in the lack of reform or action you may have no direct control over it but i respectfully suggest that may be something you want to consider more seriously. let me ask whether you will commit to u.s. soccer conducting an independent inquiry as happened in the wake of the salt lake city scandal? >> senator, we will cooperate with any inquiry that's brought to our attention. >> again, i'm suggesting that you take action. that u.s. soccer take action to conduct the inquiry. you certainly have the resources. and, again i respectfully suggest you have the responsibility. >> i think one of 209 whether we initiated that, i think it

would be safe to say we're going the need the assistance and help of other like-minded nations, so we're committed to certainly have those dialogues and those discussions. >> you're committed to seek such an inquiry? >> we're committed network with other national associations to reform fifa. >> my time has expired. i have additional questions but i have to go vote. we're sort of staggering our terms here. if my chairman -- if my chairman will take over and ask sufficient questions i'll see you again. thank you. >> thank you very much for your patience. there's some other members to join us.

this may turn out to be our last round. there's another committee hearing in this room later this afternoon. let me go back to an issue that i mentioned in my opening statement and explored a moment ago with mr. barry because i don't want this issue of loss of life to get lost in the conversation about governance. i think they are related. so i'm not trying to prioritize one over another but i want to make certain that as a result of this hearing there's an awareness by americans by the world about what you discovered in your investigation in the activities leading up to the games of the future. let me ask you, mr. bery, again if you want to describe in more detail the findings of what's transpiring there and what your request would be for us to make certain that these practices come to a conclusion. what role can we play as the

united states? >> thank you chairman. amnesty report promising little delivering less is the report that goes into the massive problem of labor exploitation in qatar. the problem as we've heard starts with laws that prevent my grant workers from leaving their employers, leaving the country when they are put in situations that rise to even the risk of starvation. but it goes beyond that. as you've alluded to chairman within qatar today there are serious health risks and lack of accountability and due diligence when it comes to the sites where workers, foreign my grantigrant workers are doing the hard work. there have been numerous reports about deaths the governments of india and nepal have reported that in 2014 over 400 of their nationals in qatar have died in

a whole host of ways and for a whole host of reasons. what is highly problematic is that the government of qatar has not put in the effort to do a serious investigation as to how foreign foreign migrant workers are dying in qatar and why. the this reveals potentially a lack of interest in finding studentses as well as the next steps to they earn money and send money back home to communities in poorer parts of the world where they do not have the employment opportunities that they need. >> let me ask mr. jennings an additional question.

you're our witness from outside the united states. what influence do you think that america has in regard to reforming fifa? >> i rather say change but otherwise agreed. i suddenly learned today that america is terribly unimportant little country that's terrified of countries not agreeing with it. when the united states olympic committee realize the it had a massive moral problem with the crooks they didn't go and ask anybody else. you don't have to go and ask the rest of the world it is all right if we have an inquiry in america. please. i find this very disparaging about this view of america as being gutless because that's what success suggested. get on and do it. don't ask permission of some other countries. it's your country and you have screwed up fifa. i hear talk about reforms.

i don't believe it. the same bunch of crooks who have been there for 20 years, you know -- but you can do it. it's not that nuclear weapons that matters. you got the media, the power of this huge country. western europe will be straight with you. can we join as well. they just need some leadership and they are not getting it. >> mr. jennings you must think there's sufficient value in this hearing that's taking place right now here that you came from britain to the united states to testify. what do you hope comes from this hearing today? what can you expect, what would your desires be that we accomplish? >> as we said earlier and mr. blumenthal was mentioning the independent inquiry similar to the united states olympic committee is the first essential because then you look in the

mirror with u.s. soccer and you see where you dramatically went wrong. you can see how you went deaf/blind and dumb. how you walked away from problems with fifa. america doing that would have other countries saying we can do this as well. i do hope you set up independent, not with the permission of others but your own commission of inquiry. i think that's first thing. the second thing is this farce going on, blatter going to set a date possibly for a congress. i would tell you from my own inquiry there's no congress facilities booked for the rest of the year for fifa in zurich. he'll stay there and wait for us to get tired and go away. it worked for him in the past. only the fbi can sort him out. but you can walk away or our cowards and weak and don't have perspective on the rest of the world. i don't think that's true of america generally.

