will make remarks at the wilson center in washington, we will have that life for you in 90 minutes, 11:30 eastern. the president is on the campus of michigan state diversity, , the homee farm bill state of the chair of the senate agriculture committee. 2:10 eastern on c-span. , the januarypics jobs numbers. 113,000 jobs created by the private sector, the unemployment rate falling to six .6%. theng was weak for second straight month, 113,000 ,000 asar less than 194 an average last year.

this may reflect what investors have begun to fear, that the u.s. job market is weakening along with sectors like manufacturing and retail sales. weakness might also raise doubts about the federal reserve's when 2 -- plan to scale back economic stimulus. >> we focus on the challenge around protecting credit cards .nd debit cards the real exposure is people can get into our bank accounts and online transactions that we do more and more online banking. s an area where there are very few protections and almost unlimited liability. in today's interconnected world, personal information is collected from consumers wherever they go. from the workplace to shopping for groceries. from smart phones browsing the

action we take involves the collection of information. some is very sensitive. many of the student uses have benefits. at the recent rate of data breaches are a reminder that they create risk. >> through proactive investigations, we are out ahead determining and looking at data as it relates to financial industries. through partnerships in the financial industry that brings we can parse through and find out where information is leaking into the criminal underground. so to is the way journalists get a hold of that. >> this weekend, data breaches and cyber theft. lawmakers look at legislative options to secure data. saturday morning at 10:00. executive power during times of

crisis, c-span2. years to see how confederate soldiers spent the winter of 1854. live saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. and senate are out today, back on monday. house speaker john boehner held his weekly briefing. among the issues, he tamped down the idea that congress would take up immigration reform. the wall street journal says the diminished expectations dealt a blow to a number of industries. we will show you the briefing and follow that with reaction on the immigration issue from jay carney at the white house briefing. >> good morning, everyone.

i travel around the country a lot and run into people on all corners of america and all types. everywhere i go, people are wondering why there is less opportunity today than there used to be. i think this week we got a report from the congressional budget office that reminded us of one big reason, and that is the president's health care law. under the law, people will work less, and under its employer mandate, wages will be lower. in the end, the law will drive 2.5 million full-time workers out of the economy. just like that, gone. in the white house, the response was they made a joke out of it. "come on." that is the attitude that has produced the worst economic record in american history, and it is more proof that the law must go.

now, while that may take a new president, there are things we can do to get the economy growing again and back on track. we can start by expanding markets for american companies to export products and services. that would be good for american jobs and republicans and the president agree on that. listen trade promotion authority , is ready to go. why is it not done? because the president has not lifted a finger to get democrats to support it. with jobs on the line, the president needs to call his own party so we can get this done. he also could pick up his pen and finally approve the keystone pipeline. last week the state department produced yet another report showing what we already knew, that there is no reason, scientific or otherwise, to block this project any longer. once again, because some of the president's friends don't like the idea of the pipeline and the

tens of thousands of jobs that would be created, it's not going to happen. that brings me to my final point, immigration. you all know for the last 15 months, i talked about the need to get immigration reform done. this is an important issue in our country and has been kicked around forever and needs to be dealt with. having said that, we outlined our principles last week to our members, principles that our members by and large support, put together by the leadership team, and they believe it. but i never underestimated the difficulty in moving forward this year, and the reason i have said that we need a step-by-step commonsense approach is so we can build trust for the american people we are doing this the right way. and one of the biggest obstacles we face is one of trust. the american people, including

many of my members, don't trust that the reform we are talking about will be implemented as was intended to be. the president seems to change the health care law on a whim whenever he likes. now he is running around the country telling everyone he is going to keep acting on his own, keeps talking about his phone and pen and feeding more distrust about whether he is committed to the rule of law. listen, there is widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws, and it's going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes. >> mr. speaker, we understand the concerns of your conference on immigration and some of the concerns about how the administration would -- [inaudible] do you see any reason why you would peel back your attempt? is that still your goal?

you are going to try to move some pieces of immigration? >> we are going to continue to discuss this issue with our members. but i think the president has to demonstrate to the american people and to my colleagues that he can be trusted to enforce the law as it is written. >> is that the predicate that you have to receive some trust from him. in talking with this with your members, it is different than moving a couple of bills on the floor. >> yes, it is. understand something. the president is asking us to move one of the biggest bills of his presidency, but yet shown very little willingness to work with us on the smallest of things. last week, we sent a letter to the president outlining four in thee talked about state of the union. they are sitting in the u.s. senate. whether it's the skills act, the research bill, a couple of other bills. the president could reach out

and work with us on those and begin the process of rebuilding the trust between the american people and his presidency. >> it seems like the president did reach out last week. is this legislation stalled until you see something specific? what would that be? >> we are going to continue to talk about this with our members, but the president is going to have to rebuild the trust so the american people and my colleagues can trust him to enforce the law the way it is written. >> when will we see any proposal on the debt ceiling will get the support of republicans after this week? how do you feel now? >> i think we're still looking for the pieces to this puzzle. but listen, we do not want to default on our debt and we are not going to default on our debt. we are in discussions with our members how to move ahead and we have time to do this and continue to work at it. no decisions have been made.

