reflect the current status of key issues in health and public safety communications. our homeland security emerge the amendment policy was amended to improve language -- regarding federal collaboration with states to enhance food supply chain security and armed forces policy was amended to include linewidth regarding state state, federal coordination to serve our nations veterans. they are before all the members of the committee come in the interest of time, i would suggest that having been vetted by staff and the governors prior to their assembly here that we consider them together as a block. i asked governor cinnabar, any comments or motions? and saturday policies in block. >> mr. chairman? may i just say before the voting, you mentioned being

fêted by staff. the national governors association is one of the finest group of people, most professional and dedicated, knowledgeable possible. the reason i am confidently casting a vote is because of the extraordinarily good work they have done. >> thank you. that sounds like a second from governor abercrombie. all in favor signal by saying i. all opposed -- it is unanimous. >> this concludes our meeting. thank you ray much. -- very much. [applause]

>> we will have more from the national governors association tomorrow, starting live at 9:30 am eastern when business leaders discuss governor mark tells initiative on employing people with disabilities. then mike at 2:30 p.m., a form on education with governor malloy. that is tomorrow on c-span.

next, a discussion with ruth bader ginsburg. later, a form on the white house and climate change. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution, while in her mid-40's, she was considered an enemy by the british who threaten to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. meet martha washington, monday night, on the first program of c-span's new weekly series, "first ladies, influence and image." we will visit some places that influenced her life, including colonial when known for -- colonial williamsburg, philadelphia.

at is monday night at nine o'clock eastern, on c-span, c- span radio and c-span.org. next, a discussion with ruth bader ginsburg, a speaker at the 13th annual women and the law conference in san diego. justice ginsburg's talks about her experiences in law, including those coming of this year. >> i'd like to begin.

can we all be seated, please? excuse me. can we all be seated? we have an interesting question and answer session with three of our thomas jefferson school of law professors and students and justice ruth bader ginsburg of the united states supreme court. to maximize the question and answer time, i am going to minimize the introductions. if we do not know who ginsburg is now, i think we should not be in law school. ruth and i are very old friends. i have known her for 20 years. we met through a law program, which she attended four times. i had the honor of getting to know her every time she came a little bit better. it is not only an honor and privilege but a pleasure to be

with such a wonderful, warm, intelligent, caring, and sensitive woman. it is really wonderful. i now want to introduce rebecca lee, one of our professors. she is an associate professor of law as thomas jefferson school of law. one of the interesting things about this panel is we are all have a harvard connection. almost all of us, one way or another.

she has a degree in public policy from harvard kennedy school of government and a law degree and is very involved in law and ken vanderbilt -- we do not need any introduction for ken vanderbilt. he is the reason i am here. he hired me. he was our former dean. he is a brilliant scholar of harvard law school. he now has a ph.d. in american legal history. he is a funny, wonderful, sensitive guy who is also a great teacher. jennifer mcculluch --i was reading her cv. i want to be jennifer mcculluch. [laughter] i love this woman. she is a native texan, a graduate of the united states naval academy. she has not stopped helping people all of her life. she is an exceptional cross- country mission following hurricane katrina. it goes on and on. basically, this is a person who if you are in trouble, you want jennifer on your team.

[laughter] i want to be jennifer when i grow up. what we are going to do for the session is have rebecca lee start with her questions and then ken vanderbilt, the second question, and jennifer, the third question. we will proceed in that order until all 15 questions are answered. 5 and 5 and 5. ruth bader ginsburg will come to the podium to answer the questions. we will have this dialogue. ok. does that work? [applause] >> thank you. i learned that your dean loves "the odyssey." so i would like to begin by quoting a line from a famous translation of "the odyssey." this is the story of a man never at a loss.

well i met, 20 years ago, a woman who is never at a loss. [laughter] that is susan bisom-rapp. whatever the job is, give it to susan. and she will do it. we will begin with the first question. >> it is such an honor and pleasure to be here with justice ginsburg. i thank the justice for her service as well as for spending some time with us and for her willingness to answer our questions. justice ginsburg, you are in your 20th year on the supreme court after having served 13 years on the d.c. circuit. you had an equally important career as a lawyer before becoming a judge. you were a cofounder of the woman's right project at the aclu where you were general

counsel and in that role, you litigated many important sex discrimination cases including six arguments in the supreme court of which you won 5. further, as a law professor at columbia, you were the first tenured woman at the law school. you have been a leader throughout your career. do judges see themselves as leaders in some sense based on your observations? if yes, in what ways? if not, why do you think not? >> judges are reactive institutions. that is we do not have an agenda. we are not like a legislature or executive. we do not create the problems that come to us. there was a great judge that said, judges are like

firefighters. justices are like firefighters. they do not make the conflagrations but they do their best to put them out. being on a court with a wide array of views -- i cannot project my views. i cannot try to be queen because if i acted that way i would not be effective. you have to be able to work together with the team, have respect for your fellow members, be sensitive to their concerns, so there is on a collegial court a going tug the middle and a way from the extremes. so -- [laughter] is that going to adjust?

will that adjust? brood and >> we will try to adjust that. [applause] >> what we can do is win a case comes to us, one can try to teach the audience. i spoke about the lilly ledbetter case. that was one where i could -- even though i spoke in dissent to create a better understanding of what lily ledbetter's problem was. so i hope that answers your question in part. >> thank you. >> let me start off by thanking you for your appearance here today. that justice ginsburg. welcome back to thomas jefferson school of law. it has been a decade since we have seen you. it is great to see you. we are honored to have you. in keeping with the theme of the

with a two-part question. the first part is this -- what qualities do you think a president should seek in a supreme court justice, particularly at this time in our history? secondly, what do you think of prevalent in recent years of appointing easily confirmable justices without a track record that may invite controversy? >> what qualities should a president seek? someone who thrives in the study of the law, someone who is able to read and absorb quickly vast amounts of material, someone who likes the life of thinking, speaking, and writing. i think those are the qualities the president should seek.

it is the best and hardest job i have ever had. the one thing that as i grow older -- it is not as easy for me to do as it once was. i could extend my hours. they could last until i was finished. now, i have to let loose every now and then and sleep, as i did this morning.

[laughter] i slept through three alarms. someone had to shake me and wake me up. the second part of your question was -- >> about appointing an easily confirmable justice. >> my most recent colleagues -- justice sotomayor and justice kagan -- were not that easily confirmed. they should have been. i hope for the day when we will get back to where the system was when i was dominated under stephen breyer was nominated. i was nominated in 1993, justice breyer in 1994. there was a bipartisan spirit prevailing in our congress. i was confirmed 96-3.

i have said, nowadays, i wonder if the president would even nominate me because of my long affiliation with the american civil liberties union. yet in 1993, not one question was asked about my aclu connection, and among the people who voted for me was strom thurmond, who had opposed my nomination in 1980 two the d.c. circuit but was in my corner or the supreme court nomination. i hope people will see that the way we are headed now is wrong. we should reverse gears and go back to the way it was when it was bipartisan support for the president's nominees. >> thank you for being here and giving us your time. someday when i grow up, i would like to be like you. [laughter]

when you are a law school sitting in my shoes, did you expect to see a time when women would be appointed to the supreme court? if so, did you dream that you would be one of them? >> in the ancient days, women were 3% of lawyers in this country. on the bench, they were barely there. the first woman appointed to a federal appellate court was florence allen, appointed by franklin delano roosevelt 1934. florence allen, she served on the sixth circuit. when she retired there were none until president johnson appointed shirley hostettler. she became the first secretary of education. then, there were none again.

there was a president who changed the way things were. he tremendously deserves credit for that, and that is president jimmy carter. he never had a supreme court nomination to make, but he literally changed the complexion of the u.s. judiciary. he looked around at the judges and said, you know, they all look like me. [laughter] that is not the great u.s.a., so i am going to look for judicial appointees in places where no one looked before. i am going to appoint members of minority groups and women in numbers. president carter did that on the whole. i think the american bar association ranked his appointees higher than his predecessors. he had only four years.

he nominated and confirmed 11 women to court of appeals over 25 district courts. no president ever went back fully to the way it was. president reagan did not want to be outdone, so he determined to appoint the first woman to the u.s. supreme court. he made a nationwide search and he came up with a superb choice in justice sandra day o'connor. i had hoped when i was in law school that i would be able to get the job as a lawyer. [laughter] you know, these were pre-title 7 days. both harvard and columbia, many of them said men only. i do not know how many times i was told the story. "we had a woman lot -- lawyer once, and she was dreadful.

[laughter] how many men lawyers did you have that did not turn out the way you want? president jimmy carter. >> after sandra day o'connor retired, you were the only female justice on the supreme court until justice sonia sotomayor joined the corps in 2009. justice kagan followed, joining the court in 2010, now one of three women on the supreme court. can you talk about your experience of being one of two female injustices and now one of three female justices. >> the national association of female judges forecasted we would come, so they had that in the fall of 1993. and they gave us t-shirts.

i am sandra, not ruth. and mine said, "i am ruth, not sandra." every year i was on the court with sandra, invariably, one lawyer or another would call me that. when she left, it was lonely. it was really lonely. at least when she was there, she was a tall woman, and this left a rather small person.

until i was joined by justice sotomayor and justice kagan. and if you come to watch a case in the court these days, you will see a very lively bench. my sister is on the court are not shrinking violets. they are very active participants in the arguments, and i do think that justice sotomayor is in competition with justice alito to see you can ask the most questions. [laughter] [applause] it looks like we are there to stay. we are not curiosities.

>> justice ginsberg, i want to go back in time to the 1970's, when there was a strong effort to amend the constitution with the people rights amendment, an amendment that ultimately was unsuccessful, and i am wondering from your perspective from someone engaged in the issue of gender equality whether you believe the failure of the equal rights amendment has a long-term impact on the cause of gender equality or whether, ultimately, the necessary tools have been found in the equal protection clause or other parts of the constitution, and then i guess the second part of that, i am wondering how you feel as a pioneer in equality about the progress made today it and what you believe may be the principal barriers to progress in the future.

>> that is a multi part question. [laughter] let's start with the era. it was nothing new. it was first framed by the national women's party. it was the more progressive wing of the women's movement, the women's suffrage movement, women who were not content with the vote, but they wanted full equality, so they introduced the equal rights amendment in 1923, and it was introduced every year thereafter. it did not take steam until martha griffith from michigan took it on as her cause, and when she did, she said there is nothing that this amendment seeks to accomplish that could not be done if the courts would interpret the equal protection clause the way they should interpret it, to include all

people and not just some. still, the era was a very important symbol, and i hope it will one day become part of the constitution for a simple reason. if i am addressing a class of schoolchildren, and i can point to the first amendment and protection of freedom of speech and of the press, there is no statement that men and women are citizens, are people of equal stature before the law. there is no such statute in the constitution. in every constitution, even those of the most oppressive of women, there is that statement.

i think that statement belongs in our constitution, to say that this is a value as fundamental as the ones that are already enshrined in the constitution, so it may be just a symbol, but it is an important symbol. as far as what the courts have done, susan gave me a book to sign from the civil rights commission. this was in the middle 1970's. we were going through the united states code, identifying all of the laws that differentiated on the basis of gender. almost all of those are gone. there are a few in the immigration and nationality area, but for the most part, in state and federal law books, that discrimination is gone. what remains i can perhaps best explain by remembering what it was like to go to a symphony orchestra concert when i was

young. you never saw a woman in the symphony orchestra. some brilliant person thought of a simple solution to the problem. they would drop a curtain between the audition there's and the person who was being auditioned. and with that, with the addition there is not knowing whether it was a man or a woman playing, suddenly, the appearance of women in symphony orchestras grew and grew. i was telling this story at a music festival not long ago, when a young violinist said to me, but missed one thing. we auditioned shoeless.

so the judges will not know that if a woman is coming on stage. an unconscious bias. people see a woman, and they assume. there was a music critic for "the new york times," to balance sheet -- he could tell the difference between a woman's playing and a man's player, and then they put him to the test, and he failed miserably. it is the unconscious bias. there was a great case in the 1970's brought by my colleague at columbia, harriett, and it was about positions for women in middle management. the women did find on the various tests up until the last one, and the last one was the total person test. that meant there was an interviewer.

interviewing the candidate for promotion. and women failed disproportionately at that stage. why? it was not that the interviewer intended to discriminate. it is just that he felt comfortable with someone who looked like himself. he could trust that person. the woman was different. so it is getting past the unconscious bias that exists, that still exists that is a high hurdle to overcome, and the other that has been mentioned at this conference is work-life balance, to have a family life which thrives and a work life, and i was blessed to be married

for 56 years to a man who was my partner in everything. when my daughter was born, the idea that the child's personality is formed in her first year of life, so he was the primary feeder, and he learned that that was not necessarily so, but in any event, all of my life, he has been my biggest booster. and i am happy to see that in my children's lives. their marriages are in that way, as well. they are two parents, two parents who have worked lives that they thrive in.

>> while at harvard law school, i was told i would not make it to the navy flight program or make it through the program. however, having made it, it is an attitude for women in the aircraft. however, the attitude can be better. >> jennifer, i would like to tell you a story so you will know how far we have come. we have not gotten all of the way, but one of my favorite clients was a captain in the air force, susan. i had hoped that her case would be the first reproductive freedom case to reach the supreme court. this was the captain's story.

she was serving in vietnam when she became pregnant. this was 1970. and she was told by the commander of the base, "susan, you have a choice. you can get an abortion on base," which many military bases offered to women or dependents in the military service at that time, "or you can leave the service." and susan said, "i cannot have an abortion. i am roman catholic. but i would use only my accumulated leave time for this birth." "i have made arrangements to have the child adopted at birth." pregnancy was a moral and administrative grounds for discharge, and that was that.

so susan was sent back to the west coast, where she was represented by the aclu of the state of washington brilliantly. they managed to stay her discharge month by month. she lost in the district court. she lost in the ninth circuit, but with an excellent dissent. [laughter] the supreme court took her case, and the then-solicitor general, who had been the dean of the first law school i attended, he saw real damage potential for the government in susan's case, so he convened the military brass, and he said that whirl about pregnancy being automatic grounds for discharge, that is not right for our time. you should immediately waive the captain's discharge and then change the regulation for the future."

and that is what happened. now, the law students know what that meant for our case. the government had given susan everything she was asking for. so the government then immediately moved to have her case dismissed as moot. i call the captain and said, "is there anything you are missing?" and she said, "well, i am not out any pay. i would not choose to be assigned to this air force base, but -- all of my life, i never dreamed of becoming a pilot, but the air force does not give flight training to women." well, this was in 1972 we had this conversation, and we laughed, because we knew then it was an impossible dream, that the air force would give flight training to women. now, it would be unthinkable for them to reserve flight training for men only, so you see we have, a long, long way.

>> regarding the courts deliberation process, has the presence of three women on the supreme court now alter the ways that the members of the court think about and discuss the cases that come before them and, perhaps, in how they decide them? >> i should start with a quote from a minnesota supreme court justice. justice o'connor and i have often referred to.

at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment. now, i have to follow that up by saying that we each bring to the table our own life experience, including for the three of us having grown up female, and we can help our colleagues understand some things they might not understand some things as well if we were not there. there was one case in particular a few years ago about a girl, a 13-year-old girl, who was suspected of having what turned out to be an advil, ibuprofen. she was suspected of having pills. they took her to the girls' bathroom.

they strip searched her. and her mother was incensed to find out what had happened to her daughter. so she brought a case in 1983 against the school officials, and when that was argued before the court, some of my colleagues made light of it. one of them said, "i remember being in the locker room when i was a 13-year-old boy, and we did not think anything of changing our clothing," and i said in the courtroom, "there is a difference between the 13- year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl, and the embarrassment that that girl felt," and the joking stopped, and they realized it. it was terrible to do that to a young girl, and, of course, she won the case.