>> mr. hershman you were let me look and see, member of fifa's governance committee. what didn't occur. appears to me there was an effort at changing previously. you were involved in that effort to make a change but it didn't happen is that an accurate analysis and why not? >> well, it is an accurate analysis. look, we came in as a group of independent compliance experts, and sports experts to look at the internal checks and balances of fifa to look at their compliance and governance procedures. we did so. we made a number of recommendations. many of which, by the way were adopted by fifa. for example, establishing a new ethics committee. one to do investigations and

adjudicatory chamber of ethics committee. we established an independent chair of the audit committee of fifa. frankly, when it came to recommendations that i consider to be no brainers, because they are common standards around the world, including term limits for executive committee members and the president, including transparency of compensation, to this day no one knows what the president of fifa is paid nor what the members of the executive committee are paid. when it came to having them create an independent outside oversight body to ensure that governance and compliance programs that we recommended were being implemented they turn that down as well. so a number of key recommendations that might have made a difference were turned down. having said that i want to emphasize that i don't believe

even if they had adopted the recommendations without a change in leadership without a change in culture, we would have seen much difference. >> thank you. mr. flynn the u.s. soccer federation particularly according to mr. jennings has a greater role to play. i want to make certain you have a chance to tell us anything you would like for us to know in a sense to set the record straight if there's something you feel needs to be said, and also to ask you the question is there something that you would ask from us as we try to ally in the chance for reform, improvements. >> one thing i would like to crystallize, u.s. soccer would support an inquiry as a national association and have the authority to do so under the current governance. as it relates to your question what the u.s. senate could possibly do?

we welcome any opportunity for the u.s. senate to weigh in with your counterparts in qatar or russia whoever it might be for any particular issue. we would welcome that and be ready to work with you on that as well. >> now if there's any ongoing conversations between u.s. government officials and other countries associated with fifa and these allegations and criminal indictments related to corruption at fifa? do you know whether our government is associating with other countries trying to facilitate change? >> senator i am unaware of any activity. >> okay. excuse me just one moment. i'm going to recess the hearing for just a moment. mr. blumenthal is on his way back from a vote. i'm going to go cast my vote.

we'll have a brief subject to the call of the chair recess which may be of value to those of you who have been sitting there for a bit. so the subcommittee is recessed until the call of the chair. [ recess ] >> chair calls the meeting back to order. that was a very quick recess. >> this will be a brief, brief few questions. mr. flynn, would you commit to establish a better system of accountability within u.s. soccer through some kind of internal inspector general, a watchdog protection system -- >> we -- i'm sorry. we, through our outside counsel

have hired someone to look how we govern ourselves and that process has been started and supported by our board. >> when will that process be completed? >> it's just started so i think it would be a better approach for us to get back to you with the time frames once we have a chance to discuss in more detail. >> mr. hershman you testified sports are undermine by a lack of accountability and i agree. would you say that that kind of voluntary system is sufficient to bring some higher degree of integrity to a corrupt system or at least u.s. soccer has been involved in a corrupt system or should sport entities be in some

way overseeing or scrutinized or regulated by a public authority? >> i don't want to see government take away total autonomy from sports organizations. i don't think that would be the right way to go. but i do think if voluntary standards and principles are not adopted and enacted, then government should set up some sort of regulatory protocol to ensure that sports organizations are keeping best practices and standards. there's a tremendous threat to sports worldwide. it hasn't completely hit the shores of our country yet. illegal gaming in sports totals about $500 billion a year. let me repeat that. $500 billion a year is bet on

sports illegally. that has led to an increase in match fixing which has become endemic in europe in africa in asia, in latin america. while we haven't experienced it here, it's rearing its ugly head. six weeks ago a gambler from detroit was sentenced to six years in prison for paying college basketball players to fix matches. and so what i'm hoping this committee will do and what our government will do is get ahead of the curve to begin to see that certain standards are put in place voluntarily or otherwise in order to bring a bit -- well hopefully to bring some of the well-known purity back to sports. >> mr. hershman, you said that members of fifa's executive