>> can we rule out a clean debt bill? >> we continue to talk to our members. >> there have been reports that you offered to put forward the approval of the keystone pipeline and attach it to it the debt limit. but you ran into problems with your caucus. how can you get 218 for keystone? forcome you can't get 218 keystone? >> mother teresa is a saint, if the congress wanted to make her a saint and get it attached to the debt ceiling we probably , couldn't get 218 votes. [laughter] >> on the trade bill, apparently there is as much problem in your caucus as with the democratic caucus. the word is that you told the president you wanted the 50 democrats to vote in the house, is that true?

>> we need democrats in order to pass it. we have broad support in my caucus, but i don't think we have 218 votes for this. the president is going to have to produce some votes. >> mr. speaker, secretary lew said late february the debt limit has to be raised. what do you think the effective date certain actually is, and at what point does the house actually have to act on something? >> before late february. i take jack lew at his word. if that's what it is, that's what it is. >> mr. speaker, prospects for immigration, trade legislation, health care legislation appear to be dim and perhaps even dimming. what is congress going to do this year? >> we have a lot of things on our plate. i think getting the sgr extended through the balance of the year or getting a permanent fix to that would be very helpful.

we've got issues with flood insurance that we are going to have to deal with. but i do believe that issues like our version of how we would fix the health care insurance system is an important issue. tax reform continues to be an important issue. let me reiterate one point. i have made clear for 15 months the need for the congress and the administration to work together on the issue of immigration reform. it needs to get done. i'm going to continue to talk to my members about how to move forward, but the president is going to have to do his part as well. >> i will say couple things.

first of all, we remain optimistic about the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform in 2014. we have seen significant movement among republicans on this issue. and it is heartening to see that republican leaders in congress, including the speaker of the house and others, identify immigration reform as a necessary priority. that is a good thing. when it comes to the president's record on issues encompassed within comprehensive immigration reform, it is important to look at what he is done already in helping build a bipartisan consensus, in helping build the most effective border enforcement that we have ever seen. over the five years that he has been president, and we have seen

improvement in our border security. borderloys over 21,000 patrol agents, keeping staffing levels at an all-time high. and they have deployed technologies along the highest traffic areas making progress toward a stronger and safer border. that is an issue that is of particular concern to republicans as well as democrats and is reflected in the fact that the legislation in the senate the president supports further enhances border security. and when it comes to the president's record on that, i think it speaks for itself. nothing like this, nothing this important, nothing this comprehensive ever comes fast or easy in washington. so this will not be any different, but it remains an absolute fact that we have made enormous progress in building

that consensus and that even the republican party, which had as its operative policy position not that long ago on this issue self-deportation, has come a long way toward the middle or toward the consensus now shared by businesses, big and small, labor, law enforcement, religious communities among republicans and democrats across the country. we continue to see positive progress, and we are going to work with congress to get this done. >> in spite of your optimism, the person who is running the chamber that is holding this up says he does not see the likelihood of it happening this year. so i am wondering if there comes a point or will come a point when the president, like he did on climate change, will say if congress will not act, i will and you will consider what to be

-- what could be done without congress. >> there is no alternative to comprehensive immigration reform passing through congress. it requires legislation. and the president has made that clear in the past and that continues to be his view. that is why we need to work together to build on the existing bipartisan consensus to see it help deliver a bill through the house and then a bill that can ultimately reach the president's desk. i think the challenges within the republican party on this issue are well known and they do not have anything to do with the president. as i noted before, progress has been significant. i think there is a genuine recognition among leaders in the republican party that this is the right thing to do for the economy, to our middle class, for our businesses. when we talk about expanding growth and opportunity,

comprehensive immigration reform is very much a part of achieving that and achieving it together. so we will work steadily on this issue and we believe that it will get done. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] both the house and senate are out of session today. the house returning on monday. include onebills dealing with financial regulations, allowing the financial stability oversight counsel to set aside certain regulations from the cfpb. the senate is back on monday, senators will work on a bill restoring cuts to military pensions. watch the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. live programming on the way for you. the first major address by the new homeland security secretary jeh johnson at the wilson center in washington. live at 11:30.