[laughter] >> last year, the nation was riveted by the court argument and decision in the independent business case, the case that upheld the individual mandate provision of the obama health- care reform legislation. and i am wondering, for those of us who are observers of the court, apart from the holding in the case, what lessons might we learn from the experience of that case? >> i hope it is a case that will be taught in law school.

i fully expect that my dissent, saying that this legislation was in the commerce clause easily, that will someday become the law of the land. i was astonished, frankly, at the majority view about that case, but i think it is a wonderful teaching tool for students. and, as you know, the law in the mean was upheld. the chief justice decided that it did not fit within the commerce power, but the tax power was a very broad, so the penalty was, in fact, a tax, so it was upheld. on that basis. i do think that commerce clause ruling will turn out to be an

aberration. and you can compare it to the way it was before 1937. when the court, referred to as "nine old men," and they were striking down legislation. but then the social security act was passed, and in 1937, the court upheld it. and i thought that social security in 1937, health care in 2012, they surely should go the same way. so i said i fully expect that my view, which was shared by three of my colleagues on the commerce clause, it is the one that has staying power.

so. [laughter] >> do you have any unfinished business in your career, both on and off the court? >> well, i am going to do this job as long as i am able to do it. [applause] but apart from that, i am not going to write any book. there will be books written about me, like it or not. hopefully, i would prefer not,

but -- [laughter] i have already mentioned that i would like to see in my lifetime that women get fired up about the equal rights amendment so we will have that in our constitution. i would like to see an end to the discrimination. but being a judge, it is a pretty good job to have. think of my colleague, it justice john paul stevens, who remained on the court until he was 90 and is still an avid golfer and tennis player. he has recently written a book, not about himself but about the

five chiefs that he has known, to the time he retired from the court. so next question. [laughter] >> justice ginsburg, you have had an amazing career and are leading our legacy in the law. although there is still more to do, looking back, is there anything you would do differently? >> it is a question i do not ask myself, and i will give you two pieces of advice i was given in that regard. when i was a brand new judge on the d.c. circuit, one of my colleagues said, "ruth, i have been at this business a long time, and there is one thing i would like to impart.

do your best in each case, but when it is over, when the opinion is out, do not look back. do not worry about things that have passed. go on to the next case and give it your all." that corresponds to advice that my mother gave me, which she summed it up in the phrase "be a lady," and by that she meant do not allow distracting commotions to overwhelm you. anger will get you nowhere. jealousy is even worse. and remorse, these are all motions that sap your energy and do nothing productive. so i do not look back.

i do look forward to what is on my plate each day. >> justice ginsberg, you have dissented in some of the court's most controversial and far- reaching decisions in the past couple of decades, and i have in mind, for example, bush v. gore, the case that halted the balloting in the presidential election, and citizens united, the case that invalidated the ban on corporate campaign expenditures. in cases such as these, cases where the law takes a sudden turn in a different direction in a different area. a very different result. >> first, let me comment on bush v. gore. it was one of its kind. the court has never decided that opinion in any other case,

and i trust that it will forever remain that way. it happened. it was over, and that is it for bush v. gore. [laughter] and citizens united is something else. i was trying to say, as i descended, that that was a very wrong decision, but a great man once said, "it ain't over till it's over," and the court will have a chance to think about its error. think about the dissents in the 1920's.

today, those are a lot of the land. so when one is on the dissent side, you hope your dissent will affect legislature. the only thing that would change it is if the court will overrule its decision. then you write the dissent, with a correction of the error into which your colleagues have fallen. [laughter] >> just the other part of the question, do these cases ever

cause worry about reputation, or that you might describe that the court's reputation remains intact? >> we all care very much about the institution, and we want to leave it in as a good shape as we found it. the supreme court, i think, is unique in the world. when i have met with high court judges from other places, i am sometimes asked, "well, sometimes we have the judgment, and we say it, and then the government does not follow it." think of some of the key decisions in the supreme court. think of the seizure case, when they said to president truman that he could not take over the steel mills, give them back. and immediately, the president ordered the mills returned to their owners, or even a more recent example, a very dramatic example, president nixon is

told not by the supreme court but by a federal district court judge, "i need those tapes as evidence in a criminal proceeding. turn them over." the president did, and he resigned from office the next day. and we know that is a very precious thing that we have. even bush v. gore. so however wrong i thought the decision was, there was no rioting in the streets. people accepted the transition, he would be our president, and life went on. so -- one thing that the press seldom notices, yes, we divide 5-4 in some very important cases, but we are more often unanimous.

thank goodness for the ordinary cases that we hear that do not divide along party lines. so, yes, we are very much concerned about the reputation of the court, all of us. >> how difficult of a transition was it for you from an advocate? >> i do not think i made the transition. [laughter] you are always hoping to persuade your colleagues, and sometimes, you are successful. some years ago, my senior colleague signed a dissent to me.

in the fullness of time, the decision came out 6-3, and my decision was the decision for six. you are hoping that your dissent is going to be so powerful lee persuasive that you will pick up another vote. it does not happen very often. it is rare, but hope springs eternal. [laughter] so -- >> you mentioned some things you would like to see changed in the future. for example, resurrecting the equal rights amendment. thinking about the way the supreme court carries out its work, in particular, is there anything you would like to see changed in your time or beyond? >> there is one thing i would like to not see changed.

the supreme court is a rather old-fashioned institution. when we sit down at our conference table, it is not like law school. there is not a laptop in the place. there is only a pad of paper and a pencil to take notes with. it is about the last place in town, the town of washington, d.c., where the office holders actually do their own work. [laughter] [applause] we do not have a large staff. in my chambers, i have four law clerks and two secretaries. it is that small, just eight of us. go to a congressional office, and you'll find huge staffs. so that way of operating i hope will never change. now, some things, people

complain that we allow only half an hour per side for argument. i do not think we would benefit from more time. after all, it is the written part. it is what the judges and the courts that have previously heard have said. it is the right thing that we start with, and it stays with us when we go back to chambers, so oral argument, while it is important, it seldom determines the outcome of a case. so i would not like to change that. one question, you did not put this in your question, but i am often asked what about cameras in the court room. some federal courts do allow cameras.

i think it would be as wrong as can be for a trial court to allow a proceeding to be televised unless the defendant wants the cameras. televised, people will get the wrong impression of the appellate process. as i said, it is mostly the writings. they think it is about who will win. that is one concern. i do know that many courts, including the supreme court of the united kingdom, the lords,

they do televise their proceedings. and, perhaps, it is inevitable that that will be part of the way the supreme court operates. but that will come later rather than soon. >> i am very sorry to say that i have reached my last question. you will not be surprised that it is a multi part question. [laughter] thinking back over the last to go in a decade that you have been in the or, what do you think have been the most important decisions during that time, and secondly, what do you think has been the impact of those decisions on the country and on the court?

>> citizens united is probably the most important in that the court had an opportunity to stop making elections turn on who can raise the most money. that opportunity was passed, and as i said, i hope that someday, that decision will be overturned. and rather than talking about the past, it will be a very important year for the court. we heard in october a case involving the affirmative action plan of the university of texas. you will remember a famous, i think it was 1948, a case where

they had no education for african-americans. they created a separate and highly unequal law school. that is the way the university of texas once was. now, they are enthusiastically pursuing a diverse student body. that is the case we heard in october. this very month, we will hear a case involving the voting rights act, initially passed in 1965, and now recently renewed for 25 years by overwhelming majorities, both parties in congress. it is being challenged in our court, but i should tell you

what the voting rights act does, for those who do not know. in states and some parts of states, they did not admit african-americans to vote. they used various devices to keep them from the polls. those states cannot change their election laws without either getting pre-clearance from the attorney general or from a three-judge federal court in the district of columbia. now, alabama has brought a case to was that says it has been a long time since 1965. there is no reason why we should be treated any differently than, say, a county in maine. we do not have classes that keep people from the polls anymore.

so, chord, please declared the extension of the voting rights act unconstitutional. there is that case. another one involves taking dna samples from everyone who is arrested. not all people that are arrested are convicted, but that is another case, and then in march, we will hear two cases. one involves proposition 8 from california. the california supreme court having held that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. people in california amended the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. there is that constitutional amendment to the state constitution. is that compatible with equal protection clause? and then we have the defense of marriage act the next day, passed by congress, saying for federal purposes, same-sex marriage is not recognized, and that means that all the federal benefits, like being able to file a joint return, the marital deduction, social security benefits on your spouse's account, you do not get those if your partner is of the same sex. and also, we have another clause that says every state has to respect the judgment of every other state. but that clause does not oblige states, say, north dakota does not have to recognize a marriage from massachusetts, from new york, from the other states, so those are two tremendously important cases. it is going to be -- people thought last year was a blockbuster term. this year will exceed last term. >> can i ask a question? >> yes, susan, you may ask a question. >> i have two questions. [laughter] the first is this. we have many law professors that write law review articles. what would you recommend to professors and students to write law review articles to put in articles that would be more helpful to supreme court justices >> there are two.

there are the kind that law professors are writing for their own ground, other law professors. they are riding in a language that is not accessible to us, and one thing i tell my law clerks every year, lawyers and judges are very busy people. they do not have time to be read a sentence or paragraph, so every sentence that goes into my opinion has to be something that can be absorbed in one gulp. it does not have to be read again. i should say that there are some celestial articles written by law professors. maybe they want you to ponder over what they meant. maybe they are considering that they're operating on a high philosophical plane. the best thing i can have if there is a hard issue is a law professor's analysis of that field, so i try to find out when we have a case in a new area, is there something written about this that pulls together the various threads.

often, i cannot find that, but when i do, it is a gold mine.

>> the second question is, if you were a constitutional law maybe they are considering that they're operating on a high philosophical plane. the best thing i can have if there is a hard issue is a law

professor's analysis of that field, so i try to find out when we have a case in a new area, is there something written about this that pulls together the various threads. often, i cannot find that, but when i do, it is a gold mine. >> the second question is, if you were a constitutional law professor, what would be the five most important cases that you would discuss in the short period of time? what would you put your finger on as to those five cases? so i try to find out when we have a case in a new area, is there something written about this that pulls together the various strands?

often i cannot find that but when i do, it is a gold mine. >> thank you. that was very helpful. if you were a constitutional law professor, what would be the five most important cases

that you would discuss? >> i will ask the audience -- i have been number one candidate and see if you agree with me. not bmi. way back. marbury. you got it. until then, the supreme court

was not very highly thought of. the first chief justice, john jay, went off to england to negotiate a treaty. he was elected governor of the state of new york. all things considered, this court is not going anyplace, i would rather be the governor of the state of new york. then came the great chief justice marshall and he said that the courts have the power

to review ordinary legislation for compatibility with the nation's highest law, the constitution. that was something judges were not doing all around the world. until after world war ii, when new constitutions installed some form of judicial review for constitutionality. we were the only court doing that. the great marshall took a country that consisted of seven jealous states and helped wheeled them into one nation and he made the court the

important institution that it has remained. my second not necessarily second. lovey against virginia. people take brown was the big case in 1954 but it wasn't until 1967 that the court said -- set a ban on an interracial marriage violates the equal protection clause. it is not that long ago, the least by my standards. that was the case of major importance. there were people who express

views about other cases. miranda i think is a great case. it made it easy for the police. all they had to do was to give the four warning and then they knew if they got a confession, it would be ok. one of the things about miranda and it's staying power is that chief justice rehnquist was a

great critic of miranda but when it came to the question, should be overruled, he wrote the decision that said no. miranda has become part of our culture and the way police must behave. and this court is going to adhere to miranda. so i think that was a decision of major importance. so you want two more. let's hear from --[inaudible] griswold was the case that said connecticut law, banning the use of contraceptives, is unconstitutional. so griswold started the line that ended up with roe v wade. i would rank that a case of major importance.

[indiscernible] yes. it wasn't that long ago. the first time that question came to the court was the 10th of the commonwealth of virginia. it was a frontal attack on a law that made consentual sodomy a crime. it and was not that kind of a grandstand play. it involved flesh and blood of real people. and a story that could be told. and the court in lawrence, texas, tells that the texas law making consensual sodomy criminal was unconstitutional. one of the reasons i am fond of that decision was that he referred to a leading decision of the european court of human- rights.

i think the european court of human rights decision was in the early 1980's. but he was saying this is recognized as a human rights by the european court and how out of it to the united states be not to recognize that? justice kennedy had been criticized for referring to far in law in that but i think he did just the right thing in acknowledging that there are other places in the world interested in the promotion of human rights and that we should listen and learn from them. so i think we have five. [applause] >> we have about five minutes left. >> i wanted to say that jennifer did not get her last word theory >> i am sorry. >> if you want to ask, please go ahead. >> what advice would you give a

young woman entering the law profession? professor banda built, what can be learned from your personal experience from a member of the bar and the bench? >> the major thing is something i try to impart last night. i have had endless satisfaction from everything i have done in the law, from being a law

student to a law clerk to a lawyer to a law teacher. but always i did something other than what i was paid to do. you will have a skill that will enable you to make things a little better for your community, your state, even your world. with this skill that you will achieve attending law school, i hope that all of you will spend part of your time thinking about people who need your help and offering its to them.

>> and john haskell. live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> i think is a pretty accurate the did not play by the rules. a think they bend the rules to fit their circumstance. i think americans and all was no intent to be a lot more legalistic. we want things and a contract. we said, that is the be all and all. the chinese will signed any contract. the minute the ink is dry they will try to figure of a way to interpret it to get a round the requirements. it is just a relentless drive to get a head.

that is what has a bill to the place over the past 30 years. a relentless drive to get ahead and improve it. this is some that we put on them in terms of the trade. they see that. we are trying to hold china down. we operate in a world without rules for use. not that we have gotten to the top, we're trying to hamstring them or tie them up to hold china down. >> 34 years of reporting and insights from around the world. sunday at 8:00 on cue and a. >> the supreme court ruled that drug dogs alert is sufficient probable cause to legally justify a search of somebody's vehicle.

the decision is expected later this year. here is the oral argument expected this week under one hour. > for it again, your honor. >> for it again. >> the florida supreme court answered that question by erecting what we think is an extraordinary set of evidentiary requirements that, in effect, puts the dog on trial in any suppression hearing in which defendant chooses to challenge the reliability of the dog. i think, most fundamentally, the problem with the court of appeals' -- the supreme court's decision -- is that it misconceives what this court's cases conceive of the probable cause requirement, converting probable cause, which this court has referred to as a

substantial chance, or fair probability, of the detection of contraband or evidence of a crime, into what amounts to a continuously updated batting average and a requirement that dogs be virtually infallible. that -- >> mr. garre -- >> that -- that goes to the field performance, but, the other requirements, that the -- some showing -- the test -- that the training program is

reputable, some showing that the handler, not only the dog, that is -- has had training, it seems to me those two are not -- there's nothing improper about that. >> well, and i think, your honor, under our view of it, it's okay to inquire into whether or not the dog has successfully completed a bona fide training program, which -- which we think is a training program in which the dog is going to be tested for proficiency, including in a setting where some vehicles have drugs and some vehicles don't. and aldo, the dog in this case, clearly was. he'd received a 120-hour

training program with the police department in apopka, florida. he received a 40-hour refresher seminar by another police department in dothan, alabama. and he was subjected to continuous weekly training, in which part of that training consisted of taking him out, walking him by some vehicles that contained cars, some vehicles that didn't. and the testimony of officer wheetley was that aldo's performance was really good. and what he meant by that was that if there were eight cars with drugs. >> then why did -- then why

didn't they get the dog recertified? by the time of the search, the certification had expired 16 months. >> it was a lapse, your honor. the dog subsequently was recertified. our position is that the fourth amendment doesn't impose an annual certification requirement. some states have it, some states don't. i think, more important in this case was the fact that the dog was continuously trained, continuously evaluated and trained. >> well, what do you -- what do you have to show to establish that the dog was well trained.

