even the stockpile of anthrax and who can get it, how do i get it to my first responders. there was no clear path to understanding how that all happened lots of materials we purchased along the way has now expired. the shelf life is over. it hasn't been deployed. what do you have to do, go back and repurchase all of this also sit in the shelf five years. we've not to get that piece figured out soon. and i think the deals with the

diseases, both occurred around the world, actually. we've got the funding to build it, the funding to operate it. what effort should we put in there is yet to be determined. and how much they're going to enable the science teuflt thes that work there to help work on these diseases is still a little bit of a question mark. a big question mark, frankly. that's just another example. it has to be part of the solution. it is not the only solution you about it is is part of the solution for some of the worst diseases we could come across. and we're still not clear what the direction will be after it is built. we have a couple of years to figure that out. they will pass quickly and things have to be laid in place. a level 3 on campus to prepare

people for working in the path. it is is just one effort. it is is just one example of inconsistency. maybe we won't fund scientists. that's an exaggeration. >> so one of the gratifying aspects of our work is the expertise in the audience that comes to these. we have microphone holders and about 15 minutes for thoughts, questions. and if you would just identify who you are, that would be appreciated.

how do you synergize efforts here or might it be through thing efforts. in other words, how many crises and emerging threats can we focus on at a time and what does it mean to include antimicrobial efforts or that kind of distinguishes these things here in bioand agriculture defense the. if you can comment, that would be great. >> i think we understand there's big tension between antibiotics and the potential for pathogen resistance. >> i'm thinking about the recent efforts the last couple of years, especially at the national and international level to focus on anti microbial

resistance. the united nation's efforts. so there is a growing effort and mobilization to attack this issue. we've talked about how bio and agro has been an issue below the radar. it is not capturing the attention that it needs despite a lot of people talking it for years. so is there value in attaching this or does it dilute attention and focus? >> actually, i don't think there's a clear answer to that question. i think it has to be explored. there's little doubt that technology is continuing to advance. moore's law is still in effect. as we understand the amazing

technological advances the real question we're going to have is can policy stay abreast. in this context, can we come up with a mechanism that accounts for this amazing technological advance. i oftentimes say that the american people speak to their government in the 2 he 1st century. the government listens in the 20th century and responds in the 19th century. we have to the stay at least within reach of the advancements in terms of what we're making. i know. i don't have an answer to your question today. but it definitely requires us to analyze just whether or not it would make sense for us to do it. if we did do it, how would we do it effectively and take advantage of what technological advancements we're making. >> i expect to probably get some taeurbl thoughts on our second panel. i see nodding up front.addition

second panel. i see nodding up front. >> jim monk from the congressional research service. i appreciate the panel's work to highlight the issue. doing a great job of saying what's important and steps we need to go forward. but in the context of the plan that the bpc has done or the research at kansas state that's been highlighted, i'm wondering if you could give some more context to what's needed in the direction in light of things like the national infrastructure protection plan, strategic partnership agreements that have flown out of hspd 709 that have been taking action and saying what is the coordination that's lacking that is trying to be set up in the national infrastructure protection plan. what is the intelligence or the

coordination that's lacking in the strategic partnership agreements with private entities and the states. asking where are those next steps. because there are these plans that have been developed in the past 10 years. >> any of you have any -- >> i'll take a stab at it. i became skeptical to this idea that the vice president should have this biodefense committee or council. i was a little skeptical of it at first. the more i get into it, the more i think senator daschle is right. you have to have somebody that can peer over all the tubes. there is great activity in one place that no one is aware of in the other place. and there's really no opportunity to have that discussion in a real meaningful way it is all personality based. the problem is there is no one

entity that, as i said, can draw all of those people to the same place to force that kind of a conversation. and if you look at the dni model, that was exactly the same problem we were having up to 9/11. great work was happening all over the intelligence community. but not one person could pull them together in a place that say we have to do a joint effort here. if you're spending $10 on that and i have $3 over here, what better to spend $12 on the same problem and save a buck. so that i think has to happen here if we're going to get any on of that. again, some of that congressional action is based on the silo effect as well. this is my little lane, and i'm going to make sure my lane is doing exactly right. you need 245 command and control structure that forces collaboration. not because people don't want to do it, but the system is not built to allow them to do it in a way that i think is productive. >> so let me just add to that

from an airman's perspective. when i was commander of u.s. space command i went to a meeting at the pentagon and the deputy secretary of defense, then dr. jon hammry, asked people who thinks they are responsible for what we called computer network defense in the '90s. cyber defense. who thinks they are had he responsible for cyber defense. everybody raised their hand. he had, be well, we have a problem. if everybody thinks they're in charge, nobody is in charge. so i think what we're -- kind of the crux of your question, there's been a lot of things that will enable the right things to happen but somebody has to think it is is important. somebody has to this is a national security issue. then it might flow from there. but i think the priority is not there. my research says some people are just kind of pushing it. they don't want to think about it. it is really hard, right? it is really hard.

i won't say any harder than nuclear nonproliferation. it's hard to get your arms around. it will involve lots of entities, lots of research. it has to come together. sharing research is not one of the strong suits of research is sharing what they're doing, in general. i think it's more that. it's a priority issue. not necessarily inside the executive branch. there's a lot of people that think this is theirs. and that's good. but we need more cohesiveness. if we're going to get focused on the problem, somebody has got to be in charge. somebody in the executive branch, whatever primary committees on the hill. somebody has to be in charge of this. >> time for a couple more questions. >> good morning. thank you for speaking today. my name is caroline kennedy. i'm the operations coordinator

with the international biosecurity and prevention forum. so this is u.s. government initiative. we do a lot of outreach to make sure people are sharing best practices internationally and domestically. as we do so much outreach, i find that many scientists or public health officials have a pretty good understanding of biosecurity and some of the threats that we face. someone mentioned we need to work on making sure that everyone is understanding and visualizing what the biological threat is. and i think that's a major issue that's lacking in the general public. if it is lacking, we will not get the impetus to further legislation on that. so essentially my question is, what do we do to better enable visualization of the pie logical and agricultural threat? >> that's a great question. >> a good documentary that gets

people's attention. a good documentary. what was the one on nuclear war? >> "the day after". >> it gets people's attention. all of a sudden you say, this isn't good. what can we do to stop this. i think a good documentary on this would be very helpful, one that captured people's imagination, as factual with as you can make it, not hyperbole, not too much drama, just explain how things could go wrong. i don't know if that's right. >> i agree. i also think, if i could go back to tara o'toole's comment, that we can take the lessons we acquired from the experiences we had in the last 15 years, whether avian influenza, ebola, h1n1. again, because i don't think we have had the leadership, and this isn't meant to be a partisan issue at all. because we have not had the

prioritization, maybe that's the word, people haven't made the connection between natural and deliberate. and we have to do a better job making the connection, whether it's a documentary or leadership that can speak to the issue around the country, or in this coordinated effort between congress and the administration. somebody has to make the link, the segue between natural and deliberate and say, look, this situation is as bad as it is, could be 100 times worse if there were a deliberate is the of circumstances that didn't the take much imagination. but that connection i think could be very helpful. >> i would only add if you watch all eight episodes of declassified" on cnn. i'll take any ideas after watching all eight episodes. >> the eight disk cd set is a

wonderful stocking stuffer if you're thinking about the holidays. i think we have time for one last question. >> my name is chris lewis. i'm a veterinary consultant, proud kansas state grad. you've talked a lot today about the national response with ebola, avian influenza. obviously it is a worldwide potential problem. how much is the international response and international relationship development being addressed at this point. thank you. >> i'll start by saying i think it is the same set of problems

ironically, with all the challenges we face, we don't see much more leadership internationally than domestically. in part i think it's a required that the united states step up to the plate and provide that elevated leadership is and prioritization. but we have to do the same thing internationally we have done and take those lessons learned and apply them to deliberate circumstances that could occur and will occur at some point in the future. >> if you see the problems we're having, magnify them by 10. in some cases they are five and ten years behind. not because they don't have any interest, they just can't muster