the president is traveling to michigan state university. he will sign the farm bill, accompanied by agriculture committee chairman debbie eastern, live at 2:10 on c-span. have focusedys, we on the challenge around protecting credit cards and debit cards. the real potential exposure we have is that people can get into our bank accounts or online transactions that we all do more and more of. that offers an area where there are very few protections and almost unlimited liability for consumers. >> personal information is collected from consumers wherever they go. from the workplace to shopping for groceries, from our smartphones to browsing the web at home, verse really --

virtually every action involves the collection of information. many of these data uses have benefits, but the recent spate of data breaches are a reminder that they also create risks for consumer. proactive investigations allow us to look at data as it relates to financial industries, through partnerships that we have in the financial industry us to goat enable through and parse through data, find out where information is leaking into the chrome underground -- into the criminal underground from. the same way some journalists get a hold of that. and cybereaches theft, lawmakers look at legislative options to secure personal data. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on book tv, executive power during times of crisis. from washington to bush. 7:00 on c-span2. on american history tv, travel

back to see how confederate soldiers spend the winter of 1864. join civil war reenactors from montpelier.-- from c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. coverage ofplete the u.s. house. i'll as a public service of private industry. -- createdthe 35 years ago. follow us on twitter. called onth warren nominate obama tonigh people with diverse backgrounds. looking at the personal life

experiences and education to achieve diversity on the bench. this is just over one hour. >> welcome, everyone. please come in and take your seats. we are ready to go. i am nan aron, and i am president of alliance for justice. we thank all of you for coming. in addition to all of you in this room, we are joined by people all over the country who are participating by live stream. i should say i have gotten a few complaints from people in phoenix and los angeles, san diego, who have had to get up a little early to watch, but all i can say is, we east coast-ers say to you west coast-ers, that is the price you pay for good weather. [laughter] welcome, everyone.

we are here today because we understand that judges, just like all of us, are the product of life experiences, history, and professional past. we strongly believe that the courts and the nation benefit when the fullest possible range of legal and life experience are represented on the bench. not only are the decisions of the courts rendered more fairly and knowledgeably, but those who come before the courts can have confidence that their cases will be heard in a court room where no single point of view dominates. that is why we think there must be room for more judges who have been public defenders, labor lawyers, academics, civil rights litigators, or any of a host of legal specialties that deal with the public interest.

the recent changes in the senate rules which disabled the filibuster for judicial nominations have opened the door to significant changes. now is the time to bring new energy to the discussion of the kind of women and men who should be in judgment, sit as judges in our courtrooms. the opportunity for better balance on the federal courts has arrived. alliance for justice has been in the forefront of advancing access to justice for over 30 years. this subject is near and dear to our hearts. but today's event is one of the most exciting we have ever done because of our very special guest, senator elizabeth warren. warren orrin -- senator is one of the nation's most

energetic, creative, thoughtful, dynamic leaders, a superstar in the united states senate, and a courageous champion of everyday americans. she is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom or to direct attention to the many ways our national institutions have been captured by special interests and those who believe our government should serve only those at the top rung of the economic ladder. the courts and the people chosen to lead them need to be part of that broader discussion about the growing threat to our democratic institutions. we are thrilled that senator warren has agreed to join us this morning. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you so much. it is good to be here this morning. thank you, nan, i appreciate the invitation to be here.

i am very pleased to be here. you all have been doing remarkable work and i am just glad to be able to add my voice to that, and all of the organizations that helped put this together this morning. and those of you on the west coast this early morning, you are still in your slippers, right? we are all dressed here. i am also pleased to be here with judge nancy gertner. she is not only distinguished, has had a distinguished career, both as a lawyer and federal judge, but also because she serves as the chair of our advisory committee on massachusetts judicial nominations. she has already helped bring three very illustrious candidates forward for nomination to the federal bench. i just want to thank her for her efforts on that. [applause] and i know it will be a terrific panel that follows.

i am so glad to be here to talk about something that is so important and very glad that we are having this conference to talk about diversity on the federal bench. there is an intense fight going on right now about what our federal bench will look like. will it be a neutral forum that faithfully interprets the law and dispenses fair and impartial justice? or will we see corporate capture of the federal courts with courts transformed into just one more rigged game? that is what is at issue here. we should put this in some context. we are in washington and, here in washington, power is not balanced. instead, power is becoming more and more concentrated on one side. well-financed corporate

interests line up to fight for their own privileges and resist any changes that would limit corporate excesses. i saw one of these examples up close and personal following the 2008 financial crash. where all of the large financial institutions came in and fought vigorously to protect themselves. not to protect the public, but themselves, in an ongoing battle an effort to try to reregulate the financial institutions. i saw it there, but it has been on throughouta nonnd our system, where large corporate interests come in and make sure their interests are protected and they have an opportunity to tilt the playing field. in democracy, when we write our laws, we at least have some opportunity to get back in and have some reasoned debate.