committee should disclose their salary i believe? >> that's correct. >> mr. gilotti is on fifa's executive committee. mr. flynn, do you agree he should disclose his earnings? >> i believe that we have pushed for change on that and i believe that u.s. soccer and we would support that, yes. >> actually, if i might interrupt, senator. mr. gilotti, before he was appointed to the executive committee, he served with me on the independent governance committee, and he voted in favor of our recommendation for compensation transparency. >> can we expect that will happen then, mr. flynn? >> we'll do everything we can within our power of the united states soccer federation. ultimately i believe that's going a fifa executive committee vote. >> when will fifa make that decision? >> i don't know the answer to that. be more than happy they follow

up and get you that. >> i would appreciate it. mr. bery can you tell the committee what more you think fifa can do very specifically and directly to stop human rights abuses including human trafficking, exploitation of child labor horrific working conditions, illegal holding of passports in effect involuntary confinement of workers and other abuses involved in construction in host facility, in hotel, the breadth of these violation i think has been somewhat inadvertently lost in these proceedings which have focused more on the corruption, the overt criminal corruption and yet these human rights abuses

are real and unspeakable >> you're absolutely right, senator. the bottom line -- there are two big pieces of the puzzle that fifa can help solve when it comes to addressing the major problems of labor exploitation in qatar today and potentially in future countries that will be future host countries for the fifa world cup. the first piece of the puzzle is the question of what the evaluation process is during the bidding prostoebs a potential host of the world cup. now fifa said for the 2026 world cup it will include human rights requirement in its bidding process. it's unclear right now what those human rights requirements are going to be and any such initiative must have fifa have due diligence processes in place to avoid human rights abuses in stage world cup events in the tuch. that's the first play

eevaluating of bids of country to be a host cup. in qatar for example would have revealed serious problems when it comes to labor exploitation rising up to forced labor and as we spoke about earlier in this hearing, the risk of injury and to death some foreign migrant workers in the country. the second piece of the puzzle for fifa is what happens when it raises an issue verbally, or via text to the host government in this case qatar, the government of qatar then says okay we're going to do x, y and z and a year later as amnesty international the country of qatar largely files address the issue. verbal assurances are not enough so there's a real question for fifa as to what happens now. the clock is ticking and it's not enough to wait five years from now to have serious reforms when it comes to labor rights in qatar. every day that goes by is another day that more of the hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure for the 2022

world cup are already built and completed. and every single day that goes by without labor reforms in qatar is another day in which a foreign migrant worker is subject to potentially subject to forced labor, potentially puts their life at risk in a very unsafe construction facility, potentially comes home to a filthy set of housing accommodations or denied their pay while their family is at risk of being evicted from their home. the question for fifa what will they do now when a year after the government of qatar has claimed it's going take steps to address the problem the reality is for some of the worst human rights violations kwan tar in the context of labor cloitation not enough has been done. >> i want to just add one last or maybe two last questions one of them having to do with an issue raised by my colleague,

senator senator klobuchar. i was troubled to learn that men's teams that exited in the very first-round of competition of the world cup were paid $8 million, and 400% greater than what the women world champions were awarded. mr. flynn what can be done? >> we're a strong advocate. during the championship weekend i met with my counterpart who was the operating officer for the world cup. we addressed several things in terms in an action report being compensation. i would call team environment, the types of hotels the number of teams at a hotels. all of those kinds of things. should be included in an after

action report. we'll continue then with our fifa executive committee member mr. gilotti to push for continued development on the women's side and continue -- one of those items is increase in compensation for those competing and participating teams in the world cup and in other competitions potentially as well. >> thank you. i will have more questions for you on this issue. i will submit them in writing. i think your testimony all of your testimony has been very helpful and informative. in my view this hearing is really only a beginning of an inquiry that the congress has a responsibility to conduct. and that inquiry is only one step in a larger, very intensive and critical scrutiny that has to be given to the responsibility of united states

sports organizations. we have spent a good deal of time over the last 24, 48 hours talking amongst ourselves about issues of national security. and the agreement that has been reached by the administration to stop nonproliferation, more specifically with iran. the power of united states consists not just of its military force but moral example. its exceptionalism devifs from its values and ethics. and the fans here and around the world deserve better from these sports organizations that have responsibility to oversee and organize the game of soccer. corruption is not a game. it is deadly serious. it is criminal. and it betrays the trust of