the same resources. it is almost more diffused than ours are. so we are all internationally and here in the united states are wrestling with the same problem. there's seems a little worse. that's where i think we can provide some leadership and help on an international basis to get all of our resources must erred up. maybe not everybody has to show up in liberia when ebola breaks out. maybe that's not the right decision approximately now everybody wants to show up the same place and commit some kind of a resource. maybe that's not the right answer. maybe we break it up like nato with its strategic force. some folks can do airplanes. some can do signal connection. we have to start looking at that around the globe and what can happen over time is everybody's

capabilities go up over time. >> the case study i would use is ebola. i was aware of some of the things going on in the department of defense to help. actually i was on the board of a nonprofit research too that was contributing to that. but there was a lot of confusion, a lot of false starts. that's probably indicative how well prepared we are internationally for ebola and probably most food, animal, plant sort of problems. in bangladesh, are we susceptible in the united sta s states? what steps are we taking to make

sure that doesn't hold up in our wheat crop? i'm sorry, i don't know the answer to that question. they don't know porders. we ought to approach it the same we do some of these diseases, in my opinion. >> i want to thank our first panel for framing it. [ applause ]. >> we will now transition to some of the details with our expert panel. i would just note bill hogue land, as many of you know, bill is one of the most credible people in this town when it comes to anything having to do with economic, budget, finance. he started his career at the usda. he may not tell you he leaves once a year to go home and help

harvest the wheat. bill is the real teal. thank you, bill.dteal. thank you, bill.eal. thank you, bill. good morning, everyone. jason took away what i wanted to say. i'm the only agricultural economist here from what i know. first of all, welcome, everybody. welcome particularly to my aggie colleagues out there. one of our founders of course being bob dole. but i would point out we are influenced tale by another, secretary dan glickman. we really appreciate the influence of kansas.

let me say the second panel here is very distinguished. i think probably build upon a number of issues that came up in the previous panel. first of all, let me introduce him. tammy beckman is the dean of the kansas state university college of veterinary medicine. bob callick is deputy director on select committee on intelligence. last but certainly not least, aisha george, co director of the panel you heard about in the blue ribbon study panel. before we get into some questions that i have, would each of you take just a couple of minutes and tell me -- tell the audience about your

perspectives on the bioagriculture landscape. on a scale of 1 to 10, where would you rate the security of our food system today on deadly pathogens coming into it. tammy, i'll start with you. >> sure. first of all, it's an honor to be here today. thank you so much. it's an honor to be here with my panelists. this is a particular passion of mine in protecting the food system is just incredibly important. as we sit here today, the agricultural industry gives us one of the safest, most affordable food supplies in the world. on average, i will just give you statistics. u.s. consumers spend 6.4% of their annual expenditures on food. if you compare that globally it is is anywhere between 11% and

47%. we know we have a robust agricultural system. we're very thankful for that. but the very things that make it so robust make it very susceptible. when we talked about it previously there's probably a little bit of complacency. we haven't seen foot and mouth decease in the u.s. since 1929. we don't have african swine fever or other diseases that are occurring abroad. how is it so difficult to get our arms around what's happening in the biological arena, they are found across the globe. it is difficult to the get around where they are and how they move. they are naturally occurring organisms. we see them globally. we talk about the global perspective here in a few minutes. we also know, going back to the comments made earlier about what tara o'toole said with naturally

occurring issues, we see those t too. we have used those to prepare us for potential or next natural or introduction of a transboundary disease. and i think there have been lessons learned. there have been things accomplished since 2001 in a great deal. but i think there are critical gaps that still exist. i'll tell you it wasn't until 2014 when ebola happened that the true meaning of one i think came to light and we saw some of the critical gaps that we face in bioand agri defense. a nurse was affected with ebola and she had a dog. so that brought to light the issues around one health and how close our companion animals are to people on a daily basis.

and just what that risk can be from interacting on a day-to-day basis whether that's with food or livestock or companion animals. we didn't have the counter measures to deal with that outbreak. we didn't have policies some place to show how to handle it and quarantine those type of things. call ought to u is sda, ama, they call came together and quickly put together policies and procedures so we have those. but in that event we were very much bare on how we would handle that where would the animals have gone. that came to light. we have critical gaps.

we have a national animal health laboratory, surveillance plans, the fed prep plans from usda, business continuity plans developed with our industry and sectors. all have been done since 2001. been coordinated from federal government to our states with our industry partners. so i want to give a shoutout to those agencies that helped coordinate that, private industry who helped coordinate and academia's role in all of that too. as i had, i think we still have a lot of gaps. we don't have a comprehensive biodefense program. we talked about barta. we don't have anything on the animal side that is analogous to what barta is.

we have to shed light on the companion animal side. i think that's what we are here today the. success in addressing these gaps will be really dependent on one health concept. all agency, allstate, all industry approach to addressing these things. as i mentioned, i think we have to have some capability to incentivize this. it is going to come through funding. it will come through real leadership at the top that will encourage people to work together. they are working together through one health initiatives. but we have to bring this more into focus on a very much higher level. and then we have to incentivize people to work in this area. and the other thing i will say is on a global level. these diseases can occur naturally. we are doing a lot on the global level to the global health security partners.

we help build capacity in the international arena. and we do so through incentivizing them to work. because of the way we're funded, the health side does one thing and the animal side does the other. through the injury, usda, dod, we have to bring the initiative together so we use the resources together. so when we talk about barta, there is an annual side of that. we have funding for the national veterinary stockpile. we have to have a conversation on a higher level conversation. >> from 1 to 10 some. >> i'm going to give it a six today. >> bob. >> thank you. first of all, thank you for the invitation to be here. certainly this is an area of

great interest to me. i'm going to start with a number. quite frankly, you can't get a single number. as i think tammy appropriately put out, there's a federal component to the state and local and clearly a commercial industry component. so first of all, i'll start with the commercial industry. i'll give 8 or 9. the profit share depends on the ability to provide safe food to us. you can imagine if there is a circumstance where they are deliberating the food chain it is really their bacon that has to be protected. they are there in the industry to do these things. i think from the state and local tights. and i will use iowa as an example.

the avian in influenza outbreak in iowa not only killed 25% or they had to call 25% of of the bird flock but it cost $1.8 million. the effects of these events, even when fairly localized, are pretty enormous. so state and local authorities that have significant agro business, whether it be california, north carolina, arkansas, whatever, they certainly take it seriously because it is their home turf if you will and quite frankly their jobs in the state economy. so i give them a seven or eight. when i look to the federal government and for the reasons i think the previous panel saided with great i think tail and authority, more than i can offer

is simply about a three or four. why? it is not an obvious visible priority. if you look at the latest farm bill and ask what provision was in there for food defense or agricultural security, i think you would be hard pressed to find anything of that nature in that bill. is it an issue of congress, the executive branch? the answer is we have heard many silos of excellence that exist across the domain. quite frankly the preponderance in the pieeo has been focused on human health issues. during my tenure in the white house when i served originally pack in 2002 to 2005 and then again in 2007 to 2009, the issue of one health was just emerging as a concept. the idea that this has not been embraced spiral through the entirety of government i think is really a function as senator daschle spoke eloquently on,

about leadership. focusing on these areas. as we have found out through that experience that the preponderance of antibiotic use that be in the food agricultural business where that has put great pressure on the creation of arguable resistant strains. so as companies are now voluntarily withdrawing the use of these antibiotics on wide scale, that is putting the honus onus on the pathogenics getting into the food system. so we have to have good surveillance. and how do we monitor the flock herd or the herd or whatever the animal species is to ensure they are not necessarily proposing risks to the consumers of those products. so i would say that is one area.