to get the public involved in a debate and to get some public awareness and to fight for something that balances the playing field in the other direction. i think the consumer financial protection bureau is an example of that. the banks resisted the -- the banks resisted, but in the democratic process we had a shot to be able to get through something that was there for the people. in that case, we succeeded. that is how we got the consumer agency. if big businesses lose in the democratic forum in congress, if they lose in the legislative forum then if they can rig , the courts, they get a second bite at the apple. they get a second chance to get the outcome that they want. that is part of the reason it is so important that we maintain courts that are independent,

courts that represent a diversity of views from around this country in order to be neutral arbiters rather than part of the rigged system where they have a second bite at capturing the law in the legal system again. this is one of the reasons i believe professional diversity matters so much in our court system. professional diversity is one way to insulate the courts from corporate capture. now, however, we face a federal bench that has a striking lack of diversity. among the lawyers who are serving. the american constitution society did a study in 2008 where they looked at the federal bench, the biographies of those who serve on the federal bench, and they concluded that the federal appellate bench was "dominated by judges whose

previous professional experience is generally corporate or prosecutorial." they looked at the biographies of 162 judges and 85% came out of private practice. they said that their conclusion was it is clear from the judge , biographies that a sizable number of them worked for large, well-known firms that tend to represent corporations. president obama has supported some notable exceptions, but, as the report that will be discussed today from the alliance for justice shows, the president's nominees have thus far been in line with the prior statistics. 71% of president obama's judicial nominees have practiced primarily for corporate or business clients, while only 25%

are not corporate attorneys. that means the corporate attorneys outnumber all other kind of attorneys by 3 to 1 in the president's nominees to the federal bench. only a district court -- only 8 district court nominees and two circuit court nominees have been attorneys in the public interest. only 3.6% of president obama's appointees have a background in public interest organizations. be clear about this. there are some really talented judges who came from the private sector. i have worked for private clients. i understand that the lawyer's views may not be the same as those of his or her clients. but, i believe that diversity of experience matters.

it matters that someone has represented people other than corporate clients. that they have had real experience with people who cannot afford lawyers. they have had real experience trying to fight for the public interest. they have had real experience doing something other than representing corporate clients. justice byron white praised the professional diversity that thurgood marshall brought to the supreme court. noting that he brought to the conference table years of experience in an area that was of vital importance to our work, experience that none of us could claim to match. justice white was right. it matters where you come from. until recently, the judicial nominations process was largely held hostage to an intransigent republican minority that look for any excuse to block

president obama's efforts to nominate federal judges. it is unsurprising, in those circumstances, that the president and the majority of the senate gravitated towards nominating corporate lawyers and prosecutors that even the most conservative senators could not object to. but that has changed. the bizarre republican refusal to confirm any judge to the d.c. circuit court of appeals, anyone, regardless of qualifications or professional experiences, led the senate to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominations. with this change comes an opportunity. an opportunity to build a federal bench that reflects the best and the brightest from every corner of the legal profession. an opportunity to ensure that

the next generation of judges will be fair, even-handed, and will have broad experience to fairly consider all sides of the dispute in the issues that come before them. one of president obama's early nominees was district court judge edward chin, who worked many years as a staff attorney for the aclu. president obama stood behind the nomination. he had to renominate him three times over three years before the senate finally confirmed him. when he was sworn in, judge chin said that despite the obstruction that he faced during this time, he never even considered withdrawing from consideration. why?

judge chen's words, "because the federal bench is not just for people from large, corporate law firms or who represent only the wealthy or never speak out or play it safe in their careers." judge chen is right. we must fight to make his words a reality. if we are to ensure that there will be professional diversity on the bench and that our federal courts will be a neutral forum that fairly consider all sides of an issue in every dispute that comes before them. this is the opportunity we have. this is the opportunity we must seize. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. it was wonderful.

>> more to do. >> go for it. and thank you. >> what a great way to kick off this morning's discussion of the importance of professional diversity on the bench. before we begin our panel discussion, i would like to thank the organizations who are cosponsors of this program. they include the american association for justice, the american constitution society, the brennan center for justice, defenders of wildlife, legal progress at the center for american progress. naacp legal defense and educational fund, leadership conference on civil and human rights. the national employment lawyers association, the national council of jewish women, and last, but definitely not least, people for the american way foundation. their presence today is a

reflection of the importance of this issue as we head into a critical period in the obama administration's second term. we share a belief that the makeup of the federal bench should be as richly diverse as the cases brought before it. now is the time to make professional diversity a priority. to get this important national conversation started, alliance for justice has issued a new call -- has issued a new report called "broadening the bench" which describes the current state of professional diversity and it shows that opportunity exists for a new approach to federal judgeships. report is available on our website at afj.org and i hope everybody will read it.