fans, u.s. soccer i've said earlier to have a responsibility to know or should have known and the fans can judge which is worse. i want to thank you again for being here today. and hope that you will continue top cooperate with our inquiry. thank you. >> mr. blumenthal, thank you very much. this is our last round of questioning. i'll bring this hearing to a conclusion. particularly under the suggestion i made you may need a recess. we'll give you one we're going adjourn. first let me say before i do that, thank you all for your testimony. this is in my view, something that's very important issue a very serious matter. mr. flynn, i particularly thank you for your testimony. and i want you and our audience our witnesses those who are paying attention to this hearing that we want absolutely the best

for u.s. soccer. i think the point i would make is we can't tolerate the status quo and there's circumstances from that status quo they are real perhaps live threaten jenlife threatening or life taking. we don't want another subject for the world soccer that corruption continues to occur. so from an individual senator i offer to you mr. flynn, u.s. soccer federation the opportunity to work in any way we can to assist you as you make the effort to make sure the status quo does not continue and i thank you very much for being here as i would say to all of the witnesses here thank you for the serious nature in which we treated this topic. with that, let me say a few significant words that are necessary for the record and

that is that the hearing -- the hearing record, the record of this hearing will remain open for two weeks. during that time senators are asked to submit any questions in writing that they have for the record. upon receipt by you the witnesses we would request that you submit written responses to the committee just as soon as possible. and with that, i will continue clued this hearing. and, again, thank the witnesses. this hearing is now adjourned. [ hearing adjourned ] clsh

. wrapping up a nearly two hour hearing on the role of the u.s. in international soccer and the integrity and impending leadership changes at fifa. this will reair in its entirety at 8:00 eastern tonight here on c-span 3. also find it shortly at c-span.org. in road to the white house coverage. republican presidential candidates meet for a forum in new hampshire the evening of monday, august 3rd. look for coverage on the c-span

networks. today we spoke with the publisher of the new hampshire union leader about that candidates forum. >> at union leader.com this is the headline. outfoxed voters forum to be the first for the gop. joining us from manchester is the publisher of the yin leader. joe mcquaid. >> thanks for having me. >> let's talk about this forum how and why did it come about? >> it came about because we were seven months or six and a half months from the first voters getting a chance to winnow the field, iowa new hampshire and south carolina and fox got the first official debate from the rnc and fox announced only ten candidates based on a compilation of national polling done in august were going to

determine the ten seats for the debate. and as you know steve, there were a lot more credible serious candidates than that, and we thought it unfair that only ten got to be on the fox stage. so we said about a month ago that we were going to do our own event. this was also prompted in part by a letter that more than 50 new hampshire republicans including a couple of former governors wrote to fox protesting this format and asking that they instead break the top polling candidates into two groups and have two back-to-back debates, but fox didn't want to do that. >> your co-sponsors in clueding the post courier in charleston south carolina and the cedar rapids iowa gazette. so what is the format and what's the objective? >> couple of things.

i'm ream tickled about those two newspapers because we know them because we're all in a group called the independent newspaper group which by its name is independently owned newspapers in the country and there aren't a lot of those any more and it happens there's one in south carolina and one or two in iowa. the format is pretty simple and straightforward. all the candidates will be introduced in short bio lines read by an announcer. one at a time the candidates will be called up on stage to sit with the moderator who is a gentleman named jack heath who runs a radio show in new hampshire and quite well-respected among candidates. he doesn't ask gotcha you questions. he asks tough questions. the questions are going to come in part from a survey that we're going to put on unionleader.com ask readers to pick five out of 25 or 26 topics that they would

like to see discussed, and jack heath will be formulating the questions based on that and will put them one at a time to the candidates. we haven't gotten as far as to mixing up how many questions there will be and who gets what questions, but i know that we're not going to announce the order of the candidates until that night because i don't want the first one skipping out after and the last one not coming in until it's his or her turn and we expect we're going to have upwards of 15 candidates, which would being a great and which is what iowa, new hampshire and south carolina are all about. looking at all the candidates before making a decision. and looking at them, comparing what they said at the same time in the same place which is what fox is apparently unable to accomplish. >> the forum will be live here on c-span radio and c-span television monday august 3rd

beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. you've been in touch with a number of the candidates and their campaign staffs. what are they telling you about this approach that you and others are putting forward? >> they like it especially the ones who are not the best known candidates. donald trump isn't going to have any trouble getting on the fox stage based on his polling numbers. but a lot of the other candidates have trouble with the fact that donald trump gets on and they may not. and as senator lindsey graham has said in the past couple of weeks brad pitt could get on that stage based on national polling and candidates like graham, like governor john kasich who is not officially in the race but is going to be in the race are outside looking in and that troubles them. senator graham is actually having a press conference in new hampshire later today to continue to protest the way this

is going down with fox but we've now had eight candidates accept our invitation without reservation. they really haven't asked much. we sent them an invite that outlines the format and they are happy to do it. i think especially because they appreciate the early primary and caucus states. >> and finally, joe mcquaid, as the publisher of the union leader in new hampshire you've seen a lot of campaigns and a lot of candidates, 15 official republicans in this race, soon to be 17. have you ever seen such a crowded field? >> no. there's been a lot of names on our ballot because it used to not cost much to get on. but credible candidates, i think the democrats had eight once. there was a woman and seven guys and i think we called them snow white and the seven dwarfs and republicans back in 1980 with ronald reagan had quite a few

but not this number, steve. >> full details available online at unionleader.com. joe mcquaid who is the publisher of the new hampshire union leader joining us from manchester. thank you very much. we look forward to covering the forum on august 3rd. >> thank you, steve. thanks to c-span once again. >> this weekend on c-span's road to the white house two major political events from iowa. and we're the only place you can watch or listen to these events in their entity. friday night we'll be live in cedar rasp for the democratic party hall of fame dinner. all five presidential candidate will share the same stage and all day saturday beginning at 11:00 a.m. answer we'll be live in ames for the family leadership summit where nine republican candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span c-span's road to the white house 2016 we take you there.

recently concluded supreme court term the high court upheld the affordable care act, found same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and ruled that the first amendment does not require the state of texas to put confederate flags only sense pilates. last week at the heritage foundation a discussion to review these and other rulings from the court's last term. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the heritage foundation. we certainly appreciate you coming out today. my name is rachel and i'm with the strategic communications heritage. we're thrilled to co-sponsor this with the legal center. i want to introduce the moderator for our first panel today, john malcolm is the director and ed gilbertson and sharon gilbertson. he writes and speaks on a variety of law related topics.

prior to coming to heritage john worked in different positions including serving as law clerk to two federal judges, a partner in his own firm as an assistant united states attorney and deputy assistant attorney general at the department of justice. he's also served as executive vice president and director of world anti-piracy operations for the motion pictures association of america. a distinguished practitioner in residence at pepperdine law school and general counsel at the u.s. commission on international religious freedom. please join me in welcoming john malcolm. [ applause ] >> thank you. i think i'll say my comments from here. welcome, everybody to scholars and describes which is heritage's annual review of the supreme court's recently completed term and what a term it was. so last year at this event i said without fear of contradiction that it had been a pretty solid term for

conservatives. this year is different story. while conservatives cheered the results in some of the cases they experienced significant and in some cases surprising losses in some of the major cases this term. indeed at least two of the describes who you will hear from in the second panel adam liptak and jess bravin perceived a discernible left ward shift on the court. we've assembled an excellent panel this morning to discuss some of the major cases from this term. each of these panelists has argued many cases before the united states supreme court and they are considered among the elite group of supreme court practice titioners. i will introduce them each briefly, far too briefly than each one deserves and then we'll begin our discussion and time permitting we'll take some questions from you. to my immediate left is mike carvin. he's a partner at jones day. he focus on civil litigation

against the federal government. during the reagan administration mike served in several senior positions within the department of justice including deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division and deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel. he has argued several cases in front of the high court including this past term king v burwell and virtually every federal court in the country. to his left is john elwood. john argued two cases this past term. john is a partner at vincent and elkins. prior to joining john served in a number of significant positions within the justice department including assistant solicitor general and deputy in the office of legal counsel. while at doj john received several awards including both the attorney general's award for exceptional service and attorney general's award for distinguished service. john also clerked for john

daniel mahoney on the 2nd circuit and justice kennedy. to john's lift is anthony pinkus. he's a partner at meyer brown. during the reagan administration andy served as solicitor general. andy is also a co-founder and co-director of the yale law school's supreme court advocacy clinic. gentlemen, let's get right into it. john, let me start with you. let's talk about one of the most controversial cases this term that is the same-sex marriage case. what were your impressions? tell us about the case and what were your impressions of that