>> well, your honor, i think the most important thing is successful completion of proficiency testing. i mean, what -- what our friends would like, and what the florida supreme court would like, was really for the courts to delve into all aspects of the training, what types of distracters were used, what type of smell and printing was

used and the like.

60% of the other haitians, the use of drugs or the proximity of drugs. if you include that as you should, the number become 70% of them a loading. a 70% of the prime arrested is the reply upon. books what happens -- dogs grow old. there are taken out a service for a reason. how is a court supposed to monitor whether or not a dog -- >> primarily bolivia whether or not they dug is completing training.

but still above service from the richest and age. they become impaired overtime. the thing a weekly training records for are available in this case. dogs of going to successfully perform in the real world. a thing the most problematic aspect of these stocks is that law enforcement agencies across the country at least compatible level, law-enforcement agencies that protect the score rely upon detection of us reliable predictions of contraband, the presence of explosions and otherwise. this is a area where we think it is a logic is worth of the volume of logic. the have been used and are being used and in many settings. they are being used it as a people who work with another

reliable uno by express their reliable. that is one of the central problems we have with the argument on the other side. this court should distrust the reliability of the dogs. >> can i understand your argument? suppose the government comes and says the stock has been through training and the hanna has been to training. this is a case, this is never quite to come up when they dug a luster narcotics carrot it will only come up in a case like this where the dog ... narcotics. there is something else that is found a. the person ends up being criminally prosecuted. so, the government comes in the and it says the dog has been trained. can the criminal defendant at that point for the hammer and say, how has to be trained? what is the training the dog was

used and how does the dog used in training? " something the defendant can call the havilah and can ask the questions. a baby court to order call it off. did they use the sent imprinting with it in training. of a good dose too far how did the court to interning. per se that was done here. >> if there were article that said, there was a certain kind of message that led to a lot of subconscious by the hammer. could this defendant say, he used the method it. he used problematic results? courts that is not part of this case because the have not argued that the duck was cued up. it was inherently liable. what's one thing i have learned and all of this is one difficulty is dogs respond to

subconscious cues and there are different ways of training. it makes it less of a problem. >> you can require into chewing during the hearing. defendants can argue the dog was skewed. the course of the argument he may be able to get into that sort of things. it is different than what was made here. i would like to go back to one of the promises of your question. the dog did not accurately alert. did not accurately elected to -- >> their brno drugs found it. it >> i think that is another problem. this notion that alerts the their indicative. the dog alert to the lingering motta of that must have been in the card in this place. if i can reserve the remainder

of my time. >> >> such dogs every day perform critical life and death -- >> two separate questions. tying the earlier case to this one. i am assuming your position is -- i am assuming your position is -- a well-trained dog if he walks by year-old of apartments or houses and alerts to drugs, that simple alert is probable cause for the police to get a search warrant? >> is trained. >> without any other and for

mission a but unlike the earlier case or this one where the police officers for the individual being nervous, all it takes is a doll? despite the fact there is no study that says dogs reliably alert 100% of the time? there is a probable loewi standard. the is the fundamental flaw of the supreme court. it demanded an fallibility where that is that required. >> said will not be addressing the question whether an alert, especially outside of a home in particular, should be standing by itself? , the question is how you

determine reliability. this is a unique setting where law enforcement tools are tested initially and on an ongoing basis and a controlled setting to establish reliability. what is the standard for training? we think the important point with the outcome as the dog proficient? can he find narcotics and a false negative where experts can be to of the? >> only because he satisfactorily employed. the florida court says, we do not know what this means. >> there are kip different settings our hero. there is a formal certification separately and a separate formal training to get there. you have ongoing and a less official exercises and what the

dog performed strongly including two days before the arrest here. the dog performed it perfectly and they controlled setting. we have their record going back several months before the arrest and after the arrest showing this dog passed the test. >> you agree that is an up and carry? >> he went to tested? >> a judge can ask those questions. >> the only thing they cannot ask about is what is their record. >> there is a question about what are the sub issues here? it was a unprecedented it

evidence to re part of the government that can always introduce any time it speaks to establish entrepreneur your dog. we think of as blesses a number of hours for a variety of reasons. what is fair game questions for a them to ask ones that are on the stand? russian. >> judges do this and thousands of times and thousands of cases. is there any number of permutations. a question of whether or not the judge made a correct determination that there was or was the sufficient cause. >> nothing the critical aspect of the context is the dog that's performance and a critical setting. >> you criticize florida supreme court for requiring evidence of

performance assuming the evidence is not required, if the defendant in a hearing for this motion warrants would ever mission there is, of would be proper to seek for the defendant to seek an discover what ever feels before the records there are? course we do not think so as a routine basis. we are barred and what might impose to relieve not think it is justified. whether or not they can act? it's about field performance. the court can give the answer whatever away is we think it will not be material or helpful when a dog alert, a dog is try

to alert to the odor of drugs, it is a light the court who wanted a batting average when we know the number of at bats but we do not know whether there was a hit door and out. the answer to the florida supreme court questioned about liability is to go back to the controlled something where we know what is a hit and an out. that needs to be were the focus should be in determining the liability of a dog. there is no reason to constitutional lies the treading method that it's as to the point. is this dog successful and it will weaken measure success? i think it is important to point out of the florida court was alone in a president did

requirements. there is a large body of law on the reliability of dogs going but 30 or 40 years. there are no other courts that can be sure that they tried the and acquirements. >> if you take that this one court in massachusetts, is a clue what courts have been doing is the right thing. >> there is a diversity across the course but if you look at what their opinion is from the 10th circuit or the georgia case you see the approaches basically sound where courts have confidence that if law enforcement says this dog is trained and has the efficiency, that dog is generally reliable allow a defendant they

questioned about the training or how i can perform during the training? > yes. those questions can be asked. but i think it's critical, as mr. garre pointed out, that the courts not constitutionalize dog training methodologies or hold mini trials with expert witnesses on what makes for a successful dog training program. because, as mr. garre said, the government has critical interests, life and death interests, that it stakes on the reliability of these dogs. so the u.s. marshals use dogs to protect federal judges. the federal protective services use dogs to keep bombs out of federal buildings. the tsa uses dogs to keep bombs off of airplanes. fema uses dogs to find survivors after hurricanes. there are 32 k-9 teams in the field right now in new york and new jersey looking for survivors of hurricane sandy. so, in situation after situation, the government has in a sense put its money where its mouth is, and it believes at an institutional level that these dogs are quite reliable. and i think the courts -- >> do you -- i'm not sure it's relevant, but do dogs -- does their ability --26 is it even across the board? in other words, if you have a

dog that's trained and good at sniffing out heroin, the same dog is going to be good at detecting a bomb, or is there some difference? >> no, there -- well, i think any dog could be trained in either discipline. and if you look at the scientific working group on detection dogs report that we cite in our brief, the report explains that the same general methodologies and the same different -- same general approach is used to train each kinds of dogs. but, typically, a drug detection dog will not be cross-trained on explosives. >> so you don't know whether -- in other words, are dogs good at sniffing things, or are they -- can they be good at bombs, but not good at meth? >> well, i don't know the specific answer to that. i think once a dog kind of chooses a major, that's what they stick with. [laughter] but i think the important point is that -- >> you don't want coon dogs chasing squirrels. >> right. but i think the important point is that these dogs have to meet -- have to pass proficiency in an initial training program, and then they, as is shown in the record here in great detail, they show proficiency on

an ongoing basis, including in this case two days before the arrest. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, counsel. mr. gifford. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, there is no canine exception to the totality of the circumstances test for probable cause to conduct a warrantless search. if that is true, as it must be, any fact that bears on a dog's reliability as a detector of the presence of drugs comes within the purview of the courts. this can encompass evidence of initial training, certification, maintenance training and performance in the field. >> do you understand the government to disagree with that general position? in other words, the trial court, if you have an attorney that's really concerned about the training of this dog, they can ask about it. >> i do understand the government to disagree about the relevance of field performance. and where i specifically think the government disagrees is on

the level of detail that can be inquired into by the trial court on any of these elements. >> i didn't think they disagreed about what he may do, i thought they disagreed about what he must do. that is, the florida supreme court said you must -- and gave a whole list. i thought that's what the case was about. >> well, the florida supreme court did have several passages in its opinion where it talked about what the state must produce. and at first glance, that looks rather didactic. however, what i think the florida supreme court was saying there was that if this -- these records exist, the state must produce them. and that is consistent with the state's burden of proof to justify a warrantless search. >> well, that's a totally different matter. of course, i agree with you that a trial judge has control of the trial. he's likely to know what's relevant. in different circumstances, different matters will be, and he has first say on what you're going to go into. it's the must. and now you're on the point. why is that the right list?

i mean, what in the constitution29 requires that list? >> i don't believe the constitution requires it, and i don't believe -- >> doesn't the supreme court believes the constitution requires it? >> no, i don't think so, even though they used the word "must." i think that the "must" concerns performance records and training records that exist. farther down in the opinion, the court says reasons why the -- why the state should keep and present performance records -- >> but what -- >> so if the state doesn't keep -- if the state doesn't keep any performance records, then there would be no field performance to show, but that doesn't mean the state loses, is that what you're saying? the state doesn't keep performance records. the florida supreme court seems to say field performance records are required. >> if the state does not keep field performance records, that is a fact, that is a lack of evidence that could be held against the state in the suppression hearing.

and it shifts the focus onto providing evidence of the initial training, the certification, and the maintenance training that can show to the trial court that this is a reliable dog. >> now i thought the court said -- held against the state. i thought what the florida court was saying is if you didn't produce it, the dog's evidence would -- would not be allowed -- >> they did use -- >> the search is invalid. >> the court did use the word must -- >> yes. >> but it's not -- it's not a specific recipe that can't be deviated from. because, in addition to listing the records that must be produced, the florida supreme court also said, and all other evidence that bears on the reliability of the dog. >> even worse. >> so it's not a specific recipe, and it's talking about what -- if these records exist, they must be produced. >> are you conceding that the florida supreme court, at least with respect to the field performance records, was wrong, that they -- it is not a fourth

amendment requirement? >> i don't think they -- i don't think they require field performance records to establish -- >> but they outline what the government must prove, and that was one of them. >> they said what the government must produce if those records exist. but when you go down to the part of the opinion where the court applies the law to the facts, the court didn't just say, because there were no field performance records, no probable cause, we close up shop, conviction reversed. what the court did was take into consideration the lack of field performance records, the lack of any records about initial training and certification aside from the fact that this dog had a certificate. and we have to remember that this certificate, not only was it 16 months out of date, it wasn't a certificate for aldo. it was a certificate for aldo and a seminole county deputy together as a team. this dog was never certified as part of a team with officer wheetley in this case.

and the certifications in this area are team certifications, not individual certifications. >> is that a requirement too? that's a constitutional requirement, that the dog training doesn't count unless it's training with the officer who is using the dog? >> no, but that's an indicator of reliability, which is the ultimate test here, has this team been trained and certified together -- >> well, fine. counsel can bring that up. counsel can bring that up at the hearing before the judge. but -- but i understood this to be a -- a requirement. you never even get to that hearing, because there's no evidence that this dog was ever trained with this policeman. >> that's correct, there is no such evidence. >> yes, and therefore end of case, right? >> no, not end of case. the fact that the dog wasn't trained with this policeman means that you need to look for evidence -- other evidence of reliability, which also doesn't exist in this case. >> well -- >> doesn't this -- this officer has been working with this dog for many months. they have training periods every week.

so why isn't that enough to show that this handler and this dog worked effectively as a team? >> well, first, this weekly training is maintenance training. it's to maintain the dog at a level of proficiency that has previously been established. that level of proficiency hadn't been established with this team of wheetley and aldo. the level of proficiency that had been established was with wheetley and with another seminole county deputy. >> what -- what -- what are the -- what are the incentives here? why would a police department want to use an incompetent dog? is that any more likely than that a medical school would want to certify an incompetent doctor? what -- what incentive is there for a police department? >> the incentive is to acquire probable cause to search when it wouldn't otherwise -- otherwise be available. >> and that's a good thing?

>> is that a good thing? >> i mean, you acquire probable cause, you go in and there's nothing there. you've wasted the time of your police officers, you've wasted a lot of time. >> and -- and you've invaded the privacy of an individual motorist who was innocent. >> well, maybe the police department doesn't care about that, but it certainly cares about wasting the time of its police officers in fruitless searches. >> the incentive of the officer to be able to conduct a search when he doesn't otherwise have probable cause is a powerful incentive. as the court has said, ferreting out crime is a competitive enterprise. and also, these -- >> willy-nilly. officers just like to search. they don't particularly want to search where they're likely to find something. they just like to search. so let's get dogs that, you know, smell drugs when there are no drugs. you really think that that's what's going on here? >> officers like to search so that they can get probable cause so that they can advance their career. forfeiture is also an issue. >> they like to search where they're likely to find something, and that only exists

when the dog is well trained. it seems to me they have every incentive to train the dog well. >> but the question goes back to the dog's reliability, what the officer knows objectively, and what that officer can demonstrate on the stand to the trial court to determine by the totality of the circumstances that that dog is well trained. >> getting back to --i'm confused about the difference between must and is required. what if the judge has before him or her a record, this is where the dog went to school and it's a bona fide school, this is where the dog was certified, he's trained every -- every, you know, couple of weeks or whatever it is, and the judge says, do you have any field records, and the officer says, no, and the drug says -- the judge says, well, then no probable cause. that's reversible error, right? >> it is reversible error if we know what went into the training and certification. was that training and certification sufficient to prove the dog was reliable?

did it include the use of blanks and did the -- >> you have, i guess, experts testify about whether -- what constitutes a good training program. >> no, not necessarily experts, but simply the -- the officer who participated with the dog can testify as to what he and the dog went through to obtain the training certificate and the -- and the certification. >> oh, i assure you that if we agree with you there will be a whole body of experts that will spring into being about dog training. i assure you that that will be the case. >> those experts already exist. they -- they are prevalent in the case law already. >> i understood the florida supreme court, counselor, to say that the deficit in the training records here was because there was no evidence of false positives, that the reports didn't say, the training reports didn't say, if the dog was alerting falsely.