our analysis found that only 10 or fewer than four percent of the president's nominees have worked as lawyers at public interest or civil rights organizations. state and federal prosecutors out number public defenders by more than 3:1. only 11 have been full-time academics. of those who worked in private practice, over seven in 10 were for corporate law firms. in the aggregate, 85% of the president's nominees have been either corporate lawyers or prosecutors, and in some cases both. clearly, president obama's remarkable historic progress in advancing personal diversity has not yet been matched in the area

of professional diversity. but change may be coming. before the rules changed, the rampant obstruction of judicial nominations by senate republicans had the effect of narrowing the field of potential candidates who could potentially expect to be confirmed. but let's hope, fingers crossed that in those days are over. whatever constraints the president, senators, donating emissions, -- nominating commissions, and even potential nominees themselves as a result of the debilitating efforts of obstruction tactics can now be set aside. the new rules mean new opportunities for diversity for all kinds. in fact, so far, 2014, the outlook is great. with his first judicial nomination of the year, president obama has taken a positive step toward increasing

professional diversity. on january 16, president obama nominated 4 lawyers to fill district court vacancies in illinois, washington, missouri, and nevada. all four have professional backgrounds that are currently underrepresented among federal judges. 2 have substantial trial , plaintiff side trial experience. one is a former public defender. one is a state court judge who was a solo practitioner focused on criminal defense. with now more than 50 vacancies without a nominee and with more vacancies surely to emerge, there will be ample opportunity to turn these promising nominees -- these promising nominations into the norm rather than the exception. as we move forward, there are three things we would like to

see happen. one is now that the senate rules have changed, we call a variety of backgrounds to put themselves forward for seats on the bench. we often fault our political leaders for lack of professional diversity. it is also the responsibility of those of us who would make great judges to make themselves available and for those of us who care about this to encourage them to do so. second, senators, state nominating commissions should make a serious concerted effort to advance professionally diverse nominees. as concerned americans from all over the country, bar groups, legal groups should insist that they do so. finally, president obama should let it be known that he expects

to see nominees with a wider range of backgrounds put forth by senators. rules reform has opened the path to a more exclusive bench and we should take it. that is where alliance for justice stands. we are going to get to the perspective of two brilliant legal minds. who have written and spoken extensively about the topic of judicial nomination selection and the courts. judge nancy gertner was a federal district judge from massachusetts appointed by president clinton back in 1994. she teaches at harvard. she lectures and writes on a host of issues including civil rights and civil liberties, criminal justice, and women's issues. she is the author of an autobiography with a fantastic

title "in defense all women, memoir of an unrepentant advocate." that is good. we are thrilled she is here to offer the insight of somebody who has actually served on the bench as sees this issue from a unique perspective. we hope to also be joined by sherrilyn ifill, who is stuck on a train from a baltimore. thank you, amtrak. we hope she will be here. she is a wonderful president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense and educational fund. and one of the strongest advocates i have ever met for civil rights, civil liberties, the rights of everyday americans and diversity in walk of life including the judiciary. when we think of people in the legal professional who have

devoted themselves to the public interest, sherrilyn is one of the top people on our list. let's get started judge gertner. we will love for you to share some initial thoughts and we will have some questions of our own. and thank you for joining us. [applause] >> it is wonderful to be here. i have no sympathy for people the west coast. i got up at 4:00 a.m. to make an airplane. as nan e-mailed me on the plane and i said, i am here but not awake, i will get here. it is wonderful to be here. the issue of judicial selection has been dominated over the last couple of years not inappropriately by the notion of having gender and race diversity and ethnic diversity on the bench. and that makes sense, when you

are telling young women that the sky is the limit. it matters that are a women on the bench. when you tell minorities, it matters that there are people on the bench. that was terribly important. what we have not looked at which i felt personally when i went on the bench is the concept of professional diversity which people have been talking about. i was a civil rights lawyer. and a criminal defense lawyer. my book began, it begins with this tale of meeting, sonia sotomayor, who was a good friend of mine. yalell law school, -- at law school the women wanted to , know how does one become a judge? she began by saying, first you go to this wonderful law school. you do very well as and you go to work for the government at

-- and then you work in private practice. you have opinions that you care about. but you are cautious. then you become a judge. [laughter] then, it was my turn. i said, you represent the first lesbian, revolutionary antiwar activist accused of killing a police officer you can find. [laughter] that would be your first case. you go to this wonderful law school and clerk for a judge. you take every abortion case in the commonwealth of massachusetts. you gave speeches on boston common and i was threatened to burn my bar card. finally, you marry the legal director of the american civil liberties union of massachusetts. and you become a judge. [laughter] looking very bench different than my colleagues did. how did that make a difference? it makes a difference in so many

ways that you do not understand necessarily until you become a judge. it makes a difference in terms of your dockets which is the -- which are the cases you privilege and which i the cases you put on at 5:00 when nobody is paying attention. for me, habeas corpus cases had a place on my docket that was as important as any other. in a sentencing case, it matters how much information you are going to allow the parties to bring out. for the government, the only important information is what was he charged with and what was his criminal record? if you care about meaningful sentences, you wanted to find out about the defendant and you gave him the opportunity to find out. sometimes it meant being able to envision what discrimination consisted of. one of the things i had written about is how so many cases are