case. >> sure. let me know if you can't hear me. i'll give you very little by way of background. i assume if you're here you know about it. in 1993 hawaii recognized the right to same-sex marriage. a little fuzzy on the details. in response to that, numerous states enacted laws formalizing what was previously implicit or explicit that marriage was defined between one man and one woman. people brought challenges in heavy part based on justice kennedy's opinion a couple of terms ago in windsor -- united states versus windsor. most courts saw the writing on the wall and found that there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and that's the way it went down in the supreme court by 5-4 vote to nobody's particular surprise. my thoughts in no particular order.

first the opinion given by justice kennedy to no one's great surprise since he's written majority opinions, in a lit any of case, expanding the reits ever gays -- roman versus evans. lawrence versus texas. and windsor. and, you know, like many kennedy opinions on you know big topics, it was more -- it was long on rhetoric and kind of short on traditional legal analysis. you know i don't know whether that is by design because you know, there was a term you know kennedy would sometimes say this is a teaching case around chambers and i didn't know if that was directed towards the public or to law students and i wouldn't be surprised, you know. he's de-emphasized using foot notes and opinions and this is a case that, you know, is very accessible to lay persons and i wonder if that's by design.

i was telling the guys when we were sitting around and chatting that i was at a wedding recently, an opposite same-sex wedding where the officiant quoted windsor and this is an opinion that will displace windsor on the wedding market. the within will. it doesn't talk about different layers of scrutiny and there's very little announcement on case law. second i think this case is important not for its holding but how it did it because you know, the court is waxed and waned on how specifically you can define rights and you're subject to process analysis, how rigorously you have to tie the supposed fundamental right to historical practice. the high watermark was footnote h which was joined by two justices, justice o'connor and kennedy significantly did not join it but that said quote we

refer to the most specific level at which relevant tradition protect or denying protection to "today" certainive right can be identified, close quote. to get under that case would you have had to have a very specific tradition, same-sex marriage in this case. washington versus gluxberg was the physician assisted suicide case in '96 which kind of set the standard for this. and, you know, it emphasized how important it is to tie it to historical practice to make sure as i said due process clause can be suddenly transformed into policy preferences of the members of the court. they said there two primary features of the analysis the due process clause specifically protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are deeply road in the nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of order and delivery. this took a big step back, the

case. took a big step back from gluxberg and this is not unusual for kennedy opinions. he doesn't explicitly overrule. they frequently just ignore conflicts or try to paint them as, you know consistent with friar case law. but, you know here they said subject to due process requires courts to reason judgment with a person to accord them respect. this is one of the, you know, biggest things about it is that it really kind of decoupled it from historical tradition. here's the new favorite paragraph of the living constitution crowd. quote the generation that wrote and ratified the bill of reits and the 14th amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom and all its dimensions so they entrusted future generations to protect the right

of all foerns enpersons to enjoy their liberty. whose learning matters as any five justice us of the supreme court. moving on i think the third significant thing about it is that what does this mean for sort of religious liberty. even though, justice kennedy himself put some language in there, you know, suggesting that we would have to respect religious liberty and all that, you know i'm sure most of you are aware that argument when the solicitor general was asked a question about that, what about say religious institutions that have -- that don't recognize same-sex relationships, what does it mean for tax purposes he said there was a real question about that. so this is i think the next sort of battleground be very interesting to see what happens. even though justice kennedy i'm sure he feels like this is you know, moored enough.

he's not worried about what this will be used for. justice o'connor, famously a fan of lucy goosy standards has not been happy with what has happened with the application of her lucy goosy standards and she left the court. justice kennedy i don't say this through any insider information but just my reaction to what he's written in cases has been displeased with the casey standard and its application that it was applied more liberally than he would have liked when he was working on that joint opinion in that case. so, it's a very interesting opinion. i think that it is significant and the future will be less for its immediate holding because the same-sex marriage advocates had the wind at their backs previously. >> you might want to add anything to that? >> well i would just say a