assume that the record, as your adversary claimed, shows the opposite, that a satisfactory completion means that the dog detected drugs where they were. the -- why wouldn't training records here be adequate in that circumstance? >> that would be one of several showings that would make the training records adequate. also, you would want to know whether there were distractors used in the field. however, i don't believe that the record supports, except -- and this is arguable, the parties dispute this -- for the maintenance training. all the state had for the initial training with deputy morris, not with deputy wheetley, was a certificate -- one certificate that said this dog was trained by the apopka police department for 120 hours with deputy morris, another certificate saying that this dog was certified by drug beat narcotics certifications, again with deputy morris, for 1 year. >> i -- i guess what i'm asking

you is, as a matter of law you want us to hold that training records are inadequate unless what? unless -- you're going to specify now a list of things they have to include? >> no. this court in -- in a number of circumstances has provided examples that can guide a court in probable cause determinations. in illinois v. gates, under the old aguilar- spinelli test, the court specified where evidence on one prong can be so strong that it substitutes for evidence on another prong. in ornelas, the court pointed to local knowledge that can be relied upon, such as the winter climate in milwaukee. >> but, counsel, you're defending a florida supreme court opinion which says "must." you can't just say, you know, i'm not asserting any particular thing is necessary, just, you know, totality of the circumstances. you have an opinion here in

which the florida supreme court says "must." it must include the, you know, the field training. now, do --do you disavow that or -- or do you want us the ignore it? what? >> that is -- that is not the holding on which i'm relying here. the holding on which i'm relying is that training and certification alone, the mere fact of training and certification alone, is not sufficient to establish the dog's reliability. and as to the language about "must," remember, the florida supreme court didn't just say that the failure to produce one of these elements necessitated reversal. it then went and engaged in a totality of the circumstances test. and several lower courts applying that case, applying harris, have reached the same conclusion. in two of those cases -- >> but this is absent in the totality of the circumstances and you nonetheless hold that there was probable cause, then "must" does not mean "must," right? >> "must" means "must" if the

state has the records. if the records exist, then the state must produce them because it bears -- >> that's not what the florida supreme court said? it listed, along with training, that the -- the provision of records of field performance. >> i read that as: if those records exist, the state must produce them, because not only does it bear the burden of proof, it's the only party that can produce these records because it keeps the dog. >> suppose it's -- it's a dog that's just completed the training, training course, top- performing dog in the training program, but there's no field record. >> if that -- if the training is sufficient, if it has those elements that demonstrate that the dog is reliable, those are the circumstances. you have the totality of the circumstances there and those circumstances don't include any field performance. and, yes, under that circumstance, a trial court can

find the dog to be reliable. >> what is wrong with the state's argument that field performance records are not very probative because dogs detect odors, they don't detect the physical presence of the substance that created the odor, and therefore so-called false alerts, cases in which a search was performed and no contraband was found are not really cases of false alerts. what's wrong with that? >> well, you don't know whether they're cases of false alerts or not, because the state will always point to the possibility of residual odor as a reason. and we know from the studies that have been cited in the briefs that there are other reasons that dogs alert when that alert cannot be verified. handler cueing is identified as the chief one. and simply dogs make mistakes. dogs err. dogs get excited and will alert to things like tennis balls in trunks or animals, that sort of thing. >> well, that may all be true, but then what -- what can one infer from the fact that a dog alerted a number of times when

no contraband was found? i think what you just said was the explanation could be the dog detected an odor, but the substance wasn't there, or it could be that the dog was cued or the dog was confused or the dog is not very competent. so what can one infer from these field performance records? >> well, what you can infer is this dog is not a very accurate indicator of probable cause, because probable cause tests whether drugs are likely to be found in a search that follows an alert. if the dog's -- >> but they are likely to be found if there is a residual odor of drugs, even though the drugs are no longer there. so it's not an incompetent dog when he alerts because of the residual odor. >> but if a dog has -- but if a dog has previously alerted and no drugs have been found because the dog's hyperacuity causes him to smell drugs that were there two days or two weeks ago, then the next time that dog alerts, it's less likely, the

probability declines that drugs will be found. it goes to what probable cause measures, rather than what the dog training and certification community measure, and that is, the likelihood, the reasonable probability, that drugs will be found following the search. >> counsel, how is that any different than a police officer who comes to a car and smells marijuana? he's never going to know whether there is any more in the car or not. it could have been smoked up an hour before. i don't know how long marijuana lingers for, but -- i'm not sure why residual odor affects the reliability of the dog, which was justice scalia's point. it's no different than an officer who smells something. he doesn't actually know whether it's physically still present or not, but we're talking about probabilities. >> that's correct. and -- and the difference is that -- that the police officer can describe what he has smelled and can say, i smell marijuana. all the dog tells the police

officer is, i smell something i was trained to detect, perhaps, if i'm operating correctly. but getting to this -- this issue of residual odor, our position is that an alert where no drugs are found means that the dog -- that -- it detracts from probable cause in that instance. but that's not the only rule available to the court. residual odor, whether an alert was to residual odor and is therefore correct and accurate, is something that can be litigated. in one of the lower courts that decided the case after the florida supreme court, the court looked to the field performance records, and it found several of them well supported on the issue of whether the alert was probably to the odor of drugs, several it didn't find. so that is an issue that can be litigated. another possibility is -- >> well, excuse me. where -- when nothing is found, how can you tell whether the dog alerted to a residual odor or simply made a mistake?

now, there may be cases where there is other evidence that suggests that drugs were present in that location, and, therefore, that is something from which you can infer that the dog was alerting to residual odor, but, the fact that you don't have evidence of that doesn't mean that there wasn't residual odor. >> no, it doesn't mean that there wasn't residual odor. but, again, you go back to what probable cause measures, i believe. and the florida supreme court didn't demand evidence of residual odor. what it did is it said that if field performance records exist, then the state can explain unverified alerts in the field as residual odor, and then a court can then evaluate that. >> what's the magic number? what percentage of accurate alerts or inaccurate is enough for probable cause? >> well, this court has always hesitated to assign percentages to probable cause, but, in the lower courts, once you get below 50%, probable cause is much less likely to be found,

assuming that there is no other corroborative evidence, no other reasonable suspicion factors. i'd like to talk briefly about the oregon supreme court and what that court did in several cases. helzer and foster decided in 2011, independently of the florida supreme court decision, doesn't cite -- in foster, the oregon supreme court had a dog that trained initially with the same handler, unlike here, where the evidence was very strong as to the features of the training and certification program, and where that dog had, i believe, a 66% field performance record. now, the court in foster said that the dog's reliability can be established by training, certification, and performance in the field. the court added that it didn't think that performance in the field was the most reliable

measure, but it's relevant, and the court considered that 66% percentage. but then, on the same day, in helzer, there was a dog that trained initially with a different handler, that the handler ultimately testified to very few details of the ongoing training and the certification. in foster, the certification was with an organization that required a 90% success rate. in helzer, there was no such testimony. and this officer, like the officer here, didn't keep field performance records when the dog alerted and no drugs were found. in helzer, the court found that there was insufficient evidence of reliability. and i believe that those two cases demonstrate what is a -- what is a correct line to draw in navigating what is reliable. on several arguments made by the state, the argument was that the maintenance training included blanks, and that the dog did not alert to blanks.

the record, we believe, supports the florida supreme court's conclusion that blanks were tested -- the dog was tested on blanks, but there was no testimony as to whether the dog didn't alert on those blanks. the state has said that the dog was subsequently recertified. i don't find support in the record for that. at a suppression hearing, the state argued -- the officer testified that the dog was scheduled for another certification, but we don't know whether the dog was ever recertified. the court can affirm the florida supreme court simply on the failure to produce adequate46 documentation of certification and initial training, and on the fact that this dog was never certified with this trainer -- with this handler and didn't initially work with this handler. you don't have a dog here who was reliable enough to demonstrate probable cause. the florida supreme court so concluded. i believe its conclusion was correct. and unless there are additional questions -- >> the alert -- the alert here

could have been to residual odor, or it could have been to drugs inside the pickup truck. if it's --because the alert was in front of the -- a front door handle, is that -- so it -- it's equally likely that it -- that it was just residual odor or that there were drugs inside the pickup truck. can the police establish probable cause when what the dog alerted to may well have been residual odor and nothing inside? the dog didn't alert anyplace other than the door handle, is that -- >> it can constitute probable cause. what officer wheetley testified to in this case was he believed that this alert was to residual

odor on the door handle -- >> excuse me. did you say it can or it can't? >> it may. it may. it can constitute probable cause in this case. officer wheetley testified that this dog alerted to the door handle. and in his prior experience, when the dog alerts to the door handle, it means that someone who had smoked or consumed drugs or handled drugs had touched the door handle. now, if officer wheetley had testified that in his experience when he'd seen such alerts and conducted a search, drugs were found inside the vehicle, then that residual odor alert would support probable cause. officer wheetley did not so testify. there was insufficient evidence that this residual odor alert -- that a residual odor alert of this nature, without finding drugs afterward, supports probable cause. >> but at least we don't have to worry about mothballs in this case, is that right? there are no mothballs? [laughter] >> no. no mothballs to my knowledge. no, your honor.

>> was that the holding in the florida supreme court, that there was no probable cause because the dog alerted to the wrong part of the truck? >> no, your honor. >> was it any part of their reasoning? >> they were concerned about residual odor alerting without any explanation by the state as to how residual odor alerting supports probable cause. but the primary basis for its decision was the lack of performance records and the lack of records supporting initial training and certification to show that this dog was reliable. >> and if we think they were wrong in that respect, i suppose that you would say the court shouldn't reverse, but should vacate and remand because the question did alert him to the door handle, was that enough? was that enough to establish probable cause that there were drugs in the vehicle? >> well, i don't think the door handle itself is -- is dispositive. i think it's the door handle plus the lack of evidence that we have a reliable dog.

and, again, the reason you need a reliable dog, evidence on what training and certification means, is that there are no standards, no standards whatsoever for initial training. some states do have standards for training and certification. florida does not. and no standards for -- for maintenance training as well. in order to have probable cause, you have to know what that certification, what that training means, if you don't have standards that will tell that for you. if there are no additional questions, i'll conclude. >> thank you, counsel. mr. garre, you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, your honor. first, probable cause in this court's precedents looks not only to the likelihood that contraband would be present, but the likelihood that there would be evidence of a crime. and that would include the so- called residual odor, evidence that drug paraphernalia, someone had recently smoked illegal narcotics in the vehicle, or the like. so the alert to the so-called residual odor of drugs is just as probative to the question of probable cause as an alert to drugs themselves.

the fact that aldo alerted to the door handle area of the car doesn't negate in any way the probable cause that officer wheetley had to search. what it means is that the door handle area was where the scent of the illegal narcotics was the strongest. it could have been narcotics coming out of that area, or coming out of the door seam, or could have been the fact that someone who had used narcotics was using the door handle to get in and out of the car. second, courts can determine reliability in this context. they would look to the performance in the controlled training environment. there is a real danger with suggesting that field performance records are --are a permissible foray for defendants in suppression hearings to challenge the reliability of dogs because, one, as justice alito pointed out, it's not a controlled setting. we don't know whether the dog did alert to residual odors of narcotics that had been in the car, drugs that were hidden and simply not found during the relatively -- >> would you -- would you allow

counsel to ask about that? >> i think they could ask about it, your honor. i don't think they could demand the51 performance records themselves. and that would be a huge deterrent to law enforcement, even maintaining those records. third, officer wheetley and aldo did train together for nearly a year before the search in question. they did complete the 40-hour drug detection seminar at the dothan, alabama, police department. and that certificate's at page 105 of the record. and second, as justice scalia pointed out, all the incentives in this area are aligned with ensuring the reliability of drug detection dogs. it's not in the police interest to have a dog that is inaccurate in finding contraband or that is inaccurate and putting an officer in harm's way. humans have relied upon dogs for law enforcement-related purposes, due to their extraordinary sense of smell, for centuries. dogs, trained drug detection dogs and explosive detection dogs, are invaluable members of the law enforcement community

today. we would ask the court to reverse the decision below, which would act as a serious detriment to the use of that valuable tool. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, your honor. >> the case is submitted. >> >> of form and the white house and climate change. then a discussion on employing people with disabilities and how states can protect against cyber attacks. virginia congressman bob goodlatte, chairman of the judiciary committee -- he talks about immigration and gun control and his plans for the committee. this airs sunday at 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern and c- span. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies, and during the revolution in her mid 40's, she was considered an enemy by the

british who threatened to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. meet martha washington during c- span.org's new weekly series " first lady's." which will visit some of the places that influenced her life, including colonial williamsburg, valley forge, and philadelphia. the part of the conversation with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook pulse live at monday night -- by monday night at 9:00 eastern and c-span. >> gene mccarthy, the epa assistant administrator, said president obama has made climate change a priority in his second term and that her agency will implement his policies. she has been mentioned as the next epa administrator. she spoke thursday at an energy conference hosted by georgetown university. this is an hour and 20 minutes.

>> good afternoon. thank you. thank you so much. welcome back. it is my great pleasure and honor to introduce gene mccarthy is our keynote speaker to -- keynote speaker. i will introduce her, but i want to know in advance that she is not able to take questions today. we greatly appreciate the time that she is spending with us. gina has served as assistant administrator for epa where she has been responsible for

directing actions to address climate change and greenhouse- pollution. we have been talking about that all day. it is particularly fitting to hear from gina because prior to her work at the epa, she was a leading figure in working to address climate change at the state level. she knows firsthand the importance of state and federal cooperation. she was also a leading proponent of creating a center serving as a resource to states. during her tenure as and -- as assistant administrator, she finalized not only the first greenhouse emissions standards for cars and trucks, but another round requiring an equivalent of 54 mpg by 2025. these standards are estimated to save 5.8 billion barrels of oil and avoid 3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, while providing

benefits of up to six under $40 billion. pretty good, very good. the epa to establish the standards in cooperation with california and other leading states, demonstrating on how cooperative federalism can create win-win situations. during the last couple years, the epa introduced the first greenhouse gas emissions standards for medium to heavy duty trucks, established standards for large stationary sources, introduced mandatory reporting requirements, and promulgated important updates to criteria for admission standards, also close to my heart. thank you for that. as some analysis has shown, these regulatory actions represent a significant step towards achieving the president obama possible of a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions target

that he enunciated in copenhagen. some additional work will be necessary. gina knows the importance of cooperation between state and federal governments. she served as a commissioner of the connecticut department of environmental protection from 2004-2008 under a republican governor. during her time there, she worked with other heads in the northeast and mid-atlantic states to launch the regional greenhouse gas initiative. before that, she served as a key environmental adviser to governor mitt romney in massachusetts and she helped lay the groundwork for massachusetts participation. she is a wonderful, dedicated public servant and a friend we admire. we have heard her speak about the importance of the federal government and states working together to advance climate policy. we are eager to hear the epa's vision for moving forward in the second obama administration.

please join me in welcoming heading out mccarthy. -- gina mccarthy. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. how often is this? it is great to be back. -- fun is this? it is great to be back. there are more suits this time. i don't know why. it is exciting to be here. i'm really excited because the conference this time is not focused on whether we should take action, but how best to do that and how we work together. that is a lot different from just a short time ago and we were suing epa to recognize greenhouse gases as a pollutant that needed to be regulated under the clean air act. it has been a short time, but we have come a long way, baby.

we're talking about how we work together, how we learn from one another, how we support each other, and we're talking about the actions that we are each taking and how they can integrate accountant -- complement one another. i have a lot of issues i want to cover today. i hope i won't bore you. there is so much going on that i want to make sure that we all know what one another is doing so that in the end, we can understand how best we actually do continue with this collaboration. i really should stop and recognize vicki and everybody else at georgetown and the climate center for being so successful -- successful in keeping states moving forward. i know states have been working on these issues, as well as local governments and tribes, for a long time.