resolved on summary judgment. adges are told to not write decision unless you have to. if you are going to deny summary judgment and the case goes on to trial, you write on the dockets, denied trial. if you want to get rid of the case, you have to write a decision. an overwhelming number of civil rights cases, the numbers in some jurisdictions are 100% get resolved on summary judgment without a trial. the judges write an opinion and each opinion is only in terms of the losing cases. those are the only times they have to write an opinion. over time, they think they are trivial. they cannot imagine what discrimination is because they they are constantly dismissing these cases. if you get in the habit of saying no, you lose the ability to see what yes it looks like. i have seen that across the spectrum from discrimination

cases to criminal cases. if you constantly are excusing error, you lose the ability to be able to see error when it happens. for me it was even more clear. when i was in baby judge school, there is a baby judge school. the trainer had been training judges in the previous administration. he got up in front and said here is how you got rid of these cases. talking about civil rights cases. and he gave us a checklist of all the technical ways of dismissing cases. at that point, i was not yet confirmed. i was at training because i had been through the senate hearing but i had not been confirmed by the full senate. i raised my hand and said that is not the enterprise, how to get rid of these cases.

one of my collies took my hand and said be quiet. i was quiet -- one of my colleagues took my hand and said be quiet. i was quiet on that occasion, but i was never quiet again. the numbers, not just the schedule and what you privilege by your schedule, it is a question of complaints where the judge has to decide what is plausible. if you cannot envision discrimination because you never it in your life, you never litigated it, you will have a different view of what is plausible. there are discovery rules that are pending in which a judge is supposed to evaluate whether this discovery is proportional to the issues involved in the case. like so my colleagues have said, you think that a $10,000 case is

minimalist, then your view is very different. i did not come from wealth. in my view, $10,000 is not a de minimus case. those are the kind of decisions that a judge has to make from beginning to end. plausibility, credibility, balancing questions in which you have to judge. the dean of harvard law school put in a wonderful way as said there is no escape on the bench. the choice of what to docket and how to leverage the hearing and the choice about what is possible and credible and choice of what proportional, if you are making these decisions having no concept of what is at stake, did you make them very, very differently. i will end by one other point. we'll have a larger discussion. it is comforting now for many

judges and lawyers to talk about the costs of litigation. transaction costs that we are revamping the federal rules to minimize. stand back a bit from that. what is often times going on in that debate is that we think the transaction costs of litigation are more important than the -- moreof underage just than the problem of underagr redressed rights. when you think about that, we think costs are more important that the problem of people having access to justice. in a discovery, i am going to be concerned, some judges would say, that this litigation is going to cost this major corporation some money to find out about policies and practices of discrimination. i care about the cost of litigation. i try to be an efficient judge. i also can't that underneath

that pile of -- i also cared that underneath that pile of facts with evidence and the costs were not tromping the concern of the under addressed rights. it is not just a question of getting on the bench, wearing the robe, is suddenly having a lobotomy with respect to every opinion you had in your life. in fact, your life experiences affect what you do for procedural decisions to substantive decisions. you have to struggle with those experiences. not a one-to-one correlation. i did not get on the bench with the purposes of implementing anyone's rights. but it enters into the calculus and if you do not have this type of perspective at all, the balance is very different. thank you. [applause]

>> so, i have a series of questions to ask and then we are looking forward to many of you asking questions as well. before i begin, i want to thank one more cosponsoring organization, justice at stake. i will call you nancy. >> you can call me nancy. judge nancy. >> i like that. sometimes i like being called "hon," instead of honorable. >> in an interview you did with emory law school in 2012, you mentioned that you find law students to be extraordinarily cautious and afraid to take positions. if more lawyers with advocacy

backgrounds are appointed to judgeships, do you think that would encourage law students to be more outspoken? >> i think there is no question that would make a difference. there really is a sense that in order to be a judge you have to keep your head down throughout your life and avoid making controversial statements. that is the only way you get on the bench. what happens at that point is, first of all, becoming a judge is a little bit like lightning striking you. you cannot count on it and you do not know if it will happen. you have been -- you have then created a generation who has gotten into the habit of keeping their head down and not engaging with the issues unless there be issues,--- with the

lest there be consequences in their career. i am so grateful that i was able to have the career that i have had and still become a judge. and i when not have changed anything in that career for a nano second. >> you have been on the bench for well over a decade. >> 17 years. >> what changes have you observed on the bench? in a the years you have served? >> something i am trying to write about. i felt the pressures on the bench were not ideological. not the way people talk about judges, not political pressures. there were surely pressures to keep your head down. there were pressures to push people to settle cases and to encourage people to plead guilty. there were pressures not to write during the course at our