the last thing i will say is, to give you the low marks for the federal government, somebody mentioned hspd 9 which is u.s. agriculture and food. it is is one of the few you don't hear very much about in the biodefense. i will say the author of this was veterinarian of some distinction who went on to be deputy secretary of usda. but here's the challenge with that. that does not figure prominently in some of the conversations that are happening in halls of congress or in the halls of the executive office buildings around town. it's because primarily again issue of leadership. and if you look at the number of things that are contained in that particular document, which is awareness and warning, great vulnerability assessments, mitigation, response planning, research and development, outreach and professional development, some of these

things have been set into motion. the people at the ground level with money boots, growing crops, or managing the herds have been focused entirely on those issues day to day because that is their livelihood, their professional careers. but inside the beltway that has had not the same swing. that does get to the point of senior leadership and focus and priority on these issues. i'm hardened to hear that the obama administration recreated the senior position for biodefense security. where is that veterinarian managing these issues? i don't know if that person exists yesterday. arguably we're at the cusp of great opportunity. now to a new administration. the idea this can can be a central part, whether it is is the vice president or someone else who manages the portfolio. it is critical that it does get managed. just to highlight one thing. and we highlight terrorism.

i don't doubt they are out there planning bad people against good people like us. i will give a reference to something that is worth a read. the gray zone. it is is the idea that competition amongst great powers or countries in the world today will exist below the level of overconfidence. if you google gray zone you will find scholarly papers. and warfare with cyber in a way nonattributable or difficult to attribute that basically takes its toll on society or country you can talk about the information technology. it has economics. but the same set of issues as it relates to someone who would deliberately try to attack one of our gemstones of our society.

that is our food and agriculture. i fall for that as an issue that as we go forward that has to be central to whoever takes over the reigns of government both in congress and the white house. in congress it's harder. you have a number of committees and jurisdiction. you talk about the department of agriculture or the agricultural committee. interior department has a role in this. epa has a role in this. hhs has a role in this. so you can imagine the difficult that will happen. but a lot of these difficulties can be managed with good leadership in a prioritized focus. >> i too am going to join bob in multiple numbers for multiple things. the reason for that is we are talking about agriculture like it is a singular thing. one word for one thing. and the truth of the matter is the sector is composed of all

different types of things. supply chain, food, crops, farmers, industry, and people involved in pharmaceuticals and all of it. all of it is so much. i think you would have to assign a number for each and every one of those elements. and how they average that, i don't actually know. but i would also say that the number we might assign today is going to change tomorrow. it is is different last week, last year, a few years ago, back when bob was in the white house and so forth. and i think that's okay. i just wish that somebody was continuing to ask that question where are we, how do we feel about it? in addition to an enormous and extremely complex sector that we are worried about being attacked and affected, naturally or

intentionally, this issue of economic impact is a huge driver. as a driver or everybody. all the way down to the lowest level person. different boots on the ground, down with the farms. people are concerned about it. but they're concerned in terms of their livelihood. if you can't get somebody to be all excited about it because, oh, somebody is working on an agent and weaponizing it or moving it, you can get people interested in this issue just from the economic standpoint. the case in point for that would be white house studies done shortly after the foot and mouth disease outbreak in a number of years ago. we don't see a whole lot of national economic council studies on disease events. but we did back then. it's an important driver. again, now we're talking about the economy. we're talking about inputs into

the economy, how we optimize various elements of the economy. even so, going back to what was said earlier by chairman rogers. we have statements from terrorists and nation state actors saying they want to attack the economy. this is one way. and we can't afford to just disregard it. i think another point i would like to make is that in our attempt to address complicated problems, we take a tango of what they are composed of and we separate those pieces out. there's human decease over here, there's this cyber thing happening here. it is interfaced with some things. we have a livestock issue. we have a crop issue. we have a potential for attacking supply chain vulnerabilities and so forth. and we separate them. is and then we say department of commerce you're in charge of

this. that sounds like a department of ag thing. and that is now in dhs. so there is a dhs thing. but we separate them out and we try to address those individual strands individually. not that we are doing such a great job at that, but that is what we are trying to do. i think that leaves us separated. a it is actually a tangle where everything is touching everything else. i think we have to be more realistic about that. i don't think it's just a matter of putting somebody in charge. although we did of course put out that recommendation. our number one recommendation is that the vice president be put in charge of all biodefense, including agro defense. i think it's a question of right minded, right educated folks.

we have a political system which is wonderful. but if we want somebody to address agro defense issues, biodefense issues and so forth, we need people who actually know about those people sitting in those political appointments. we have to have people who have an idea what they're talking abo about. this is an example of hurricane katrina. everyone ragged on the tkpheu administrator at the time. he went for a political appointment and got it. he was not the right person to be in that position at the time. what did we do after that? we said if we're going to have somebody be in charge of fema, we have to have somebody month has a significant and deep

emergency management background that is also political. we have to the same thing in this arena. lastly, and i know we need to move on i think we mentioned what we want to do from a state and local perspective. agriculture is a state and local issue as much as it is anything else. we talk about fusion centers, law enforcement and so forth. i think more than anything else with the sole exception of human medicine agriculture affects every state in the country. somebody has something going on with absolutely everything. not even has a nuclear weapon sitting in their state. engaging everybody requires actually understanding that. and then turning everybody on,

whether it's a primary activity in their state and locality or not. so while i'm heartened to hear that the kansas fusion center is taking a look at this i am not so heartened to think the other fusion centers are not. and they should. we're talking about protecting the nation from something that could affect the entire nation and any state in the nation. and so as we any about this, we have to have people who think in that manner as well and aren't so tempted to constrain it to a few states or constrain it to a few deceases or to a few departments and agencies. >> we're going to leave time for questions from the audience here. and i had a number of questions. but let me -- one thing i'm going to the take away from this conversation real quickly is building upon senator daschle's comments earlier.

this agency -- the coordination of a number of agencies and alphabet soup of agencies out there. you mentioned a number of them, bob. i would like to shout out the department of defense is involved in a big way and one of the successes they helped up was ebola last year. so coordination is a big issue be going forward. we'll jump over. i think we touched upon it in the previously panel. let me go to something down into the weeds a little bit here. that is in 2014-2015, the department of agriculture had to transfer i think about a billion dollars from the corporation over to afus to the take the over bovine encephalitis, tuberculosis at the time. that agency's budget doubled just because of that one issue in usda.

tammy, maybe you were involved. how to you rate our dealing at that time, the federal government? got a pretty low grades here for the federal government. how did they do in that particular crisis situation? >> so i don't think i'm in a position to rate how they did. i want to comment on something you said. you said their budget doubled. so my point i want to make is that too often we're reactionary and we're not proactive. so the fact that we're having to transition money to the an agency that has this responsibility to take care of these things is reactive and not proactive. that's kind of what we are here to talk about today. i'll tell you during the outbreak i think they handled it well. i think there was a number of things they had to step up to the plate on recently and do. these are the routine things they do on a regular basis, afus

does. they redefine laboratory definitions. we have national animal health laboratory. 57 labs are testing for avian influenza. but we are too reactionary and not proactive. i will say i do believe these agencies obviously have taken all of these action plans, put steps in place. there is a nice after action plan that talks about the things they learned during that outbreak. preparing is always better. we're often too reactionary. i think that's why we are here today, to call more attention to talk about how we prepare on the front end so we are better ready to engage in the event there is an outbreak. having said that, you can never fully prepare for what's going to happen, correct? there could be many different variations. you could have three different

foot and mouth diseases intro tuesdayeded across the u.s. we need to be prepared to detect and respond. too often we think disease by disease and don't think emerging diseases. or all of the one health approach toward disease preparedness. we talked about amr. you asked that question. what are the things that we can leverage. we should be leveraging our surveillance systems that are already out there like this. at a&m, we were engaging veterinarians to provide information through electronic means. why couldn't we use the same system to collect data on amr, instead of different agencies funding different people to collect that data. that doesn't make any sense, right? we have to look at this as more of an olive agency, industry

approach. only if we do it with academia. but if we come together through academia. if we come together we can address these issues. >> if i can just add just on a different note. i think the recent zika event highlights the challenge of our government responding to these kind of events you have to have congress appropriated money to do this. the fact that they were able to do an internal shift of budget, move something across, on something no doubt traumatic and disruptive to the agency involved. it was certainly the case with zika where they had to shuffle money around. it's interesting. we have the disaster relief fund which funds fema. every year we put money into a fund that based on the presidential declaration that money can be used.