it will be a lot longer for us to work on these issues together. i think the more we can collaborate and get together, like these few days, the more we can find the cost effective solutions that are going to continue what will inevitably be a long road, but when we traveled together. it is exciting because some much of what has been happening at the state and local level has become more mature than it was when i was hanging out at the state level. there are more tools, there are case studies, there are model programs that we can continue to push forward to accomplish together. now it is not if the united states will do something about climate change, but again, it is about how. we have crossed that hurdle. since issuing the endangerment findings of greenhouse gases,

epa has been answering questions as well. it has been taking comments -- common-sense steps under the clean air act. make no mistake -- regulatory action and voluntary programs all have a place in how we address greenhouse gases. it is very exciting to me to see that some of the programs that -- at epa have been as successful as i have been in working with states and incentivizing opportunities and building tools, seeing state's run with those issues, understanding how important climate changes to mayors across this country. it is an exciting time. it is a time in which i know we will find ways to collaborate more and more together. these steps that we are all taking, one of the best things about coming to this group, knowing that you have already

done so much, and you have already analyzed the results of those, and you are already talking about them -- one of the best reasons to come here is because everything you have done is not just good for the plan that in terms of its impact on climate, but you have done it because it has been good for your individual state, it has been good for the individual community, it has been good for the american families that you are serving. we know that it has not sparked the economy. if you take a look at what has happened with the original greenhouse gas initiative, you'll see and read press releases not from environmental agencies, but from the governors of those states. if you read what governor devolve patrick said, you will realize that there are tremendous opportunities to address climate change in ways that build the economy, that grow jobs, that you can articulate and make sense to

every individual who works in those communities. that is what i think is most exciting about being here with you, because you know it. you've got a firsthand knowledge of what is going on in your own communities and why what you're doing is not just right but really good for people. these are steps we need to take working together. epa, working with state and local communities, is building on the progress that you have made so far. it is not that hard in many ways, because reducing carbon pollution, increasing energy efficiency, strengthening energy security all make sense. it does not matter whether you are an economist, an environmentalist, a public health advocate, a city planner, or the department of defense -- this stuff makes sense. if you are a family struggling to make ends meet, saving money

on your energy bill and going farther on a gallon of gas -- that makes a lot of sense too. any time you look to be more efficient, you make yourself structure. we are insulating families in the economy from fluctuations in energy prices and supplies. i just want to start for one moment before i talk about what epa is doing, to again take a minute to congratulate you, to just say, bravo, and all the courage you have shown, all the tenacity, all your willingness to put resources into these issues. [applause] your leadership at both the state and local level in confronting climate change has helped people to improve their health, their quality of life. it has helped to reduce air pollution, to improve your

communities, and to reduce energy bills all but the same time. it is quite a significant win. you have paved pathway that i think the federal government can follow in and support. you have become those laboratories of innovation that we you -- that we used to tout ourselves to be sick and show everybody the path forward. bravo, again. let's talk about more stuff to do. i know you have all been hearing about examples of state and regional climate initiatives today. i think i mentioned the original greenhouse gas initiative. i cannot be more thrilled that it is alive and well and continuing to evolve. i congratulate the states that are engaged in that effort. i want to congratulate california obviously. there are so many innovative ways of addressing these issues, and each state can take its own path, whether they do it

individually or regionally. other states i know are continuing to develop and implement strategic climate plants, as well as adaptation plans. these will enable them to move forward and face the future, stronger and more resilient. also, i do want to mention the fact that local communities beverly also stepped up in a way -- have really stepped up in a way that is startling, frankly, because at a time when resources are low, you can see tremendous impacts in local governments over their ability to be able to pay for necessary services, never mind think creatively about how to make smart investments that in the long run will pay off. they have been doing this. they have been forward leaning about how they address the challenges in their communities.

epa itself has been working with 50 local and tribal governments on pilot initiatives that move cost effective, community-based greenhouse gas reduction projects forward. that is through our climate showcase communities program. these communities are focused on climate projects that we believe offer opportunities with significant replication across the nation. we are seeing that happen. these model projects and many others like them are just the beginning of what is really possible. together, the pilot communities have done tremendous work. we are estimating that by 2014, these projects alone will avoid more than 350,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year. that is equivalent to the annual emissions from almost 70,000 passenger vehicles or the energy

used by 30,000 homes. this is not little. these are a number of small projects that can really make a big impact. it saved nearly $19 million per year in energy cost for those communities. it creates jobs. it helps train hundreds of people to actually meet the jobs of today and the future. in addition to piloting specific projects, cities are taking the lead by looking at their own buildings, because buildings actually generate a significant amount of greenhouse gases -- gases. they're looking in particular at commercial buildings, and we are trying to provide the tools. i remember in the 1960's, when my favorite saying was, -- sayings was, information is power. it is still true today. you tell people how efficient are building as, you let them do cost figures are going out over

a few years, and you're not requiring things to happen -- you are enabling things to happen. give people the right information, and they make smart choices. part of our job is to make sure that we are consistently working together to be clear on the cost and benefits of all of these programs moving forward. communities can make smart choices. i know you talked little bit about electric vehicle deployment. i'm sick and tired of california being out in front. it is amazing what is actually happening. more companiest investing and manufacturing these low emission vehicles and electric vehicles. i see mike -- lots of things are happening on the manufacturing

side. our challenges, how to make sure the infrastructure is there to support this? how to make sure that as car companies are thinking about the technologies of the future that our infrastructure can actually handle those and enable those? the work that they are doing it -- as much as i love california, thank god it is not all of california -- there is a much going on. you're using your own resources, as well as leveraging resources, federal dollars and other incentives, and private-sector dollars, to get out the infrastructure you need to make electric vehicles happen in your communities. you're looking at how you incentivize these policies and through other mechanisms that will make this happen. while the federal government can tout its ability to bring more efficient vehicles into the market, working with the auto companies and the uaw, it will

be up to you guys to figure out how best to make the technologies that people in your communities want to purchase and want to drive be available to them, because the infrastructure has to be there. now that i have said about what you're doing, what the heck is epa doing? that is a good question. that will remain a good question. [laughter] at epa, we will do our part to build on your success. as president obama said, climate change is a priority. we are going to take action. we began with the administration's actions with endangerment finding. that was a groundbreaking decision which led us down the path of regulating carbon as a pollutant. it opened the door to some historic achievements that vicky

mentioned, we will continue to dwell on them. one must dwell on success. especially when you have a long road ahead, every milestone it should be celebrated. the light and heavy duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards was, in fact, are remarkable achievement. a look at -- it looked at the contentious process between the epa and the car industry to figure out how we could align our goals on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions and how we could speak together with one voice, which we had never done before. how we could do that with the support and engagement, total engagement, of the companies themselves.

how we could work hand-in-hand with california, and hand-in- hand with the unions that service these manufacturing companies, and really do something that has never been done before, which is in the span between 2012 and 2025, to double the fuel economy, and at the same time, we did a really cool sticker. has anybody seen the label? that was actually a more contentious process. [laughter] you know, we did not just double the fuel economy standard, but we also saved consumers more than $1.70 trillion at the gas pump. $1.70 trillion. tell me how that hurts. tell me who is going to stand up and say, i do not want more fuel efficient vehicles, thank you very much. the way in which we designed it allows consumers to have their

choice of the very same kind of vehicles that are available to them today, only more, so that if you want a heavy-duty vehicle, you need it to perform, you got it. it will be manufactured. you want an electric vehicle and the infrastructure is available? you got it. what our sticker does is tell you what you got. it allows you to make choices that means something for individual families. not only that, it saves significant amounts of greenhouse gases. it helps consumers save money, not just in the long run but the short run as well. we all know we finance vehicles. if you work in the public sector and you're buying a vehicle out right, i will question whether or not you're actually working in the public sector. i don't know about you, but i have never paid cash for a vehicle in my life. i don't expect i ever will.

not that they are overpriced, mike. i do not mean that in any way, shape, or form. what i do mean is that these vehicles payback in a couple of years. not only do you have the annoyance of going to the gas station all the time, and forgive me to all those who supply fuel -- i did not mean to say anything derogatory there either -- you not only have that, but to save considerable money. if you finance, every time you do not go to the gas station, you can save a little bit more to put to that monthly payment. it is a significant step forward for everybody in this country. whether you are at the high-end of the pay scale or whether you're middle class or lower class. we need to keep moving forward. the standards are tremendous. the one thing you did not say,

the heavy-duty vehicle rule -- don't forget that vehicles come in all shapes and sizes. we also learned the lesson that we took advantage of in the light duty vehicle roll -- we did the same thing with a heavy- duty vehicle roll. we talked about opportunities for reductions. we looked at the technologies available. we began to understand how greenhouse gases are emitted by the vehicles, what their efficiency is, what the opportunities are, and we sat them down in a room, maybe not as formal structure or setting up at a podium, but they worked no less hard with us so that we could develop a heavy-duty truck rule that will also save significant amounts of greenhouse gases, as well as significant amounts of money for truck owners.

we are looking already had a face to go of that program. that program is between 2014- 2018. we're looking beyond to 2025 as well. if we did it once, we can do it again. it is not just about the vehicles. let's talk a tiny bit about renewable fuel standards. it has to be part of the mix. it is something we're working very hard on. we're not just looking at making engines and the vehicles more efficient, but looking at fuels as well. the big news this year, something that never gets any publicity, that i want to tell you about, i was very excited about this -- i am the biggest wonk. we issued a rin 4 biofuels. that may not excite you -- i wish it would.

it really was a milestone for me. i know that one of the biggest wins in renewable fuels was to produce biofuels with cellusoic fuel stock. go visit a refinery. please, take pictures. we have been waiting for this to happen, to make that move, and we have done it this year. they are actually being produced. we expect that that volume will increase. now we know that it is no longer about feasibility, studies, and technology development -- it is feasible, it is developed, it is here, and the rest is going to be history. this will happen because it is happening. this year our estimates of cellulosic by a fuel production are actually based on -- bio

fuel production are actually based on start-ups happening, production. i know i may be awhile, but it is exciting to me. -- a wonk, but it is exciting to me. let's speak about stationary sources. i talked about the fact that epa is doing this, their actions in a very step-by-step, common- sense approach so that we can meet our clean air act obligations to address greenhouse gases from large industrial sources. i do not have to tell the states that are here who have been working on these issues that it has been our resource challenge for both epa and the states to figure out how to get this done and done well, but we did figure it out. i'm referring to the permitting challenges. we took a phased approach to permiting. we worked with states. i will tell you, we now have a

very successful permiting program for large industrial sources that are producing significant amount of greenhouse gases. how do i know it is successful? you never read about it. [laughter] it has just not been an issue. we have worked very hard with states. the states, for the most part, have taken over the permit programs. this is what you're seeing when you look at permits. you are seeing that regulated entities coming into the process, we are not talking about controls, but efficiencies. we are getting more and more efficient industries that are being permitted because they are looking at it as a requirement and rule -- any to try to reduce my greenhouse gases as much as possible -- they're looking at the absolute benefits of building manufacturing facilities that are highly efficient. they are doing it.

this stuff is working. i am also very excited about that, as you can probably tell, because if it were not working, we would be in difficulties. it is working well. it is a collaborative process. the states have played a great partner. i want to thank them for it. let's talk a little bit about the carbon pollution standards for new power plants, which i like to call future power plants, so that there is a bit of a distinction -- really what we are talking about regulating is future power plants. as you know, in march of 2012, epa announced the first ever carbon pollution standard for future fossil fuel fired power plants. power plants, as you know, account for about 40% of about it -- of all carbon dioxide emissions. that is why we are paying attention to power plants. they are actually the single

largest source of industrial greenhouse gas emissions in the united states. the proposed standard would insure that future power plants use modern technology such a limit their greenhouse gas emissions. we have a flexible compliance program to facilitate the use of technology. the common sense proposal reflects the ongoing trend in the power sector to build cleaner plants that take advantage of modern technologies and fuels, debtor produced in the united states, and it would ensure that progress continues to a modern system.

. .

>> mom and dad, i want to work at walgreens. this is what i wanted. that is where my heart was. since i come over here, i have fell in love with this place. i would not trade this place for nothing. >> the surprising thing is, you start out wanting to change the workplace. what we found out was, we were the ones who were changed. >> this chance is important for a lot of people. special need, they come out, strive, be their own person and not feel like they are held down by anything. >> my first check, i took it home, my mother looked at it -- she started crying. why do you think she did that? i don't know. >> as the governor said, last summer we hosted our first ceo summit on employing people with disabilities at our windsor, connecticut center. during that summer, we gave all the attendees a tour and first- hand look at what we do. we also shared some of our

results which i will share with you now. we gathered 400,000 hours of data across distribution centers and 31 job functions. this data has been studied and peer-reviewed. without a doubt, people with his abilities can perform. here is what we have seen, 20% fewer accidents in the distribution centers. 70% less workers comp costs. lower absenteeism, and twice the retention. that is a positive impact on our overall workplace culture. like randy said, we started out to change the workplace and along the way we we discover that we were the ones who were changed.

as a result, the managers who have worked at anderson give it our highest rating. those are the folks that have gone from one distribution to the other. team members working there, with or without disabilities, turn in the highest performance in our supply chain. here is a very important point. we learned that a commitment to employing people with disabilities did not require automation. that meant we could do it everywhere. we could spread it. on average, over the last two years, one out of three new hires in our 20 distribution centers across the country has been a person with a disability. he employ more than 1000 people with disabilities in our distribution centers. that is about 10% of our total supply chain workforce. they earn the same competition of their typically abled colleagues. next up, we have been been piloting the program around employing people with disabilities at our retail locations, which we call the retail employees with disabilities initiative.

imagine the impact we can have with our 8000 stores in all 50 states and puerto rico. he started with a pilot in texas two years ago. we have expanded to more than 150 stores throughout texas, new york, delaware, and connecticut. we recently announced an expansion to the program across the state of wisconsin. i want to thank the governor for his commendation for the program. altogether, or than 200 folks across the country have completed their four weeks of their training service course using training developed with local community agencies. many of them in your states. about 60% of the folks we have trained have been recommended for hire. these folks are busting a myth that should have been busted a long time ago.

that people with disabilities can perform well in these kinds of public facing, fast-paced, multitasking jobs. our new store clerks are proving that with training, people with all sorts of disabilities can do quite well in a retail environment. that is encouraging. we did not or could not do this alone. we collaborated with state and local agencies along the way and providers that serve people with disabilities. we worked with them to help us find qualified employees and developed the job training programs for them. my third and final bucket -- working together with states and agencies. there are three ways that i hope we can work together to help you with your bottom line initiative. by week, i am not just suggesting walgreens, all companies moving in this direction. first, share our experience, including the ideas and suggestions that came out of our ceo summit last summer. we can show the pitfalls and best practices. we can raise the visibility around the effort and raise awareness of the bottom-line

business. that is critical. the second way is more tangible. we can help your state agencies and their contractors work with each other and the public sector or private sector. we can identify barriers and help untangle some red tape. we can develop active partnerships with companies, creating a custom tailored solution for each location. this cannot be a cookie-cutter approach, each company is different. we can help agencies identify ways to be as creative and flexible as possible without breaking the rules and applying regulations. finally, i think we can support and encourage our schools to play a significant role in this effort which will make a big difference as they help develop our youngsters and their work capabilities.

the third way we can work together is the simplest of all. that is just opening doors and eyes to what works. in that light, i invite all of you to come and visit our distribution centers. ring representatives from companies in your states if you would like. certainly we have team members and managers that will help you and help them see the best practices and hear the best practices that we have. the important thing is, if you

have companies come visit, don't just bring leadership, but bring operators, because they usually ask the right questions and the toughest questions. i had an old box that told me years ago, the best form of management is show intel versus just telling. seeing is believing. if you want to see for yourself. the reality is a true public- private partnership is a win- win-win. people with disabilities who want to work, get a chance to work, they get a chance to earn a living and contribute to the economy. they gain independence and become less in need of other assistance programs. companies like ourselves get a whole new pool of productive, enthusiastic people. first aid, it can positively effect your economy. we are told that employing people with disabilities at our anderson center actually saved south carolina $1 million in medicaid services in two years. so, i am just about out of time. i probably violated the number one rule in business, which is, do not share your trade secrets with other companies. this certainly isn't something we think we should keep to ourselves.

with all the good that we can all do for these folks, our companies and the economy, that is a risk that i am looking forward to taking. if it helps your states and companies benefit, so be it. maia angelou said, the greatest danger for most of us lies and not adding our into high and falling short, but in setting our aim too low and achieving the mark. i can think of no better way for a company to do good while doing good business than employing folks with disabilities. thank you for the opportunity. hopefully it has been beneficial. [applause] >> we will open it up. greg is happy to take some questions. please, let's get started. >> i want to thank you, jack, for having decided that this was your personal project for your year at the helm here. it is a great project.

it will have long-lasting impact. every person with disabilities who has previously not been employed into we can have employed as a result of the leadership being demonstrated by walgreens and your leadership as well stands as a testament to our humanity and our willingness to save ourselves some money at the same time. i have to say, i visited the center and took the tour with randy, a great tour guide. very proud of what you all have accomplished. if i remember correctly, your original goal was to have 25% of your employees with disabilities. you have blown through that with 50%. i hope one day you get to 80%.