couple of things. i don't know it may not be a coincidence that i'm on the left end of the panel. i do think it sort of -- i totally agree with john that i think the treatment of gluxberg and the paragraph you read are the important parts of the opinion. i think the boldest step that justice kennedy took in that direction. what's interesting is in that paragraph and the parts of the opinion that precede it he does try to root that a little bit in originalism. the opinion has spawned or amplified a conflict that was out there in the world of scholarship, which is what was original intent. the classic view is original intent means what were the framers views of what reach the of these reits were and these words they wrote, sort of evolving, i would say, on the more progressive side of the spectrum in view of original

intent framers view was they were familiar with common law courts, they were writing broad concepts but they actually saw this as a common law kind of authority that would evolve with all of the many constraints that in their time limited how the common law could evolve. so i think you're going to see a lot of an increased battle to sort of defend and attack the justice kennedy approach and now a majority of the court's approach on that originalism grounds. >> andy, let's turn to a totally different area. congress and the president faced off this past term in a case involving israel. can you talk a little bit about that case? >> sure. you know from an issue that's been hotly litigated in the courts, same-sex marriage and lgbt rights to an issue that almost never get litigated in

the courts, you know, mike and john know from their time this is an area laugh where there's lots of learning based on llc opinions and posturing of congress and executive branch but these debates very rarely get into court. this one did. there's a federal statute passed burg the george w. bush administration that allowed citizens born in jerusalem u.s. citizens to list israel as their place of birth on their pass ports and both the bush administration and the obama administration refused to enforce that statute on the ground that their constitutional power over foreign affairs rendered that statute null and void. three years ago. so a young person born in jerusalem said he wanted israel on his passport commenced litigation. pit went to the court three years ago whether this was a political question and the court said no, it's not a political question and directed the d.c.

circuit to decide it on the merits. some people thought gee maybe the court was depriving itself of an escape valve if and when the merits issue came back and it looked like it was going to be really, really hard they wouldn't be table use the political question if at that time they concluded that it would have been desirable and certainly the argument there seems to be lot of disconcerting noises that they were being forced to decide something that had a lot of foreign affairs and political visibility because, obviously, from the administration -- both administration's perspective taking sides on who owns jerusalem and who controls jerusalem is a politically loaded question. in any event the court did address the merits and it held the administration was right. 6-3 justice kennedy, again writing for the majority justice thomas concurring separately for the most part.

and the chief justice and justice scalia and alito in dissent. just to give a little bit of background because people are less familiar in this law than same-sex marriage, the framework familiar with the law than same-sex marriage. this was set by justice jackson from the 50s and he said there are three ways this could arise. when the president and congress on the same -- want the same thing, the president's power is strongest. when the president is acting alone but congress hasn't done anything, the president has some authority. it is a murky middle. when the president is acting contrary to a congressional enactment then it is the hardest time for the president's power to be upheld and oefb if the -- only if the power is exclusive and conclusive, are the words in the constitution, will the president prevail over a contrary direction of congress. and it was thought in the third category the president would

lose if it went to litigation, but some of this llc and learn and history had the president facing down congress successfully in the political context. but the court said here it is for the president alone to make the decisions of what foreign mauers to recognize -- powers to recognize and he can't be forced to contradict those decisions with some formal document and the passport is a formal government document and saying jerusalem, israel would contradict the president's determination that it was not appropriate for america to recognize either power. so a victory for the administration on the particular issue, and this particular issue of recognition. but the administration also in the kennedy opinion at least suffered a bit of a defeat. there is an old opinion called curtis wright that dealt with the context in which congress authorized the president to do something. so the first category where the

president authority is strongest but that had strong language about the president's foreign affairs power that was quoted in a lot of contexts by the justice to say the president had broad power even without congress's enactment and justice kennedy cuts the legs out from under that argument and said remember this was a case in category one to the administration and future administration's ability to rely on that broad language, just in case people are curious, says -- the president is the sole organ of the nation and its external relations and the sole representative with foreign relations, quoting chief justice marshall when he was in the house of representatives. and although the administration won this battle, one of the major weapons has been

eliminated for future disputes with congress. the only thing i would say about the opinion that is interesting is it relies again on history. and to my mind it is actually quite similar to last year's mill canning opinion in the structure which is to start with the text and constitutional provision and rely quite a bit on history and to see whether history dictated a different conclusion and interestingly although justice breyer joined in the opinion, he concurred separately so say he still -- to say he still thought this was a political question but you wonder if justice breyer's influence which seems to be there, in mill canning was also at work in sort of moving the majority to the place they got. justice thomas's concurrence was more proexecutive. he said unless a specific foreign affairs power is