training, we were told if you wrote a decision you failed. that led to the dynamic that i described. if you're denying summary judgment, that means the plaintiff can go to a jury trial, you do not have to write a decision. that meant you never described when the plaintiff won in any legal opinion. the pressure is -- the pressures to not write an opinion but to push people to settle and accept pleas of guilty. pressure to keep your head down in so many ways. what i would write a decision, i did a lot of sentencing. i would write a decision about why i had sentenced somebody to a particular outcome. i would meet a judge on the street who would tell me is a courageous decision. this is a comprehensible statement. -- this is an incontrovertible ensible is an incompreh

statement. i had a life tenure. what were they going to do, vote me off the island? but to the notion -- and try to understand what courage meant in that context. i think that with the sense that you do not want to see your name in the paper. you did not want to be on 24/7 news coverage. and i think this conspired with the view of managerial justice which is my goal to move the case. if you follow the moving of cases and avoided transaction cost model, you cannot be criticized. and i had a sense that that was animating a lot of the pressures that i felt. that was a change. as we are seeing it now in the debates over new discovery rules where the concern is the cost to corporations of having to produce discovery. when onebe one thing

that the corporation sues another mega-corporation. when rights are involved of consumers of people claiming discrimination or prisoners, there has to be some concern for that side of the balance as well. >> i think we can agree or conventional wisdom that people with public interest backgrounds will have a more difficult time getting a judgeship. those are the realities of the process, but i think our view is if you do not try, we will never succeed. with a letter from previous precedents -- we can learn from previous presidents who put out dozens of a certain kind of candidate. if you have 12 or 15 candidates from public interest backgrounds, is hard to shoot them all down. what is your sense of how we change this conversation? today is the opening of that

change. how do we continue to really impress upon senators, nominating commissions, the white house? most importantly, all of us, who are afraid to enter into this field because of the kinds of obstruction even with this new opportunity. what is your sense? >> senator warren's committee which ice chair -- which i chair is a way to do it and talks to every member. judicial nominations and go to her. she talks to everyone that said i want to wonderful people, highly qualified people. i also want people from different corners of the profession. i want to see consumer advocates in the mix and public defenders.

i want to see people from small firms to know what it's like to struggle to make a living. i want to see all of that and we got those nominations. those nominations we recommended to her included a labor lawyer, a magistrate who had been a public defender, a district attorney who had run for office prior to that. and now, there's another round. i look at them briefly. people who look different than what would've seen before. essentially, she led by her example. she said the corners of the profession and we pulled people that represented these professions as said couple we really mean it. this is not just a sham. we really mean it. now people saw who she recommended that the president nominated at they understand

that we really mean it. let me tell one story. and enormous pressure to move cases. we have to be efficient. one day, a case came to me. a guy who lost his arm in an accident. he sued the company that won a bunch of money that went to the court of appeals and it was reversed. i guided it the second time around. the man had died while the case was pending. the lawyer had to file a paper. the lawyer did not. he missed his deadline. it was at the time of the month where i had to report my candidate cases and was pressure to get rid of cases. my law clerk came in and said there is a case that the lawyer has missed the deadline. you can deny the estate a second trial and will look good on you.

he looked up at me as said justice and the world suggest you let it go forward. [laughter] that is what i mean. if you cared that this family had a sense of access to justice, a sense that the system was not looking for it trip wires, technical ways of getting rid of cases. i very much care because i had been a lawyer and advocate that you let the case go forward. it was forward in the name of his estate and he lost the second time around. the family had a sense that the federal court was not about technicality. that made a difference to me. >> i have one last question and then we will open it up to our audience.

judge nancy, how can a judge blend the responsibilities of neutrality with her identity prior to her judgeship whether that was as an advocate, activist, or trial lawyer? does becoming a judge mean the creation of an entirely distinct professional identity or is there more of a relationship between one's prior relationship and work as a judge? >> i had the question many times. i actually think it was easier for me to judge precisely because of my advocacy. here is why. i knew exactly what i believed in. i do exactly what i believed in. i did not believe ice i spent my life not to read the paper and taking the position and i was suddenly purge of every opinion i had in my life.

i knew exactly what i believed in. what that meant was i knew what to struggle with. i understood it then that they should not translate one-to-one with being a judge. i was not there to carry out what my advocacy had been. i struggled. judging for me was about having a belly ache. i'm sure there's a fancier word. it was a struggle. i like to think about it. i had been a criminal defense lawyer is certainly on the bench at times where i saw police officers we believe a lie. an officer took the stand, i have had this experience. the officer took the stand. i believed him. i simply believed him. i do you can separate what you had been before and what you are

now. you can struggle. you can see a police officer lying. with the evidence suggested he did, you were not about to say that cannot i simply happen. as i said, i can separate out my advocacy. i had a death penalty case was that i had been opposed to the death penalty all my life. i knew it was part of the judge and the day might come. it was not easy, it was complicated. i thought to the way to address it was to make sure that it was the most fair trial i knew how to give. the outcome would be death and i would have to go along with it and i'll have to implement the law. i was going to measure the process was fair. i certainly knew that my -- what

my advocacy was. i was convinced it made it easier for me to be a judge because it was right out there. those people who have become judges and pretend they do not have a life experience and they do not have biases, then they do not struggle. i knew where my advocacy ended at my judging began. now i am writing about my career as a judge and i can go over cases i wish it came out differently. i do not want them to come out that way but i knew the law lead in that direction. it is a struggle that an explicit struggle with me. i think they did easier. >> i went to break a promise. one more question. if you had two minutes with president obama, what would you say to him about federal judges? >> it matters who you put on the bench.