it is already preappropriated. everybody knows all disasters are local. so i think politicians generally understand that the flood in north carolina today could be a tornado in kansas tomorrow. but that money is set aside for those legitimate mentals and they don't require congressional action to do it. it would only make sense to kind of highlight just something that came up in the recent campaign that was proposed to have a public health emergency response fund as a means to basically have a pot of money so that in the case of the next zika, you don't have to do that. well, it would only make more sense to have a similar fund or same fund to be used for these veterinarian or agricultural emergencies that are significant. maybe not as costly in some ways but certainly significant. the fact is these are the kinds of things arguably the leader can say we need that can is

suggest in the next presidential budget that money is allocated so we shouldn't be surprised. we may be surprised, yes, two strains of fmd or not, or maybe it's another form of avian influenza. but the point here is these are the kind of anticipated emergencies that could be prepared for in a way that accommodates our democracy, in a way that lives by the constitution that we can have these funds set aside to teal with legitimate emergencies in a time sensitive fashion that minimized the impact, economic and personal impact that these things have. >> thank you. i'm the moderator. i'm not supposed top take a position. buff i concur on this particular position. but there are those things we know we are going to have to fund. maybe in the short amount of time we have left, i want to give a shout out to the kansas

state biosafety level 4. i heard the money has been funded for the building and the construction and yon going. we have an authorizing appropriations staff out here. tell this is built, how are we going to keep it operational, given budgetary constraints. i guess i make some of my ag friends matt. shouldn't the ag sector itself, the user fees, shouldn't they be contributing, since the impact this would have on the ag secretary's big, don't they a role to play in helping to fund these activities? >> so defense facility will hope in 2023, ag facility, and it will be the gold standard state-of-the-art facility for study and animal diseases. having said that, $1.25 billion

facilities that been funded to open in 2022, 2023. at this moment, we need tow start looking at problematic funding for the security programs that will house in this facility. right now, if you look at the funding for plum island, we're talking about three or four million dollar budgets within the u.s.d.a. programs and dhs budget somewhere around 15 problematic and not looking to expand, as i understand it, over the next several years ag. that's a problem, when you are building a $1.25 billion facility, it should be somewhere around $15 million to be real fair and to be able to execute the program that they need to execute, within a one health environment. and to be able to be a true partner with the cdcs of the world, hhs, within that one health context.

right now, i'm not sure of a lot of activity that's going on to build that budget over the next several years that's going to include everything from work force education and training, as we know that a lot of the plum island staff will not be transferring to manhattan. there will need to be a concerted effort to do that. as we talked to, we need to anticipate that and start to put dollars and educating the work force from the dhs side of the house, ep deidmoligists, and we need to train the work force that will go into the facility. we need to increase the budgets and getting the money appropriated so we can build the right sized scientific programs. >> thank you. real quick. bob, if you were elected to

congress or president next year, what's the one or two things you would say needs to be done quickly in this area? >> i would say that -- i would say that we really do need that leader, and defense coordination council that we recommended. but as part of that, pulling the u.s.d.a., department of interior, department of commerce, some of these departments that we're not used to thinking about when it comes to defense related issues and homeland security issues, pulling them in and making them true, making them true partners in this endeavor. >> any thoughts? >> boy, i don't know if i want that or not. the short story is basically convene your cabinet and basically, this is a priority. this a priority, mr. d and i or

ms. d and i, secretary of agriculture, secretary of homeland security, this is a priority. you all have something to contribute, you have something to do here. what you need to do is build a plan that will make our agriculture and food industry resilient. this is a partnership not with the government but with the state and local partners and commercial industry and i would look for you to convene with your partners to come up with a plan and report back in 90 days, what are the thee or four things that i can take to congress to make sure it is part of my new budget to drive this as a priority of the country. >> would you like to take a shot at it? would you like to be elected? >> no, but i would agree with that, exactly. i think you need to take a look at what would be the -- i don't want to see the veterinary side of the house left out. you need the expertise there on the agricultural side.

i would convene a group to reach out to the stakeholders and industry and to academia, and to the states to decide what the top two or three priorities are to shore up the agricultural defense system. >> we have time here for about 15, maybe 15, 20 minutes of questions, and in the previous panel, please identify yourself and ask a question to directed to any of the panelists up here. question right up here on front. >> hi, kevin kane with the association for veterinary medical colleges. last week i was involved in a day long process of figuring out what is going to go into the next farm bill, the five year authorization, and it is still a little ways off. but if you could have your sort of dream authorization in that bill to kind of address some of

the things you talked about today, what would that be? >> what would that look like? >> when it comes to the farm bill and other authorizing vehicles, i think it is important to ask the question that you just asked. make sure people are clear. i think part of this has to do with setting expectations. it has never been an expectation of the farm bill to include something to do with any national security issue. so somebody has to set that expectation, and then the congressional staff and congressional members will respond to that. but i think specifically, there are very, very specific activities that are already ongoing that need to be authorized if they haven't been authorized already waiting around for the national animal health laboratory network to get authorized until just so recently, it is a little ridiculous. it could very well have gotten into the farm bill. i wouldn't want to say thousands of pages of that sort of thing,

but somebody needs to make sure what is already happening is authorized and will allow congress to conduct the oversight it needs to. i would put that in there, and i would make sure that a national strategy, similar to what we're requiring or recommending for bio defense in general, that national strategy activity be put into the farm bill as well. particularly addressing agriculture obviously, but giving the department of agriculture a leadership role in that, along with the other major players. i think that's really important, as with human bio defense, there are a million little strategies and plans all over the place that have to be brought together, and form a really good strategy. the rest of it, you start getting into pieces and parts, right, which happens with congressional legislation. i understand. but i think without the

strategy, we're continuously disorganized and we need it. >> questions out here? >> question over here. hi, my name is dennis lee, i'm with a small company. the last panel, i know dr. beckham talked about we're too reactive and not proactive enough. with the former panel talking about all these disparate agencies and unified control. one of the questions is how do you then, instead of all these agencies or the commercial actors or whatever to be -- start being proactive, instead of being reactive? is there a way we can do this? do you have suggestions for how this could happen? >> if i could take an initial stab at this, first of all, you don't have to make a case to the commercial industry to be proactive. they're on top of these things, because it really does reflect

their brand and their profit share. the question is, from the federal government, particularly what are the things that they can do to set in motion if you will to be prepared for the next event. you know, part of these things are very, i don't want to say not sexy, i mean it, making sure we have a -- you have a professional cadre of people out there that are trained that can do this. you know, i had a conversation before this panel started, i was talking with tammy, and identified that the number of applicants to veterinary schools are going down. at a time when we probably need more veterinaryians for a variety of rnseasons, small and large. it gets the idea of training, ensuring we have a robust career field, that allows you to draw upon people. because you can't predict the next disaster. the idea of having money set

aside for these things is a significant one. >> so i would just comment by saying it comes with funding, right, you tie funding to incentivizing and holding people accountable. the industries do have that sense, because of their brand and the commercialization obviously. the bio pharmaceutical agency, how do we incentivize them for a market that doesn't exist in the supplement today. h -- in the u.s. today. is that working with our federal government partners to develop programs like barda to incentivize them to develop that type of counter measure that we need. the other thing i would say, just going back to the comment about veterinary colleges, we need to grow the work force that's interested in this area. we have about 1.6 applicants to the ratio there. i think we have to continue to get folks that are in college