i will also tell my fellow governors, since i first went to the walgreens site in windsor, we reached an agreement with three additional companies to the large customer fulfillment centers, one of which is an online marketer of products who were not too happy with us when we decided that they should be subject to our sales tax, and now we have reached an agreement with them to collect that sales tax and build a customer fulfillment center. every time we are having a discussion about such a center, we are taking people to walgreens to see what is going on areas i urge you all to come, kathy and i would be happy to put you up at the house for a night if you agree to go see walgreens in windsor. it is about 20 minutes from the house. i do want to make one point.

there is a synonymy of folks with disabilities who were once thought to be unemployable who are really employable. this issue with autism and the spectrum means that we are all going to have a bigger problem to deal with in very short order. if you look at the impact of the two wars we have fought, particularly the fight for some number of months in one case, we have also produced a lot of people with disabilities. there is nothing better we could do to honor the service of the men and women who have become injured and can't come home with disabilities and to find him a job. there is nothing more cost- effective than to do that and make sure our children with autism and other disabilities have a job. the number on the medicaid side is extremely important, but it is about all of the other wraparound services that we are

otherwise providing, which walgreens has stepped in and provided through a salary. we need to do all that we can to bring this about. final point, they are great partners. we work with them, our commissioners work with them, we put all of our social service commissioners, instead of having them work in a silo, we talk about walgreens on what we are trying to get other companies to do on a regular basis. they did not ask for much. one change we had to make in the state of connecticut is, we put a bus stop at their front door. that's it. we put a bus stop at their front door. instead of having people on load themselves or load themselves 250 yards away, we simply agreed to bring the best in, have it stop at the front door, discharge the people and have them leave.

this is doable. everywhere. what i want to know is when you are going to build another one in connecticut. [laughter] >> thank you for the kind remarks. you are right. our goal was one to five-- 25%. we far exceeded that. that is the key, set a high bar. it challenges and forces everyone to go out and do things that we didn't think were possible. thank you very much. >> thank you for being with us. one thing really intrigued me. you talked about the early stages, how you set this in motion and how it emanated from one of your executive officers. could you speak more fully to how you set that vision internally, what kind of buy in you got, from the internal perspective? >> first and foremost, you need a champion. with any big company initiative, you need a champion.

a lot of that credit goes to the guy behind me, randy. in many cases, you need to happen in operations. you need a line to drive it within a facility, tremendous support from central hr. it is best done in line operations. it was very easy to get a groundswell of momentum and support, because people knew it was the right thing to do. it was really more of the house. once we figured out the how, it just took off on a life of its own. one of the things we are finding, a lot of the barriers i am talking about, we learned that we can remove, some of the standard processes, for example, an online job application, we

did not realize at the time that in many cases, we were blocking someone with a disability that may not be able to navigate that who could be a very good employee. they did not get the opportunity. umber one, you have to have a champion, empower them, then stick it in operations. let it gain the momentum that it did. >> good morning. i also want to thank governor markel for bringing this important issue on the agenda. pregnant, for your leadership and your business. i have a question -- greg, for your leadership and your business. people think that people with disabilities need medical care. i used to practice emergency medicine. increasingly we saw people in the er who did not have emerge in problems that needed some care that fit their work schedule.

opening healthcare facilities in places like walgreens makes eminent sense. the question i have, you move more into chronic care management, b this is a question for your hr people. how do you do a continuity of care, given the fact that many cases you have a person with chronic conditions seeing five different physicians who do not know what they are doing? how do you deal with that? are you doing anything with electronic medical records? >> that is exactly it. we need connectivity. our healthcare system does not need further fragmentation. certainly, as we begin to expand our scope of services and allow our pharmacist to practice at the top of their profession, nurse practitioners who can practice at the top, those two healthcare professionals can provide a lot of the care in the country. we do not want to fragment. we are investing in electronic medical records.

we want to be the primary care physicians partner, not a separate solution. we think that access to affordable, high-quality care is absolutely something that we can help the nation with. healthcare it is a big part of that. we have to connect with physicians. >> aloha. thank you very much. it is not clear to me when you're speaking about disabilities in general, can you give me some example of the spectrum of disabilities you are speaking about? i am thinking myself, as an adult, i acquired a seizure syndrome.

epilepsy is a generic term. very little is known about it. it scares people. many people who have to contend with epilepsy in its arc of constant seizures to occasional, find themselves in a situation where they can be employed. people are afraid to employ them. will they be able to deal with it? you mentioned autism, but the entire spectrum of what constitutes disability, some has to do with limbs, some has to do with conditions that may be sporadic in nature. i am interested, what is the spectrum of disability? how is the word disability defined for you at walgreens? second, how do you coordinate with those agencies that deal with helping people to be able to contend with a life?

i am a member of the federation of the blind, dealing with deaf children, those kinds of things. do you have an ongoing relationship or contract with agencies from goodwill to the national federation of the blind to epilepsy society's? that may exist principally of parents and researchers and people affected by, as opposed to something more broad-based. >> good question. the first question, without being too high level, folks with all cognitive and physical disabilities we think are a candidate. that does not mean that we can employ every individual, but what we are finding is, we can employ many more across the spectrum than we realized. for example, we used to have a policy, in a distribution center, you need safety with the lift trucks and so forth. somebody that may be missing a

limb, you would not have thought that maybe they were a candidate. we realize, with the proper training, accidents have gone down across the spectrum. i would not recommend eliminating across any disability. it is really the training and opportunity and figuring out how you can put them to work. as far as the agencies, that is probably the biggest opportunity that we have together. there are some great agencies out there trying to do some great things. some of the things that we see would be to your point many times. we are working with several agencies. that focus on maybe one situation, whereas it would be kind of good to collaborate and work together. the number one thing we need as we move forward, we have to find good partners. ending time with the states and agencies agencies who can really

be good partners, it is really about the sourcing. we can create the training internally, ourselves. it is really working and finding partners who can help us source and then bring people in. hope that helps. >> can i just add something? it is important, we are not asking these companies to provide social services. beyond the job. the rule is, the person has to be able to get to the job themselves. you do not transfer the person. this is about convincing people to open their doors, make positions available, and then the state and societies and interests need to continue to do their part on behalf of these individuals in making sure they get the services outside of employment that they need.

we can't have employers think that we are asking them to provide a full body of services, otherwise the whole system breaks down. >> before i go to governor, i think the question he is asking, is at the core of what we're trying to get at. we do have a session tomorrow were a number of governors, we invite all of you, but a number of governors will be talking about specific things they are doing in their states on that point. we will also have a panel of experts -- one example, one thing we heard as we have been engaging with folks from around the country, one thing to many of our agencies do is take a list of names to an employer and say, can you please find employment opportunities for these people? as opposed to first going to the employer and saying, can you please identify for me the skills that you are looking for.

and then i can go back and check, these are the people i have, they may have any range of disabilities. the focus is on the ability rather than the disability. for the purse part of your question, we have been consulting with people of every possible disability. it has been an incredible educational process. hopefully governor do guard can tell his own stories, he has amazing insights as well. >> everyone represented here is involved in public policy and significant employers. as you look at this from the business side, towards the government side, what kind of initial adapters and tasks and opportunities are there? there are millions of people represented as employees here. we have a shared responsibility similar to that. you have your share holders and whatnot. what advice do you have to us in

the public sector of types of tasks or responsibilities that might be quick adapters so that we could be partners in breaking down barriers, but also partners in the actual accomplishments of employment of folks with disabilities. >> the number one thing, with employers, is to invite the agencies in to come in and identify, so that we can help them with the services we are looking for. in the retail setting, we are finding that we can employ folks all the way from front cashier and so forth. there is not a limit. as far as the state, if you're asking me how you can employ folks of cognitive disabilities, i would not limit myself. it may, they don't have the answer. not limit yourself. we have opportunities to employ folks we never would have

dreamed of before. it has to be good business. to make this sustainable, it has to be making sense for the business. we constantly say, it is not charity. we want something that is sustainable. just a limit yourself, begin to identify tasks, believe that you have opportunities for, then figure out and bring the agencies in, and let them go back out and source it for you. >> your question is also part of the initiative focused on the public sector. >> thank you governor markel for your leadership on this issue. it certainly brought light to a lot of issues that we might not have considered is governors. i was intrigued by your comment that you saw a 70% job in your

workers compensation costs areas normally you might think that if somebody has a disability, there may be a safety cost to that. you are seeing less cost, that is a big issue for businesses across the nations. can you talk a little bit about that? >> it is across the entire enterprise, not just folks a disability, but our typically abled folks. i think what happens is, as you begin to really look at how you can best employ and make sure that all hires are productive, you gain productivity and safety across the entire enterprise. that you may be able to transfer the learnings from what you have done to make sure you can allow someone to do a specific task. that is what we talk about, the fact that it is not just an opportunity to employ someone in an agency. they may come in and say, how can you use our folks?

it is identifying needs and then focusing on how it can help your business. >> question for you. do you come across employers who are worried that, if i open up the door to applicants with disabilities and don't hire them, then now i am worried about discrimination lawsuits, i would rather just not get into it. i do not want to learn about those lawsuits. do you see that at all? >> we have not.

we are working with a lot of different employers who we have brought in and let them see what we are doing. one of the common questions we get, if they are not performing, what do we do? you treat someone with a disability the same way you deal and treat a typically abled person. you have to be completely fair and consistent across the board. we have not experienced that. i don't know if any of the governors have. we have not. >> anybody else? let's hear it for greg. [applause] >> we will have more from the national governors association tomorrow, starting live at 9:30 a.m. eastern.

then 2:30 p.m., a forum on education. that is tomorrow on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]click next, a discussion about how states can protect against cyber attacks. live at seven o'clock a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution while in her mid-40's, she was considered an enemy by the partition threatened to take her hostage -- the british. meet martha washington, monday night in the first program of c- span's new weekly series, first ladies, influence and image. we will visit some places that influenced her life, valley

forge, mount vernon, and philadelphia. the part of the conversation about martha washington with your phone calls, tweak, and facebook posts. live on monday night on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> this session of the national governors association winter meeting focused on cyber threats in the strategies that state governments use to respond to them as well as prevent them. among the speakers, richard clarke, michigan's chief security officer and the chief information security officer for zappo's. this is about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. the meeting of the national governors association committee on health and homeland security is called to order. thank you very much for joining

us. the books for this meeting were sent to governors in advance and include the agenda, speaker biographies, and background information. the proceedings of this committee meeting are open to the press and all meeting attendees. as a consideration, if you take a moment to ensure that your cell phones and other devices are silenced. i would also like to complement governor o'malley. before moving to the main portion of our session, protecting our nation, states and sire security, we begin with an executive briefing on the nationwide public safety broadband network. last year congress passed landmark legislation to reallocate critical radio spectrum to public safety and provide $7 billion for construction of the first interoperable broadband network for public safety. this is intended to modernize

public safety communications by giving first responders reliable access to broadband technologies like video, text messaging, and e-mail. this legislation also established the first responder network authority to oversee the construction operation and maintenance of a nationwide network. as first that continues to develop, governors will be able to make the critical decision whether to make their own plan .ur opt out area we are pleased to have mr. sam begin with us today. -- mr sam ginn.

beginning his career in 1968 with a career and at&t. he served as chairman and ceo of telesis 19 98 to 1984 -- 1988 to 1994. he has served on several boards, including ico global communications, vodafone, and airtouch communications. we will also discuss covers the intends to engage in dates to ensure that the nationwide network is a success. he is also joined by several other first not board members in our audience. craig, first that general

manager. -- firstnet general manager. new york city police department deputy chief chuck dowd. we are pleased to have you with us here today to discuss the plans for the network and how states can work together to ensure the networks success. good afternoon. >> good afternoon and thank you. . it is a pleasure to be here. i would like first to thank nga -- >> we are trying to put wi-

fi across the entire state and then you can plug in the applications and capabilities that you want and the degree that you want them and the amount that you want them to run your state. i think it is important to say this at the beginning, because the first question we typically get is, this is going to be a nationwide network, we will lose local control and we will not be able to run our own operations. that is that conceptually what we are talking about here. we are detecting a national network. that is the only way you can get interoperability not only from

police to fire to emergency to medical but across state lines. if you send a crew from my home state of alabama to colorado to fight a forest fire, you want the instrument they take with them. the communication systems to be able to work when they get to the colorado fire. this takes on a new term here. to do this we are going to need your help and your cooperation. we have a significant outreach program that we're putting in place that asks you to appoint a state coordinator.

we are going to come out and make a number of visits to your state. it is very important that we understand the facilities that you have and the requirement that you want so we can take those back and feed them into a national architecture. when you think about it, this is the largest telecommunications projects in the history of the united states. it is going to cover every square meter of land in the united states. it is going to be able to penetrate the basement of manhattan and cover the forest fires in sierra nevada. we have an enormous challenge before us here to construct this network. you have to be a part of it. you have to make sure that we understand what your boots are and we can construct the system to meet your needs. i need to say a word about the board.

i could say it is a wonderful combination of people from public safety and private equity. on the technical side, you can have confidence in our technical capability. we have people that have built a wireless systems all across the united states. they have a belt systems in spain, italy, japan, korea, and india. and probably a few that i have forgotten. i want you to have confidence that we have the technical expertise to deliver this system to you. what you need to do for us is make sure we understand your needs.

another point i would like to make is one that may be not so obvious. this system is transformational. you have been pushing for voice transformations. what we are going to do is put a massive data capability right at the public service working level. what that will do is allow you to develop services that will lower the cost and answer your customers better. let me give you a simple example of a situation in california that happened a few months ago. it was a fire chief in a restaurant. a person had a heart attack and died in the same restaurant. had he known about it he felt he may be could have saved a life. he went back to his cpr classes and as civilian volunteers if

they would volunteer to let a dispatcher know of the location so that when another call comes in the dispatcher can look up and call the closest person to the heart attack victim and essentially have a better chance of saving their lives. that is a simple application. my prediction to you is that a decade from now you will have thousands of those applications and that it in your public safety experience. it will transform how you've served your citizens, the cost

structure, and the service capability. i encourage all of you to work with us, be our partner, help us define the requirements of this system. we know how to architect it. it will be a good job. thank you, governor, for this opportunity. >> do you have any questions on firstnet? this was a big win for this organization. democratic and republican governors came together with our organizations, law enforcement, and first responders to make sure this was reserved for first responders so we could finally build out this. >> thank you for this and for the panel you have convened. as i understand, $7 billion, has that been appropriated or are we using a different spectrum to borrow money to get the $7 billion? does it cover the cost? can you give us the time frames.

in terms of this, it would be a key component to have a sitting governor on the committee. >> i would do the first part. in response to the funding, the legislation that reallocated this it did so. it is not a new revenue. it is going to be auctions conducted by the federal communications commission.

the proceeds will be provided as having been a dedicated specifically to fund the nationwide network. there may be additional funds. $7 billion is currently earmarked. >> they also directed treasury to loan us $2 billion to get the project started until the options came to take place.

>> are we selling part of that d block? but what are we taking from this? >> is a totally different sections. it is other spectrums that will be auctioned for commercial purposes. >> in terms of representation, although it is not a bad idea, i appreciate the outrage you're asking for. i think that is your request of us today. how do we stay involved in terms of governors? >> the board appointments are made by the department of commerce. the next time there will be a couple of openings, they are one, two, or three years. this is something that is dependent upon the department of congress.

we do not have a current or former governor on that. what we have done is to advocate with the board. they have been happy to work with us. we are on the executive committee for the public safety advisory committee. nga holds one of the vice chair seats. >> just to follow up, it would be great to have a governor on the board. in terms of timing, what is happening in the next year? is it a three-year plan? give me a sense of where this is going, the timing of the state to present grant requests. is it half now or half later? >> the grants are handled by ntia.

you will be getting funds to organize with in your state to communicate. this has been an interesting experience. i am at a commercial guy. i am not accustomed to working in the government world. it is an interesting experience. we started out with a board of directors that no employees. a no strategic plan and no management systems, nothing. we have been in existence for four or five months now. we're beginning to put those structures in place. we are coming on very nicely. we have the technical expertise to get this done. the other thing i want to mention is conceptually we are a company with a board of directors owned by the government with some independence to build the system. i think that is important. i think you are right. the board of directors are in a position to greatly influence this. we are developing requirements. we have a basically architected the system. we know what it will look like and now we need to build in the pieces. we should be able to do that within the first year.