mentioned, then it is the president's. and so very, very broad view of the executive's authorities. and the dissenters, all three people who worked in the executive branch either in the office of the council or solicitor general or for some of them in two of the places and they took a harsh view of the majority role that the chief justice said for the first time ever that the president has been permitted to defy a statute. and so you see a real division on the court as in mill canning on the scope of executive authority and how to reconcile these conflicting claims in the foreign affairs area. again we don't see a lot of cases so it is hard to say this is going to spawn a lot of litigation, it probably won't but interesting to see how at linements shake out quite differently than one might have expected. >> well mike as you know obama care was before the court again

this term in burwell and you said you saw connections between that case and the texas department of housing and community affairs case that was the fair housing act, desperate impact case. so why don't you discuss those cases and the connection you see. >> i would like to discuss both. and i think what they have in common is the huge entrenchment on the judicialary is supposed to interpret statutes and not rewrite them. but before i do that, i want to talk to you about my experiences in law school in getting at this issue, a., because my favorite topic is talking about myself, but more importantly really i think what you saw as a huge step backwards and you need to understand the context of how this is evolved. i started law school in 1979 and there was a case back then called steel workers versus

webber which involved the civil rights act and brian web was subjected to a quota by a employer and he was a white person and enforced by the department of labor office of ofccp and he went into court and said look i read the statute it said you can't deny an employment opportunity to any individual because of race and i'm an individual and the plain meaning of the statute means you can't discriminate on me based on the difference of my skin color to which the majority of the court said we're not going to allow a couple of words in a statute to be interpresented literally to defeat the over all purpose of the statute and the purpose of the civil rights act was to help minorities. so we're going to -- and let's face it quota and discriminatory in favor of minorities, helps minorities and we're going to look at the congressional purpose. so you lose.

justice renquist wrote a famous decent written in 1984 because it is orwellian. they come down and said words have no meeting and they mine the opposite of what they say. and so at that point i got interested in how you are supposed to go about interpreting statutes and another title seven case called griggs which is directly relevant to the texas case. and there again, the operative language of the statute is you can't discriminate against any individual because of race or sex or the other prohibited criteria and it was undisputed that the plaintiff in that case was not treated than anybody else he was treated precisely the same and was not treated differently because of race. again, a straightforward plane language meaning if were discriminated because of race, you shouldn't have a claim.

and the supreme court used the word because of race when they try to describe what is intentional indiscrimination. in the feeney case because of the prohibits criteria, to which a supreme court unanimously ignored the statute and never cited the statute except in a foot note and said again, look the brudder purpose of the statute is to help minorities. we want to help them, even if they are treating the same if there is a statistical impact because of a neutral procedure and we're going to outlaw those neutral procedures that have a statistical impact unless, of course, the employer can show a business necessity for pursuing this nondiscriminatory thing that has a statistical impact the business necessity was made up out of whole cloth because nobody in congress thought of having a defense to treating people equally since they didn't

think treating people equally would in any way cause a problem and they certainly didn't think of disprat impact as discrimination because if discriminating is okay or necessary and you can show that then we'll allow you to do it. so to sum up what i learned by reading the two cases, a seminole seminole, probably the most important legislation in history that you can't discriminate against any individual because of a race. the eoc which is chronicled in the texas case and some members of the supreme court decided they didn't like the decision they made about banning discrimination against any people on the basis of race so they changed the statute to say you can discriminate against nonminority individuals on the base of race and indeed under the effects test you must do. an effects test is a quota. there is no difference between saying you must hire in

proportion to the availabilities of minority in the workplace and if you don't hire in proportion of the work force, that has a prohibited discriminatory effect. so what you see is in the course of two opinions, dharveging the claw -- changing the law that says all americans are treated equally but only favored groups are treated individually and now this right -- has been turned into a group right of proportional representation again ab sent some business necessity. so it struck me that was a grotesque provision of a basic law which doesn't effect our basic notions of popular sovereignty or that words have meaning. and i thought, with respect to statutes, in the subsequent 35 years the court went a long way toward abandoned this judicial revision of statutes to impose the judicial reviews over that of enacted law and