interested in these areas to work in, whether it is the federal government, public health. we have a lot of our graduates that go out and practice companion animal medicine. that obviously as colleges, we educate for all spectrums of the profession. but we also need to open their eyes to the other opportunities out there, and global veterinarian medicine, it really relies on the one health concept and getting out and building abroad. these are rewarding careers, and educating the veterinary profession and those kids that are in colleges now to those opportunities is going to be absolutely critical. i think elevating the value of that veterinarian degree, take a look at the role that they play today, the role we play in the food supply and protecting the food supply and protecting your pets healthy. we play such an incredible role in society and getting that message out there and adding the

value is so toimportant as we me forward. >> questions out here? >> good morning, i would like to thank both of the sets of panelists. my name is kathleen giles. rather than the acronym, i would spell it out. basically the previous questions, and then comments from the last panel, as far as what the federal government is doing. right now, i'll say that my unit is working closely with afis, we are about to launch a class that we've written called animal plant health. it is training boots on the ground industry, local, state veterinarians, local, state law enforcement how to work together. that means information sharing from when it happens. because if the fbi or law enforcement finds out three years later we're not going to

be able to find the path to be able to involve it if it was intentional. i know in the past, our animal and our plant health experts not necessarily think anything beyond accidental or natural. so let the expert, let the fbi, let the local law enforcement think about intentional, working together, it is a great partnership. so what we're doing in december, mexico state university for the very first class, we're actually teaching this to our local wmd coordinators, local law enforcement, border patrol, anyone that has a stake in this. so my question to this panel and the previous panel would be it is recognized. we recognize the vulnerability. we're trying to come up with a way to bridge that gap. but we don't have money to actually do this. we're working on basically we've been promised 29% of what we've asked for, and that's across the unit. and we're launching all these new initiatives, and we try to put congressional notes out so

we can speak to the experts in congress and to the lawmakers. what do you suggest? how can obviously we want to be partners with you on this. how can we fund this, like tammy, you shouldn't have to have a huge investment there, and not have anyone staffing it. >> yeah. >> sorry. >> i think this is a challenge for every single topic we could possibly come up with. everybody asks the same question. and you know, i would tell you about ten years ago, members of congress would sit in local field hearings and say united states government is broke. so you cannot come here today and say what we need is more money. now, that said, we obviously have a budget. and we have mechanisms going on. in order to increase the amount of money put in a budget item, there are a number of things that have to happen. one is that the president actually has to put it in the

president's budget. if it doesn't make it over there, then that's coming over to congress for congress to respond to. the other element of this is what's happening with appropriations and authorization. if nobody on that side is asking for it either, then now you have a huge gap. so as far as the role of the fbi is concerned, you know, the bureau has to get out and say this is what we need and this is why we need it, of course, and they are. complicated thing and we have to look at those various elements. the reason i bring it up is that it is not enough. it is simply not enough to say we need more money. we have to take it down levels lower and lower to where we are identifying exactly how much money we need, we're communicating up on the legislative branch and the executive branch and all of the different branchs and getting to stakeholders who actually ask the same thing of the folks that are putting money in.

and then the other issue has to do with public/private partnerships, and industry putting in money as well. it's not -- as much as we would like to, because we love the fbi, it is not the fbi's entire responsibility to execute some of these activities. i think we have to think smarter, and get some industry funding in as well. >> can i first of all thank you for making that contribution. but could i ask the three experts, had you heard about this project before? >> yes. >> okay, good. glad to hear that. >> i would say the farm bill may be an opportunity to raise this issue as a legitimate educating, if you will, the first responder community. it would seem to me that would be a functional area that could be part of the farm bill provision. >> it would be interesting to get the judiciary committees to weigh in on the farm bill.

i'm not sure that they ever have in the past. >> mr. grassley should have some interest in that. >> any other questions out here, quickly? i see no other questions, and i know our cameras are going to shut down here in a couple of minutes, so let me first of all, thank all of you, thank the panelists. just a little closer here from my perspective. first of all, i grew up on a farm, so i veterinaryians long before i saw a medical doctor, i can tell you that for sure. in fact, my brother saw what the vet was making and he became a vet. but a small animal veterinarian. not the direction you wanted to go. and doing a little prep for this event, i re-read sections of jared diamond's wonderful book, some of you may remember, "guns, germs and steel."

and in that book, he relived the events surrounding the mandam indian tribe from the great plains, which i think covered part of kansas and the great plains out there. and how an 1837, the tribe contracted smallpox from a steamboat that was traveling up the missouri river from st. louis, and i don't think it was intentional, per se. i think we have some bad history that there was some use of smallpox as a weapon. but in a couple of weeks, that tribe went from 40,000 down to something like 40. a tremendous drop. so terrible diseases from animal related pathogens has a scary history. we hope at the center this

discussion heelevates this a little bit. i would love to see this discussed in presidential campaign, than it has been discussed and i hope we can continue to press on. thank you all for joining us this morning, and have a good day. [ applause ] tomorrow night on c-span, a conversation on race and justice in america. we'll hear from activists and political strategists from both sides of the aisle about how the next president should approach

racism and police misconduct. >> if she did something counter intuitive as bill clinton did with welfare reform, she would be do something bad for black people, because his policy was bad for poor people. the welfare reform. and which is why the guys who are here at the kennedy school, like david elwood and others, had a tough time being there, and my good friend, peter edelman. in any case, that would be bad. but if you mean by your question would she then be somebody who would feel the pressure to do something for african-americans, because she is white, and because she a white woman, the answer to that is she probably would feel greater pressure, because african-americans are more willing to say something to a white person who is in office

than they are to barack obama. we just want him to be there and stay until -- and don't die before -- you know, whatever. what she would do, i don't know. >> a lot of people think that donald trump just has no coherent view of policy or politics. and i would argue that that's not the case at all. his view is actually very coherent and this is how i would draw it. he is a nativist across all spheres of policy. right, so he is against foreigners competing with americans for labor. immigration. he is against foreigners competing with america for goods and services, ie, free trade. against american involvement in foreign policy, broadly speaking. he wants to say i don't want the whole world go to hell and do my own thing, i won't be involved in foreign wars. every single one of his policies is about looking inward and being afraid of engaging with

other countries, particularly non-european countries. and that's -- i understand that there are very legitimate policy -- we can have a debate about whether free trade is good or bad, how to make it work for workers in america, but it is important to understand there is a strain of anti-free trade movement about nativism and not a real economic critique. the entire discussion on race and justice in america is tomorrow night on c-span at 8:00 eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. georgetown university recently hosted a conference on sexual assault on college campuses.

researchers, legal experts and college administrators discussed the prevalence of sexual assault, problems with reporting assaults, and how colleges deal with the issue. i'm going to very briefly introduce the folks on the panel and then turn it over to them. this panel as you see is on harassment and fair process, and we have nancy cantalupcantalupo georgetown university. along with william kidder, associate vice-president and chief of staff in the office of

the president, and they're going to be presenting their paper is "below the surface of the water in the title 9 iceberg." and then we have brian pappas, who is, bear with me, a complicated title. associate professor of clinical law, associate director of the adr program and director of the conflict resolution clinic at michigan state university. his paper is "abuse of freedom, balancing quality and title 9 procedures." then kelly behre, legal assistance clinic. and she is talking about the brainstorming about the role of law school clinics in providing legal assistance of intimate partners and sexual assault. and then alexandra brodsky, senior editor, and she'll be talking about a rising tide.