>> thank you. thank you for that. i think there is a lot to this. i think heather will have to see how we can be actively involved. to the expense looks extraordinary to me, especially in wyoming, which is one of the most rural states in terms of our population and land mass.

when we talked about opt in or opt out, when gov. o'malley worked on the d block issue, and the concept is very important. the details will be important. >> you do not hear me say our objective is to cover every square plans. it is 65% or 70%. >> if you can do that in wyoming, you're making tracks that have not been made before. it is going to be a challenge. >> we may do that by satellite. >> thank you. any more questions? with the state and local authorities have control over this in their state? >> that is part of the criteria.

as those this is another part, it because of broadband services will be less than the current ones? >> there is no reason why they should not be. the couple of reasons why you probably pay 5x. we will have failed if we do not build this cheaper than you can build it.

>> as we are building this out, there will still be the expenses that state and local governments have to come with the dollars in order to build up their own. i hope there's some accommodation. if we are going to control this with in the local and state, i hope you'll give us the capacity to give us priority to give us the preempt and allow us to raise $7 at local level so we can invest. >> could be individual states to do that better in negotiation with at&t or sprint or verizon @? could we cut a better deal nationwide? >> you want to put the savings back into this structure. >> which then goes back to the fact we should have a governor on the panel.

>> aetna she said puerto rico was included. on behalf of my colleagues, territories are included. >> thank you. >> lonely are all connected, we will get through these nuances. anything else? thank you very much. thank you for your comment. we should consider sending out another letter. this will be an issue in terms of maximizing the value of this and whether it becomes something that is intercepted by the governments, whether we actually have it so we can in chief interoperability among our first

responders. let's move into the next topic which is going to be the balance of this meeting. we're also joined from the governor of arizona and we think her work on these issues. we have a number of distinguished presenters here he will be talking to us about the cyber security imperative that we face as a nation and as a state. last month janet napolitano warned that a cyber 9/11 could happen at any moment with the potential to cripple our nation's technical bridge. there have been attacks on cyber networks that have increased the frequency, that have increase in their sophistication and have the potential to inflict more

serious damage on our serious infrastructure such as our water treatment facilities and so on. attacks have emerged as one of the nation's greatest threat. it requires all levels of government to work together. all of our state governments are the trustees of sensitive personal information. we control services for citizens, supporting a emergency response, supporting private sector partners. all of these things require a new level of vigilance in this era where people can potentially enter our networks, still secret, and also leave back doors and other avenues that we may not have even anticipated in the future. in addition to, i also want to make this other announcement.

there is no one size fits all solution. we recently announced the creation of the resource center for state cyber security. we want to thank our corporate sponsors, ibm, hewlett-packard, and semantic. working with public safety entities in the private sector, it is the hope that this resource center will help examine the roles states can and should be planning to ensure the security of state based networks as well as keep critical infrastructure that impact the operations of our state and their economies.

it is our hope they will identify best practices. we all like to be the best at doing something second. if someone has figured out how that is like accomplishing the research and development for those of us in state government. we have one other announcement. tomorrow all governors are invited to a top-secret briefing from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. it will build on a session today and will provide governors of information on the current cyber threat environment and how this thread may affect our states. i want to encourage all governors to participate. it happens between our last meeting and when we are supposed to be at the formal dinner at the white house.

i can assure you that anybody who comes in a tuxedo we will keep james bond jokes to a minimum when you show up. we have a number of experts. i would like to thank governor sandoval for the many opening remarks he made on its cyber security. >> i appreciate the opportunity to give these remarks. cyber is security is attack on a daily basis. it is one of the most pressing issues we face. in addition to storing data, we rely on these to conduct activities including critical homeland defense in response operations. improperly coordinated attack can destroy a multiple state agencies are multilevel some of government, preventing this from reaching our citizens.

this past october the national association of the chief information officers released a report that the majority of states are not adequately prepared or equipped to combat and respond to a sophisticated cyber attacks. according to the report, while states have made progress, shortages of qualified personnel and resources have left states unable to address the growing number or against nature of the attacks the face. without proper resources in place, states have had difficulty putting procedures in place to effectively respond to a potential breach in their networks. in addition to compromising personal information, mitigating these breaches could further strain on state budgets. our success in defending our nation against the threat is dependent on our ability to develop a common sense approach to cyber security. we must work together across all levels of government as well as

with the private sector to identify best practices and eliminate our vulnerabilities. just as important, we need to begin preparing now to quickly and effectively respond to it and recover from a breach to our daily lives. i look forward to hearing from our panel on how we can better respond to an recover from a cyber incident. it is my hope that our discussion will provide governors with the information they need to engage with our congressional leaders as they continue to develop cyber security legislation. i welcome our speakers and look forward to hearing from me.--

you. >> we are pleased to have with us our first two speakers. the first is richard clarke. he previously served in the last three presidential administrations as a senior white house adviser including special advisor to the president for cyber security and national coordinator for security and counterterrorism. he also worked for several years in the u.s. department of state for political military affairs. we also have with us dan lohrmann, chief security officer for the state of michigan.i do f

maryland. he began his career as a computer systems analyst with the national security agency and served in a variety of positions in the public and private sector for over 25 years. he served as chief information officer at in 1997 for the michigan department of management and budget. in october 2011 he was appointed the first security officer by gov. rick schneider. thank you both. let's begin with richard. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity. a lot of press has been devoted to this issue of cyber security including the president saying foreign entities had hacked

their way into our power grid controls and that they were stealing our industrial secrets. the national intelligence estimate which you hear about tomorrow has concluded. we can say this in an open meeting that there is a pandemic of a foreign s&p not going after -- espionage going after our companies, research institutions, throughout the country. part of the problem with cyber security is it is three different issues. people tended to lump it all together. when you lump it together you cannot solve it. i suggest you start by did abrogating it and realizing it is three different things you are dealing with. one is cyber crime. it is the same as any other type of crime. people still money by hacking into systems and writing themselves checks.

the second phenomenon is s&p -- espionage. this is not a james bond. it is someone in china hacking their way into a company and stealing any information that company has that is of a value or into a research lab. this is a pandemic. it is a quiet pandemic. billions of dollars, $300 billion, it would cost the united states in lost research and development. that means lost jobs. you cannot be an american company in compete against a chinese company it all the money you pay for research and development if they get for nothing. they get all of it for nothing. whether it is taxpayer money or stockholder money that pays for it, they wait until it is done and they steal it and use it to compete against us. the third issue is cyber war.

it does not happen that much. it has been demonstrated that it could happen. instead of blowing something up with a bomb or missile, you blow it up with a cyber command. it is not science fiction. it has been demonstrated. the united states did it to iran, blowing up 800 nuclear centrifuges with a cyber command instead of dropping a bomb overhead. we also demonstrated you can do it two electrical generators. you can do it to pipelines. you can do is to trains. you can do it from the safety of your little office in shanghai or tehran. worse than that is that this knowledge is now faltering down below the state after level to the non-date after level. we saw 30,000 computers

completely wiped clean, all data gone, not recoverable, in one very quick attack. three different issues, crime, espionage, war. what is the role of the state? there are five rules the state inherently has that apply here. one, you are a corporation. you read people's checks. you'll credit card numbers. just like any corporation, you have to secure that data. secondly, you are a regulator at the state level. you can regulate the power grid and trains. that causes them to have higher levels of cyber security than they have now.

you are an emergency responder. the gloomy to know what you would do it the emergency was not a hurricane or tornado or something he recognized. what if it was a cyber attack? would you know what to do that have exercised a cyber attack? you probably exercised a snowstorm. you are a law enforcement organization. at the state level it can help companies that have been hacked that sometimes not all the attention they need from the federal level. you are an educational organization. you run universities and colleges. the big gap isn't trained personnel. we created something called scholarship for service.

if you pledge to work for the government, we will pay for your education. i have a longer list the things you can understand. i have this all on the web site. you need to begin with a strategy. figure out what you think you mean to do and what you think the role of government should be. where do you want to go on this issue? through a gap analysis of what is the difference between where philosophically the state ought to be and where it is now. do a path of getting from where you think you are thought to be in a state strategy from where you are now.

a few states have started that. the sharing of best practices is a great idea. do not rush out and start programs. to begin with a strategy that represents your philosophy about what you think the state ought to do against these three distinct problems, cyber crime, espionage, and cyber war. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the invitation. it is an honor to be invited to speak on this important topic. let me begin by emphasizing the state of michigan in government faces a barrage of unauthorized access our systems.

we removed over 31,000 pieces of malware from incoming e- mails. we see it daily in michigan as in every other state in the nation. what can be done? what are we doing now in michigan? it offers seven actions the governors should take. they go right in line with what mr. clarke was just mentioning. governors must make cyber security a top priority. gov. schneider led the charge by establishing accountability authority in visibility of governance. michigan is centralized by i.t.

we have now merged into one cohesive program. the chief security officer provides risk-management and security associated with assets, property systems, and networks. it also leads the development and the implementation of security strategies from all michigan technology resources and infrastructure. each state needs a plan for cyber security. following this framework, and guidance to be provided, each state must implement a level of defense. gov. schneider brought together this across the nation. this lays out a comprehensive strategy and safeguards are in data.

our plan can be seen at michigan dot gov. provide next-generation awareness. in every state employees are our weakest link against cyber attacks. these are the number one cause of breaches. in the past, this quickly became outdated and was a failure. we now covered the training. we call it 2.0.

brees interactive lessons are develops. feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. even sharing the information on family members at home. a stafford is sensible training. in 2012, we launched the michigan cyber range. it provides a secure environment for cyber response and the latest in a technical response for the public and private sector. the tax can come from anywhere and anytime. we can ensure confidentiality ends this. michigan is in the process of

security operations centers and never speak. -- that never sleeps. we are working to develop a report using new metrics. what if there is a major cyber incident in your state? are you prepared? what if there is a breach? build a cyber response plan. state governments become very good at the responding to natural disasters. the same level of discipline must be applied to cyber incidents. we are developing a cyber plan to map out a clear strategy. states should align these with

presidential order. cyber destruction plants might be disruptive. allstate should be testing the plan to ensure resilience. michigan is benefited by participating in all global exercises as well as 2012 which focus on its cyber response. we are testing the cyber protocols. perhaps most importantly we must establish this. the cannot be done on an island or it will fail. we must work together to share information and coordinate a response.

michigan has strong partnerships with the national response come at the u.s. department of common security, the fbi. the multi state analysis center. michigan state police. this must be a key for each state moving forward. cyberspace has revolutionized the government. they are doing this for good and evil at the same time. each state must further protect their investments. i look forward to answering your questions. >> can we break for questions that are a good?

>> it is a pleasure to make this from a nevada company that i get to interview. i am glad we have the chief information security of zappos.com. to his role, a he served as chief officer for a leading contract organization where he implemented the security strategy to protect and secure confidential data. prior, he worked at equifax where he was instrumental in building the engineering operations and compliance teams. he helped build one of the largest and most important data loss solutions as well as the highly regarded programs. welcome. >> thank you. session four heading up this

committee. welcome. i am honored to be geared to speed about something i am passionate about. it is nice to hear that a lot of these are similar. we asked to come in here and talk to you about what we do after. we were told that previous comments is spent time on threats. from this conference and happy to do that for you. and going to give you a framework for some good questions from those who are

responsible for security within your organizations. i want to get a little bit of a framework. there has been a lot of breaches the last couple of months that are out there. i will spare repeating the names. more importantly we know there are more that do not know they're being attacked today. they have not decided to publicize for what ever reason. i want to focus on a few common things you hear. i have gone through all of the press releases. i want to use it as a frame of what i'm going to talk about it. you will hear a statement similar to this. we were victims of a sophisticated attack. we are aware of the attack and are launching a full security practices to make sure we can prevent this in the future. take a moment to think about those things. i'm going to tell you some facts about that the bridges. we can take these lessons and start asking additional

questions. assertions are always been nice. data tells us that most breeches are the result of unsophisticated attacks. 96% were not highly difficult according to the 2012 data reports. 97% of the breaches were avoidable through "simple or immediate controls." there were no vulnerabilities that people did not catch or provide controls for. it is important as you think about what you are doing. as i discuss it here, it will be about action. knowing this, one of the key things you should do after a breach, it is not rocket science. it is not a secret. it is almost common sense. it is harder than it seems. what you need to do is follow

your response plan and take actions you have already deemed necessary to learn from it. it is that simple. the do not have them, that is a different story. this is no time to think about what needs to happen. you have to react and think about what needs to be taken care of. time is precious. you have to understand and contain those particular events. >> it is not have a matter of if but when. when you going to be attacked? it could be today would not even know it. you need to prepare for that. companies and organizations seem to have so much time after an event to spend looking at the security programs. why are they doing it before something happens? the two most important things to focus on during an incident

from my experience our communications and executions. you have to keep people informed. you have to enable your teams to go execute what they are supposed to do in order to contain the breach that you had. in order to do that, it makes sense to focus on a few key things. these are questions you should be asking about a data breached or incident that gave confidence in your security program. here are some key questions. do you know your environment? ask how many incidents have been reported this month. either you do not have the technology to detect the attacks are the people that you have to not know what an attack looks like.

just read the newspapers. all the evidence is there. you are being targeted. define the rules. who's in charge of security? do they know this? is it really just your cso or dba? or even the data owners out there. it is very dangerous when everybody thinks someone else is responsible. do you have the right people? we have heard this echoed. people are the greatest asset that we are lacking here. you're not going to do anything without the right talent within your organization. you can have all the greatest

technology and processes but if you do not have people who know what to do in the event of incidents, who know what incident even look like, you have lost the game already. and how often do you test your security measures? answer is, we really haven't -- i'm not talking about desktop exercises. i'm talking about getting something unannounced and going and seeing what you can take from a third-party, because you want to see see how your team is reacting. you want to understand, are things working, so you can make adjustments before they are too late. and what do you have that others want? without understanding that, how do you know what to look for? only you can answer that question, what is the data you have. whether it is a straight strategy plans -- do you know where it is, do you know who has access to it? you will be surprised of who has access to your data.