so where do you want to start? >> i think that i am supposed to start, so, okay. so bill and my paper was the idea of it was really initiated by bill, because he was following several of the sort of prominent faculty harassment cases that were occurring on primarily at institutions on the west coast, and was involved in some things at his institution when he was in a former position. and so when we first started talking about the paper, i suggested that we -- that we try to collect the case law and the ocr investigations that had involved faculty harassment. similarly to research that i had done some years ago with regard

to peer harassment. and it quickly became obvious to us that there were several reasons why looking at the case law and the ocr investigations was not going to work as well in this context as it had in the peer harassment context. and so in the interest of time, i'm not going to go into all of the reasons, but suffice it to say that we decided that we needed to cast the net a bit wider. and we ultimately decided to look at three sources in an effort to map the problem of faculty sexual harassment. the first set of data that we looked at was social science literature on sexual harassment and sexual violence in the workplace. and, well, in the workplace in educational institutions and occasionally in the criminal context. and specifically, what we were

looking at there was we were looking at research on the harms that come to victims and survivors of sexual harassment and violence. we looked at the incidents rate of faculty sexual harassment, particularly faculty sexual harassment of graduate students, which is, i'll explain that focus in a second. and then finally, we looked at the amount of serial harassment, by which i mean a single harasser who harasses multiple victims. so that was the social science category. and then our second category was looking at private lawsuits and ocr investigation resolutions in cases that were brought by victims who had been harassed by faculty. and this was, you know, there were close to 140 of these cases

total. so, and then the third category was news stories regarding accusations of harassment by faculty. so i'm going to talk about the social science research and the court cases, and ocr investigations. and then bill is going to discuss the media reports as well as what we believe are the necessary steps that schools should be taking to address faculty sexual harassment. so there is relatively little social science data directly on the topic of faculty harassment. but the recent activity that's been spurred by the white house task force to get colleges and universities to survey their students about sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus has started to gather some of this data. and so we do now have some data on faculty harassment of graduate students.

and some of the large -- so the largest survey that's been done as far as we know to date is the aau study, and so that's with 27 colleges and universities, major research institutions across the country, and you can see from the chart that the rates of sexual harassment reported by graduate students is quite high. and it is especially high for transgender and gender nonconforming folks, and that is then followed by women graduate students. and you can also see that a fair amount of that harassment is happening at the hands of faculty or other university employees. again, with the highest percentage for transgender and nonconforming students, gender nonconforming students, and then

with women students next, and men students last. so i said earlier, i would talk about why we are focusing on graduate students, and basically we decided to focus on graduate students because our feeling and at least some of the social scientists involved in these surveys have articulated similar reasons, our feeling was that graduate students are uniquely vulnerable to faculty harassment, and that's because of how closely they work with faculty. it is the length of time they are often in their graduate programs. and the importance of their relationships with faculty members in terms of the graduate students future careers. and we're also aware that graduate students are the pipeline to the profession for almost all of the disciplines in

academia. so to the extent that certain groups of graduate students face more harassment and hostility, that is likely to affect the demographics of future faculties and university leadership. so you know, for both of these reasons, this group seemed like an important group to spend sometime on. so, okay, so the aau survey data is corroborated by smaller surveys or older surveys, but it doesn't tell us that much about what has been the theme of the media reports on faculty harassment. which is the extent to which a few faculty members are harassing multiple students. and so since we couldn't really find any studies directly on that question, we looked at studies on serial harassment and serial sexual aggression, which is a social science concept that

measures similar kinds of conduct to sexual harassment. and you know, there are only a few of those studies that deal with serial harassment in the workplace, or with repeat sexual aggression between university students. but even though that body of research is relatively small, the studies that are available pretty much agree that sexual -- that serial harassers and assailants account for a lot of the sexual harassment, and violence that is occurring out there. so mainly, what the social science research doesn't capture for us, though, as legal scholars and as attorneys is how much of what social scientists measure as sexually harassing or sexually aggressive conduct is

sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to constitute sexual harassment as a legal matter. and so you know, on the severe end of the sexual harassment spectrum, you know, when we're talking about sexual assaults, sexual violence, this is not as much of a problem, because on the severe end, one instance of sexual assault for instance is generally agreed to constitute sexual harassment sufficient to create a hostile environment as a legal matter. but you know, one sexist remark in class or even several such remarks will often not constitute hostile environment/sexual harassment. it could conceivably show up as a data point in the social science surveys. so to address the gap between the social science literature and the legal standard, we

looked at the court cases brought by plaintiffs alleging sexual harassment by faculty, and investigations conducted by the office for civil rights and the department of education involving a complaint or complaints of faculty sexual harassment. and we looked at 68 court cases and 65 ocr investigation resolution letters, all of which took place after 1998, and we selected that date simply because that's the year that the supreme court decided the jebser case, and which is sort of the modern era of tigtle 9 and sexul harassment. so of those 133 cases, we found 46 cases where a faculty member was accused of engaging in

conduct where there is enough detail about the conduct that we or the court or the investigators determined that there was a claim of severe or pervasive hostile environment/harassment that was directed at a student. so in looking at these 46 cases, we looked at the conduct alleged to see what the faculty harassment of the students looks like, you know, who exactly is doing the harassment, who are -- who are they harassing. how are they harassing them. and how are others reacting to the harassment. and we found a couple of general themes. so the first is on the slide, 57% of these cases involved unwelcome sexual touching ranging from hugs and kisses to sexual groping, coercive intercourse, forcible rape and

the kinds of physical assaults and psychologically abusive and controlling behavior that is often associated with domestic violence. so you know, you're probably thinking or you may be thinking, well, that's probably, you know, probably more of that unwelcome touching is sort of incidental contact, like someone putting their arm around someone, or giving a student a hug who didn't welcome it. but in -- oh, sorry. but in fact, if you look at the other bars on this chart, you can see that the greatest, the most sort of violent or most severe forms of sexual harassment actually get the

most -- the most cases are in those categories. and we only had a very few cases that we found where it was just, you know, something like a hug or a kiss or something like that. so and then the other thing we saw, because i'm already out of time, is with regard to serial harassment. so these, this is the statistics on serial harassment or, you know, the base eic percentage o sexual harassment was 62% involved serial harassers, and this, you know, again, this was conduct that was alleged by the students or the plaintiffs in the cases.

and this was very much weighted on the side of the course cases as opposed to the ocr cases. but it was a high percentage in both areas. so with that, i will pass it along to bill. >> thank you, everyone. he want to thank margaret and robin for hosting this important conference today. so this is sort of an odd partnership in some ways for a paper. normally, i publish a little on the side in areas related to affirmative action, and for me, sort of stretching outside my comfort zone would be writing about campus racial climate or affirmative action and financial aid. so this several orders of magnitude, different than my previous efforts in that regard. but in my administrative life, i have had this separate professional experience life working for many years in a

probust office, overseeing title 9 office, where i had been involved in quite a number of serious faculty misconduct cases, including the last two cases in the university of california system that went all the way to the board of regents for termination proceedings of a tenured faculty member. so i don't discuss those two cases in this paper, but it animates my reservoir of experience and how i analyze the cases and work with nancy on this paper. so nancy talked about a couple spheres of evidence, one being the social science. we don't have time to get into that in great detail. there is some interesting social science in this area. another being the cases in ocr complaints that you reviewed. a third area, because these are all confidential, and because

unlike in almost all litigation, the fact that there was litigation is public, even if it is a jane doe case. unlike those circumstances, most faculty miscond whether for sexual harassment, or other kinds of misconduct, are entirely outside of the sphere of public knowledge. except when there are media reports. so we looked at that as a separate sphere of data collection. so these are just cases, big cases in the news in 2015, and '16, we could have easily filled up 15 bullet points instead of five, if we had the time and the inclination. but just to kind of give you a flavor of what's been going on at many leading universities around the country. so to start with, uc berkeley, they have basically had a total catastrophic meltdown over this

issue, over the last two years. so for example, last summer, i was testifying in defending a faculty termination case in federal court at the same time this whole controversy over jeff marcy was playing out in summer 2015 on the berkeley campus, marcy was on the short list for a nobel prize. he had a 20-year track record, it looks like, at least of some degrees of complaints about his groping and unwelcome sexual advances, and so on. that was just one case where the anemic disciplinary response by the campus was regarded within the uc berkeley community and within the broader community as morley repugnant basically. 36, i'm sorry, over 20 of

marcy's departmental colleagues in the astronmy signed a letter saying he was not fit to return to duty as a professor. that really more than the administrative response is what caused him to resign. second case at uc berkeley unfolded in the spring of 2016, and that involved the dean of the uc berkeley law school, chowdry, the second to resign amid a sexual harassment scandal. so dean chowdry had an executive assistant and there was a title 9 investigation of her complaint against him that substantiated violations. again, very anemic sanctions, at least thus far toward chowdry. he received a 10% pay decrease or salary cut for one year.

that was his initial sanction. until this case again kind of blew up in the media and a significant blow back within the academic community as well as the larger public. so he had allegedly pit his hands -- his assistant's hands on his waist and engaged in kissing and bear hugs and a long part earn of unwelcome conduct that spanned many weeks and months. there was a third major case at berkeley, and that involved the advice chancellor for research, gordon fleming. and he was also found to have groped the breast of his middleman injumiddle manager and engaged in similar miss conduct as was described about the law dean. and then as if to punctuate or

symbolize the systemic problems on the berkeley campus with respect to enforcement of ethical norms, the assistant vice chancellor that fleming was alleged to have harassed, she herself had been fired for sexual harassment related conduct toward her subordinate employees. so, and she did that behavior after the conduct from vice chancellor fleming. so again, there is an inter connectiveness in ways that is surprising. so that's the berkeley case. i'll kind of move more quickly through the others. northwestern, we have some -- northwestern folks here at the conference who probably have a lot more facts on the ground about that. but professor ludlow in the fillpy departmefill

fil philosophy, had sex. the first time around, he received a very modest sanction of i think he withheld a merit increase of $3,000. the second time around, as the case progressed and as he lost his lawsuit against the students and the university, he resigned basically as he was essentially circling the drain. university of west virginia, school of medicine. it is important in discussing this whole topic to make a mental note that in the stem sciences and in laboratory, scientific laboratories, there are particular constellations of vulnerabilities with respect to sexual harassment of graduate students of post dock, and this is also true in a medical school

context. so the chair of the neurosurgery department, he was found to have sexually harassed two staff nurses, and an assistant at the medical school. and that resulted in a $1.3 million settlement. so they paid the $1.3 million settlement, and yet, the university still maintained this individual, dr. cohen, as the department chair. and did not sanction him. yale university, we have several folks with yale ties here. i won't get into all the cases, but one of the cases that came up in recent months is around professor, is it poeg or pogey, and his conduct toward a recent graduate has -- there is a lot of blogging about that in

philosophy and ethics sphere. university of colorado at boulder. in that case, there was an outside committee by the american philosophical association. that found systemic abuse issues there. so, again, that's just kind of a slice of what's going on at some leading campuses. so another thing we looked at in addition to the cases that nancy talked about is when colleges and universities do fire faculty for sexual harassment and those cases are litigated, what are the outcomes? so it is a little hard to read. we have print copies there. if you want to read the cases. but really, it is the weight of the cases and the pattern that matters more. so by a three to one ratio,

these are all cases involving tenured faculty. so if there are a lot of other cases, we excluded that would have padded the stats with firing lecturers or part-time instructors, athletic, et cetera, but if we focused on these 20-plus federal and state termination case, basically by a three to one ratio, the universities have been able to successfully defend their termination of that faculty member. the common themes, each of the cases that involve a university losing, it is kind of like the line about how happy families are alike, and unhappy families are each unhappy in their own way. in each of the cases where a university lost, there is some salient due process issue or they didn't follow their own procedures, and we can get into that more, if we have time for q and a.

so those are the kinds of evidence that we looked at, and this is all driving to our conclusion in the paper. again, we don't have a comprehensive ability to analyze the body of administrative cases in this area, because everything is confidential. and we only can get pieces of that. but we have every reason to believe it is much like civil litigation, where you know, maybe based on the abf data, about one-fifth of cases are dismissed right out of the gate. so, a lot of cases, maybe half, are settled early on in the resolution process, another one-fifth are dismissed on summary -- there is a summary judgment motion. and then only a small portion of the cases where there is an allegation are like in civil litigation would actually go to

trial. so the data we've looked at, both the uc data and impressionistically from other sources bears that out. but the number of cases that involve a formal privilege and tenured discipline hearing are a small fraction of the universe of cases that involved in litigation and investigation, and those cases in turn are a modest fraction of the total universe of cases that we think what's going on and many of those cases are never reported. so to the issue of sanctions. so we looked at the social science, we looked at the policy research. and kind of came up with this constellation of factors as to why serious disciplinary sanctions are important. some of this is rooted in

classical, social logical theory. ethical norms are being transgressed, when those ethical norms are being violated, that's the most conspicuous moment the meaning of those norms becomes most salient for the population. for the student population, for other members of the academic community. and so it is those moments of a case like jeff marcy or gordon -- graham fleming or some of the others that i mentioned that it is most important for the academic community to communicate through disciplinary sanctions. so a number of universities have an institutional culture that is very risk averse in the area of disciplinary sanctions. for example, as ucla, i'm not speaking to their overall culture, but it is the case that

in the last 50 years, they've never had a faculty termination proceedings for any reason. obviously, a number of faculty have been gone through the process and maybe resigned, but they've never had a termination proceedings. the same is true of harvard university. not dating back to last week, but dating back to 1638. they have never had a faculty termination in that 400 year period, and there is even a 19th century example where a professor killed another professor, but went to the gallows with his tenure intact. so in addition to the issue of leadership, the research shows that leadership is a salient factor in terms of creating a sense of confidence in enforcement of title 9. when there is a conspicuous absence of disciplinary

sanction, it has the syndrome of other negative consequences. under reporting of incidents, retaliation to those who do report incidents. a chilly retention climate. this is especially so within stem fields. a greater embattled climate with respect to ocr and with respect to litigation, and some of these very campuses that i talked about are the ones that you could characterize as being embattled on issues around sexual harassment and title 9. i'll leave it with that.

>> i'm not trying to check my e-mail. so i also want to thank the conveners for such an engaging symposium. my remarks are really going to meld nicely with nancy and bill's presentation. and i need to start by some commentary on my powerpoint skills. i'll let you decide whether that's true for me or not. i'm looking at university processes and they get quite complex. i needed some language, but nonetheless, my powerpoint skills -- any way. it has been quite nicely established here that we have widespread sexual misconduct, widespread nonreporting, and in effectual institutional response. and so complainants are unhappy because they aren't being taken

seriously, they aren't being investigated properly. on the other side of that, respondents and their supporters feel that either the ocr requirements are unlawful new rules, promulgated without notice and comment, that they have limited confrontation of witnesses, limited right to a hearing, and when i say hearing, i mean the traditional setting in which they would have the other party present. and so you can see in the ocr's q & a document from 2017, what is defined can include an investigation for administrative purposes in terms of the confrontation. concerns of lack of full representation. concerns of lower standard of proof, meaning preponderance versus clear and convincing. continued employment than students do in education, especially since there is some

contractual guarantees, but they often receive fewer safeguards than those governing misconduct. and also, universities maybe infringing on some shared governance issues when they work to apply administrative solutions, and create consistency with faculty processes. and so there is a tension there between efficiency and procedures, and we need carefully designed processes so that these things can exist. one of the questions is how do these processes inter relate. my analysis of these examples are as best as i can determine. it is not easy looking at these processes and figuring out what happens when, how does it work. and so my audience for this material is frankly law faculty. because it is hard to understand these issues with a lot of in-depth study. when we take our typical understanding of criminal law

and when we default to our basics, we can ends up with a less than nuanced understanding of how these processes work together. my goal is to have greater engagement of the entire academy on these issues and hopefully improve process. i'm going to skip my first slide here, because they explained the prevalence of sexual misconduct by faculty. i'm going to skip this one as well and talk about some research that i did when i completed my dissertation and some examples that i learned from a variety of different title 9 coordinators at different institutes of higher education. in 2011, faculty staff misconduct was much more prevalent. much more. student to student, peer to peer wasn't on the radar. just in 2011, this just came out. when my data collection concluded in 2014, i saw that switch. sheer a quote, i threatened to

put a policy together banning future relationships and get it approved. you would have thought i called every faculty a pedophile. the uproar to do such a thing. why would i do that if there is no problem. i have students running around here who are marking a chalkboard about how many professors they've bagged. any research campus, there are a number of faculty that take advantage of their positions to develop relationships with their graduate students, one in particular had a habit of inviting students to co-author. this offer came with an invitation of sexual acts. if i say no, i will loss this professional opportunity. i've had a number of students come to me. i've never see anybody win their case. in order for a tenured faculty member to have consequences, they have not just be sleeping with the student, but the

student has to be dead at the time. in some institutions, that's true. it has to be that bad, that obvious, to go through the process for the claimant to see an out come in their favor. i had many people -- the first time i heard that quote, i was surprised. when you get into the nitty-gritty of the work, sometimes the outcome isn't in the interest of the administrative's investigation. it is in the interest of the university, and i think being able to stand up and help them see that is important. so when we think about due process rights, students do have a property and liberty interest. it is less subtle of that of faculty and we know they need some kind of notice, some kind of hearing. it is not that much different for faculty. only circuits disagree on the extent of that. there are three models that i see out there currently, and that's an investigation model.