you have to be able to detect suspicious activity. 94% of companies are told by others they have a breach. they could not even detect it themselves. someone else let them know about that. connection is not enough. it is about prevention. -- detection is not enough. it is about prevention. the average time a hacker is involved is 416 days before they are detected. really? you have to ask yourself, how effective are your programs? don't be fooled by false security. sometimes i encounter things that people are talking about. we talk about security risk management. i want to make one point on that. just because you know about a risk and you have excepted it does not mean it goes away. as a security person, i keep it

simple. i'm not going to come to you with something complicated. i will say to you, this is the issue. if we do not do anything, the risk will stay the same. who would sign off on that? it is still there for someone to take advantage of to do harm to you and your organization. the audience here is really important. how do we share data? we heard from the panelists about sharing data. how do we do more than just share data, operate together more effectively? we are duplicating so many things. we are taking resources from each other. how do we work together to manage that better? it is a challenge for other people to go out there and try to figure out, what about shares resources? -- shared resources? what is so private about the

actual networks that you cannot find trusted partners to share those resources? we do have a shortage in trade resources. that is an area i want to challenge you into. we have great schools and universities. we need to get people excited about security. without these components, you would not know who to communicate with any would not know how to assess the impact of the event. spend your time now and validate the information you receive from your teams. it seems odd that we have plenty of time and resources to fix issues once a breach happens. why don't we have that same opportunity before so we can prepare for it? hope those questions give you a good framework. i look forward to the

conversation we will have. >> thank you, all. i'm sure the members will have some questions. let me ask richard clarke, in your handout, which was excellent -- this is been passed around to everyone, the 12 steps. number three, you say, receive regular security briefings from cyber security including state employees and contractors responsible for protecting information assets. regular briefings from the department of homeland security. so much of our ability to set priorities and get people focused on the things we can and must do, and the follow-up depends in our ability to ask the right questions. what are the things that you

would advise those of us that served as governors to ask for as a template in these briefings so they are not a show and tell, there is an actionable 1-2, 3? >> flowing from that strategy is a plan. with metrics and milestones. there are 12 things or 20 things you want to get accomplished. you know when you want to have the accomplished by. you could get briefed every quarter for half an hour or so and how that progress is being made. there are all sorts of things you can decide are your priorities in this issue -- area. education, law enforcement. new ideas, new programs. and then you get briefed every quarter from an advisory board, may be an government advisory board and an outside government

advisory board. sometimes your employees are not as willing to be frank with you as some of those on the outside. get refund progress on implementing the plan, -- briefed on progress unemployment in the plan. what has happened lately, what have the attacks been like lately? if they tell you we have got it under control, fire them. >> good point. questions? thank you. >> i came into a situation in my state in which the capacity for even our departments or divisions within departments were utterly incapable of talking to one another. pardon my 20th-century century approach. i actually believe in talking.

this had in norma's consequences for a system on a fiscal basis. -- in norma's consequences for -- enormous consequences for our system. take foster children, education. we found five files, six files, all separate, all silo from one another, incapable of cross- referencing. i wanted to change that. we found that -- we stopped counting after 736 different systems. 736 different methods, techniques, infrastructure. i found three people i cannot fire, because they are the only

people who know where to go on ebay to get the parts for the computers they were using, which contained all of the information in certain areas. [laughter]i found somebody who had been using the computer for 36 years and was very smug about it. not everyone is in as bad a situation. we had no chief information officer. we got a chief information officer to try to put all this together. i give you that preamble because i am thinking to myself that everything i thought i was planning, they come to naught. [laughter] you talk about centralizing.

wouldn't that make me form more vulnerable -- more vulnerable than less vulnerable? if there are 600 different ways of doing things, maybe people will leave us alone. maybe we ought to do singles or something with morse code. is there a danger in getting to sophisticated -- too sophisticated? my goal is to yank us into the 21st century. but am i setting myself up then for a failure, vis-à-vis cybersecurity? >> i can start. i think if you bring together your resources -- the chief information said, let me explain what is happening. >> we published the hotel peru and. where we being attacked -- why we being attacked? >> you have a reduced number of

pipes so you can watch those pipes. the apartment of homeland security has a similar process that is happening in the federal government. there is a large number of tools. the question is, are you going to have 20, 30, 50, 800, whatever number of security groups not communicating with each other. as you heard from david and others and also richard clarke, there's is a shortage of qualified staff. bringing them together, i think we have shown in michigan -- not to say we have had no problems -- i believe you can be more effective. it is been shown by and large in industry and other states as well to be more efficient,

better use of taxpayer dollars and overall better security program. >> maybe it's my lack of sophistication in this, by centralizing everything, i thought i was making everything more efficient. but am i making it easier for people to get into our systems, are not? >> as dan said, you're making it potentially easier but also potentially easier for you to defend it. you have limited resources, limited trained people. rather than having 12 state department or agencies or however many you have all tried to do this -- you know they cannot all do it -- have one organization at the state level that is the chief information security officer for the state. have one operations center for this kind of thing. and maybe have one cloud operation. you can actually make things more secure in the cloud if you do it right.

>> that is counterintuitive to some of us, the cloud. >> it is an extension of this observation. rather than trying to secure a bunch of different physical locations, you put it in the cloud and the cloud can exist in multiple locations if you do it properly. you do not put everything in one data center in one place. you have two data centers in key of different states -- two different states. everyone who is involved in security is looking at that one target . it is easier to try to defend than try to defend hundreds. being one of the older people in the room and having used that system, i would say if you still have that working, keep it. nobody knows how to attack it. [laughter] that is what i got told.

they came in and said, we have three in full girl -- -- three in vulnerable employees. >> when i came into office two years ago, i started trying to prepare my budget and i found out all of our state agencies, we had 76 different pewter software programs. i was trying to match apples and oranges and figure what the agencies did -- computer software programs. i was trying to match apples and oranges and figure out what the agencies need. we brought them all together, started combining the information like governor abercrombie has been talking about. we have a saying in oklahoma that we are running our technology on an eight track technology and ipod world. we were running off old technology when we needed to come up together. we have a backup separate system.

if i ask, how do i make sure it is secure -- you mentioned something about resource kits that you did in michigan. what are you referring to? >> sure. you can go online and see those. the efforts in michigan have not just been about state employees. it is also looking at the schools, looking at universities, looking at how we can work across public and private entities and coordinating. clearly the private sector has

their own independent authority. whether it is the family, the home, the school, small business, what are checklists they can use of helpful tools they can use and actions they can take to protect their individual entity, school, business, whatever. >> when we brought although services together and had our chief information officer in charge of all these different agencies and branches and their i.t. functions, we were able to save $86 million in i.t. costs in the state of oklahoma. >> what do you believe is most significant cybersecurity threat facing the states? >> i think i would distinguish between the most significant threat and the most likely. the most significant threat would be an attack by either a state government like china or iran, or a nonstate actor, like hezbollah, that took down the power grid. or cause pipelines to go up or cause trains to derail. -- blow up or cause trains to

derail. the emergency response that you do for those kinds of things is similar to hurricanes. there are some distinct differences. i think knowing what you would do and exercising it is very important. knowing what authorities you have in those situations, and knowing who the right people are, and who to call them and what they will do. that is the most significant threat. the most likely threat is happening every day, and that is people are hacking into your networks and writing themselves checks and stealing you blind, and you don't know it. >> would you care to comment on that question, gentlemen? >> i would agree, and to the folks out there, think about your infrastructure. you are always going to see a

computer terminal somewhere. everything that is out there is susceptible to attacks. the only way you're not going to be successful is haven't disconnected. . even that is not 100%. attacks come through other means, unfortunately. it is anything that can stop all your critical operations. it would be highly detrimental to any government out there. i like the way richard framed it, they are taking whatever you have that is valuable. it is happening right now. whether it is enough information to do identity theft, whether it is enough information to understand how you award bids and then manipulate that system -- anything out there that is critical and secret to yourself. if it is connecting and you are not protecting it, you don't even know how someone would use that information against you. it is happening right now.

>> at the same time that all of us are trying to do more of our services online, and facilitate consumer transactions online. as the head of a state network, who are the people you: in the federal government to help you with the exercises? are there resources we can call on as governors to help us do a better job of protecting our networks and information? >> absolutely. we work with the department of homeland security very closely. we also work with the multistate isac. this is daily we are talking to them, ongoing operations. >> describe for us what the isac's are.

>> in the case of state governments, there is a multistate isac that works with the 50 state governments. there are sector specific plans for each individual. for the water sector, for transportation, you can go to dhs board, the national infrastructure plan, and that lays out the sectors pacific plans for each individual critical infrastructure -- sector's specific plans for each individual's article infrastructure. we work with the fbi, criminal justice organizations, department of justice as well. >> has anyone offered a regimen of training exercises and drills that are useful and valuable, or is that something

we are still working to create? i know after the attacks of 9/11 -- there are a lot of people rolling out drills and exercises. some of them were so expensive, none of us running cities could afford to do them without a huge amount of federal help. when we were one of the lucky winners that would be supported, we came late and said, that was a lot of time. i'm not sure how much more we learn from that than from a tabletop. i would think in this sphere that there should be a way to do this in both the cost effective way and also in a way that where you truly do learn something without it costing you a small fortune as a state. >> i agree. the cyber storm exercises did exactly that, across state lines. they also work with other countries, allies around the world. in addition, i know the

national exercise 2012 -- they are out there. there are exercises. i would agree with you that states should really take advantage of those opportunities to test their systems. >> richard? >> you can also apply for fema grants. while there is still fema money left -- [laughter] you might want to think about applying for that. it is expensive to do the big field exercises, but it costs almost nothing to do a tabletop exercise. while they are not as valuable, they can be very valuable for you and learning who does what and what capabilities. >> what about our national guard? that would be a great reservoir of expertise. have you found that is helpful in michigan? >> absolutely. we work very closely with our

michigan national guard, working tabletop lance with him, scenarios -- tabletop events with them, scenarios. >> would you say that most all of our national guard's have some cyber capacity? >> it varies around the country, but i certainly believe that is being built up and i think it is a way of the future. it is an opportunity for all of the states to look at beefing up their capability in that area. >> that would be a way to institutionalize it. with the national guard, it is always there for you to call upon. >> governor sandoval? >> thank you. the question was asked, what is the most likely vulnerability. >> don't share it on television. >> i do all the time.

when you ask what is most likely vulnerability, it is almost like, where do i begin? all of your databases can be breached. anything in your databases, any information. social security numbers, credit card numbers, any records that you have. the ability to hack and and write checks, make yourself an account payable and get paid, the fbi has discovered a number of cases like that where small corporations have discovered they were writing checks to people who were actually in the ukraine. the check does not go immediately to the ukraine. it goes to a local bank account and then hops several times. the most likely is cyber crime, identity theft, and monetary theft. that is happening all the time. the president said in the state of the union address something we have known for a while that has been secret, that foreign

entities are now in the control grids, have hacked their way in, water systems and other critical utilities. you have the power to regulate at the state level. sometimes better than the federal government does when it comes to utilities. you could establish cyber regulations for electric power, for example, that would make an even playing field for all of the companies so there would not be a case of one company having to spend more money to achieve security. everybody would have to do it within your state. i think if you have the power and the federal government doesn't -- power -- and the federal government doesn't -- to regulate your utilities, you want to do it. -- ought to do it. >> employees clicking on links. phishing attempts, spearfishing

-- an e-mail that looks so friendly from a bank or a government focus, and they click on that and then it creates identity theft -- people send in their credentials. that is going on in every one of are states right now. >> which then dials of the importance of the training. >> there is been a shift over the last 10 years and most of the attacks are now coming through individuals in these phishing incidents, rather than the old method, which was to have it directly at the mainframe. >> you have to think of it in terms of whatever folder ability is easiest.

that happens to be people. -- vulnerability is easiest. that happens to be people. where are you getting security awareness training? where are you learning about these types of things? if you study attacks, because of the way technology is, they are mass using systems. they are getting independent people's systems contaminated. we have to do something about educating folks on security so they do not participate in that. well it is not difficult, it is getting harder at the corporate level. we are getting better. >> just as we insist people show up for work, we need to start insisting that people get this training on a regular basis.

anybody that uses a computer in our state government -- we require police officers periodically have to make sure they qualify at the range. what is it, 86% of them are now coming at individuals who click on these innocuous e-mails. that is where 86% of the attacks are coming through. i would think that all of us need to adopt policies that insist that our employees get the training regularly so they do not do that. >> there is technology that will train them for that. >> we had training in the past. quite frankly, michigan failed earlier miserably in this area because our employees but it was a waste of time . >> gentlemen, thank you.

>> i want to add one thing. there is a dirty little secret about security, and it is the non-sexy part. the reason that there is vulnerabilities is because people are not doing their jobs. if the vulnerabilities are there and we know about it, why aren't they getting fixed? it is not hard. it is time-consuming. it takes effort. he goes back to execution. you have got to be doing things. >> are you talking about individual users? >> system so they take advantage of. -- that they take it vantage off. if you're a system administrator, there are patches. that fix issues. >> we need to wrap up. >> it occurred to me, virtually

everything you have been saying to this point was somebody outside coming in. one of the things i discovered very recently, i'm sorry to say, is people who are already inside state employees -- you mentioned for the abilities of privacy and social security -- vulnerabilities of privacy and social security. people looking people up. you say, let's go see richard gere's tax returns or something like that. let's see richard clarke's tax returns. let's find out how he's really doing. we are going to get him. how do you deal with that, then, in terms of security?

you are talking about centralization and figuring out how to defend yourself from outside. how do you defend yourself from people who by definition almost have to know what it is you are doing in order to protect yourself on the outside? you protect yourself from them -- how do you protect yourself from them? >> if you have a statewide security operations center, you can have software and human oddballs looking for anomalous activity. -- human eyeballs looking for a novelist activity. if somebody is doing what they should not be doing, the software will alarm them. this is the equivalent of the internal affairs you have and the police department? >> only is automated and it works better. >> you can also have an identity management. but really, who has access to what? and doing a better job with identity management is also a a

national initiative that is important that plays into cyber security. what do you have access to, what is your role, what can you see and are not allowed to see, and getting our hands around identity is important. >> the reason i brought it up is when this was being done, it was not being done for criminal purposes. it was being done because people had too much time, they got curious. it was light a prank. -- like a prank. what if somebody else, who is looking for a way into people's tax returns does not -- doesn't that open, doesn't what you are doing open up the possibility of other people realizing in getting access to what you are doing? >> we focus a lot on the extern all but it is the same controls external have to be focused

internally. the same questions of who has said excess, as to apply in your domain or not. >> thank you. >> we have had some light moment but this is a very serious. and we have only scratched the surface. i am looking forward to developing governor sanodval with you, the best practices and figuring out those states that have come up with the best policy. unlike some other areas where we should be open and transparent about these things, this is one area where perhaps that does not serve as well at least initially. so we will be having that briefing tomorrow, a top-secret briefing, governors only, four- o'clock. tomorrow, we will announce were the secret location is. we have before you 5 policies for the health of homeland security committee. and we will consider five

policies. one is temporary assistance to needy families. a second his homeland security. and the third is armed forces. the fourth has to do a public safety. the fed has to do with health. two of our policy were amended to reflect the current status of key status and help the public safety communications that were addressed today. our homeland security emergency management policy was amended to include language regarding the importance of federal collaboration with states to enhance food supply chain security and are armed forces' security policy was amended to include a way which recurring state-federal court mission to serve nation's veterans. they are before all of the members of the committee. in the interests of time, i would suggest that having been vetted by staff and the governors, that we consider them together as a block. orllas ask governo

sandoval. >> i move we consider the policies en bloc. ntion being vetted. the national governors' association is one of the finest people, most professional possible. the reason that i am confident we casting the vote is because of the good work they have done. >> thank you. that sounds like a second from governor abercrombie. >> all in favor, signaled by saying eye. it's unanimous. this concludes our meeting. thank you, a dent and, mary, mary much. and thank you -- very, very much and thank you, all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> we will have more from the national governors' association

at 9:30 with business leaders discussing employing people with disabilities. at 2:30, off for my education with connecticut governor and the iowa governor today on c- span. next, live your calls and comments on "washington journal". then at 9:30, the governor's hear from business and government leaders on employing people with disabilities. after that, "newsmakers" with a virginia congressman bob goodlatte. >> i think it's pretty accurate that they do not play by the rules. i think they bend the rules to fit their circumstance. i think americans and a lot of westerners tend to be a lot more legalistic. we want things on a contract. once we see things are written on a contract, we think that is the be all and end all. the chinese will agree to any trade agreement and the minute

the ink is dry there will figure out a way to get around its requirements. >> where does that come from? >> it is relentless drive to try to get ahead. it is what has built the place over the last 30 years, this relentless drive to get ahead, to get better, to improve. they see some of the structures we put on them in terms of trade. they see that from their perspective as we are trying to hold china down. we basically operate in a world without rules for years to build our economy, and now we have gotten to the top, we try to hamstring them with a knot of rules to hold chinatown. >> the former "the washington post" correspondent keith richburg on insights from around the world tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's wheq &a. >> a reporter's roundtable on sees west -- sequestration with