a hearing model, and a hybrid of the two. and this goes along with what we heard this morning in our keynote about and sanctions. this is the satisfies the hearing requirement under ocr and they use a preponderance standard. that can be appealed to a panel with the potential for a hearing but you have to meet certain standards for review. contrast that with a hearing model where what you get from the investigation is a charge on the preponderance standard with a hearing before either a panel or an administrator who determines outcome and sanction, with an appeal to an administrator.

often that's an on-paper review. the hybrid, they'll use a little bit of bit in order to effectuate a resolution. i want to be clear with what i'm about to show. i'm not saying that students should have less or faculty should have more. i'm saying we need to be aware of these things and i want an educated group looking at this and seeing what ways can we do this in the best way possible. and i'm not picking on these institutions. frankly will there a lot of examples. i could have gone many places. let's look at indiana university. the hearing model, the investigation leads to a charge. they will get a hearing if they want one. they don't have to have one. the adviser is to remain silent. they get confrontation of questions through the panel. has to go through the panel to be asked. then you can appeal to an administrator and see the grounds. significant procedural area, sanction disproportionate. faculty however have an investigation model. this is the title 9 process. they can identify witnesses, silent adviser, preponderance determines the facts, findings, goes to an officer who makes the

decisions, issues the finals, final facts and findings. you can appeal the faculty board of review but you have to meet the grounds. you see the grounds on the left. they also include the grounds on the right. but witnesses aren't called during this proceeding. there's no visiting -- revisiting the findings of fact. there's in fact very little confrontation at that phase. but the silent adviser in the process may read the party's statement. now there also can be a faculty process here. dismissal of a tenured faculty member is recommended, that would be an additional step. as you're going to see, that becomes more of an issue of how do the policies work together. if an administrative policy says this person should be dismissed and then you go to a faculty process in which there's a clear and convincing standard, how does that work? and that leads us into some of the shared governance questions.

at kansas, i have to disclose i went to the university of kansas, students have more process than faculty unless you're facing dismissal. they can have a representative of their choosing, administrator finalizes this. they can appeal to a guaranteed hearing. they can directly or indirectly question any statement but it is managed by the panel. panel has the authority to tweak that to make sure that it's not revictimizing. the result is a recommendation confirmed by the vice provost they can appeal the hearing, but there's not going to be a hearing during that appeal. the investigation side for faculty is the same as students. and if it's less than dismissal it can go to a faculty rights board. they have to request a hearing. interestingly enough the board can proceed without a hearing. they can say we don't need to have a hearing on this. the appellate has the burden of

proof and that's showing by clear and convincing evidence that the administration violated procedures. there's no restriction on confrontation if that hearing is accepted. so you have to meet certain thresholds to get there. and the result is a recommendation that's going to be confirmed or changed by the provost or chancellor. this is the zamir bbel case. in 2011 he's a faculty member at kansas found to sexually harassed a student. the sanction was two weeks no pay, denial of a yearly raise and pay for to complete the training. he appeals this to faculty rights board. they say no, we don't need to hear this. so he sues. at that time the handbook said he would be able to go to a hearing. the hearing, as the university of kansas argued this was the opportunity to do that. and they won. and then they won again at the appeals level.

you can see if dismissal is the result, then there's full due process, what we would normally conceive of that. no grounds of appeal required. provost must prove by clear and full and convincing evidence no restriction on counsel's participation. how does this -- how do these processes square if you have someone go through both. and this is really the tension between the hearing versus the investigation models. and i think it's interesting that we have lawyers at first really being the ones in charge of how that developed. versus back with workplace sexual harassment in the '70s it was the administrators that did this through their professional networks to think about norms. lauren edelman's work on legal endogenaity, are the processes we're creating, if we look behind them, are they doing what the law wants them to do sore are they simply vehicles for avoiding liability, versus chuck

epstein's work on legalized accountability, are they actually creating adherence to what the law wants. my evidence suggests a swing first towards formality. as lawyers got involved they said we need more, we want to avoid lawsuits. we need more of what we would consider traditional process. so this quote says previously this office had the authority to make the decision about whether or not the policy had been violated. in the wake of the dear colleague letter our attorneys decided we can't make that recommendation. we can only decide if it's worth a hearing. it's insulting. it goes in front of a hearing panel of students and faculty who ironically can't get on the panel until years of training. there was pushback between those offices. but title 9 didn't, as a profession really changed dramatically in 2011. i would like to see greater professional norms in that profession. i'm wondering and i'm seeing a little bit of this, a swing back towards investigation.

i want to talk about why it's very hard to train panels to understand the nuances of this. and i think there are efficiency concerns. if you think about the maryland surcharge and you want to do this in a certain way, how do you provide a hearing to everybody and what does that say about how many complaints are coming forward. also there's not really a requirement to do this. the law does not require more than an administrative process. and the law is clear that universities aren't under the same obligation as the courts or administrative agencies and the ocr requirements are clear on the due process issues. you default what's the greater risk here and both are unacceptable but are we getting to what will address the problem and not just playing with liability. the key is correct execution but that requires well coordinated processes. typically these have been administrative university decisions and often not codified because they change every year. to go through a full faculty review and do this is very difficult.

as you're creating best practices and i think it's a good thing, through more and more cases. the system is learning as it goes through. what happens when the processes conflict? this tenured faculty policy process conflicts with title 9, the extent of confrontation. is this one process or two. that's what bill was talking about with the choudhry situation. he reaches an agreement on what the penalty is. and once a lawsuit appears he's resigned and they're going through a faculty process. very clear the university didn't handle this well. it's very interesting to see what's going to take place. penn state is my third example where there's no hearing for faculty. they have a hybrid choice model there. there are a lot of ways to get confrontation without being revictimizing. they can observe the other's interactions, post questions to one other through the panel, the outcome is appealable.

they have an alternative hearing model, guarantees some traditional form of hearing of confrontation. faculty don't have that. i was able to find them on a website that says that formal investigation results are found in a written determination report. you may meet with the administrator separately to comment on the conclusions. and then yaw have an appeal to the vice provost. now i'm not critical of them for not having it codified and it being on the website, it just wasn't easy to find. how do they work together. so in looking at that a little more carefully, that human resources policy for dismissal of a faculty members requires clear and convincing evidence. the online policy does not reference that. did they not reference 70 or after process?

it's confusing. we're talk about an off-ramp to a simultaneous process if there's a procedural issue because sexual misconduct is governed under their sexual misconduct policy. this is so complicated that it's not clear to me the amount of collaboration or faculty shared governance went on in these situations. but it's hard not to think that we need adviser to help people through, not necessarily legal advisers but people who can understand and help people understand what these steps are. so what happens when they do conflict? well if the title 9 process results in dismissal and the faculty process does not because they're using a clear and convincing standard, that's interesting to me. does that mean at berkeley choudhry needed to negotiate the faculty process before agreeing to the sanction imposed or how do they do that simultaneously. they're wrestling with that. in kansas the administration wanted to make the faculty processes conform but the faculty phe