it matters in so many ways. it matters whether you have a judge who is sitting on a constitutional issue is raised and they say how interesting, i am going to go and read about it that i can versus a judge who says shouldn't you settle? i would've rather not deal with this. it matters whether you have a judge who can understand access to justice issues. i had a civil rights case and a wrongful conviction case where a man was exonerated that he went to sue the authorities that have been responsible. i read in the global one day that he's about to be deported. he had been released from jail and about to be deported. i called the hearing. how does that happen? he is deported now when his trial is only months away.

i wanted to understand it. if somebody put their finger on their scale is all i wanted to know. did somebody say he is a legal and should go ahead and support him? i held a hearing and the global covered it. it was erroneous. if i had not stepped in, he would have been deported. who would've known how difficult or easy it would've been to get him back. for me, that was an axis to justice issue. not an outcome issue. shouldn't we all be working to make certain that his rights were litigated here and reflected here? access to justice is a mutual term. president obama should care about rules that take away

access to justice and judges who are more concerned about their numbers began about people litigating the rights. >> if all of our nominees were like a judge nancy over here -- [applause] we will entertain questions that some of you have. please identify yourself. -- >> i am the executive vice president. thank you for being here. it is so incredibly inspiring. i have a couple questions about judicial election committees. your committee is ideal. you have been functioning well and adding to diverse city. it is not true in all states where we have committees that have taken months if not years to come up with recommendations as so we are still waiting. a question on that is, is there any reason that you can explain

why a committee shouldn't take that long or any advice you could give us in terms of challenging what might be going on and those committees? i think it is a delaying tactic. the second question, massachusetts is ideal because you senator warren taking over the lead and insisting that would need to be diverse and you get diverse recommendations. that is not true in all cases. when you have a committee that is maybe not balanced, what can we do as advocates and as organizations that are interested in this process? what we do to help diversify these committees so they end up finding more diverse nominees? >> part of it is what you are doing today -- naming the problem. i do not a people named it before. somehow, if the corporate lawyer who was getting on the bench and was a democrat and you said

fine. the prosecutor was getting on the bench and with democrat, you said we have satisfied the issues. or a woman or minority what exactly the same career as a white colleague and then you said you are ok. i think naming this issue and implications for the bench is terribly important. as far as the delay, we had to compromise on the one hand, coming up with a very expensive search and fill it with the political realities in washington. the reason teams moved as quickly as they did is senator warren had no problem call it be and night. none whatsoever. what is going on, she would say that i would have to tell her. i want a name by this date. you have to call out those committees that are waiting. you have to make sure -- you have to name it. you have nothing else except press and political pressure.

we have not named this before. it really makes a difference. a process of maybe the previous procedural review and the senate, while there are wonderful state judges of the federal bench, there's no question there are. wonderful corporate lawyers and prosecutors. this is a higher -- and the desire to have nominees without controversy has led to a pattern which we never signed his country before which a state court judge and magistrates in district court georges and state of appeals. on the one hand, there that wonderful people throughout the mechanism. it also promotes a certain committee. you are not going to go up the ladder if you declare this a law unconstitutional. you are not going to go up the ladder if you do part sentencing cases.

to some degree, we have created a recruitment process and that in fact encourages judges to keep their head down. we want to look at that again. there are wonderful people. exceptions to all i am saying. we are talking about big patterns. >> anyone else have a question? >> good morning. i am lois frankel. i spent many years working in massachusetts on gender equality issues. i am curious about what comes about what we were talking before. in the system, people figured out you need national organizations getting women in particular through emily's list and so forth a getting on that latter in the first place. getting to the federal bench especially advocating for many pipelines to that career, i am

curious if their efforts underway to get people thinking about that? and for diversifying, how do you do that? >> we took our committee and held our committee to go to as many meetings as bar association's as you could possibly go to. went to whatever organizational meetings. we had all of the dean's of the law schools in massachusetts do a e-mail blast to their alum to let people know that there were vacancies. and also to describe what elizabeth warren had said that we are looking for nontraditional candidates and the way she described. i think the other way we wrote about this in newspapers and we let the newspapers know about it. there was example of having done it. the choices that we made made it

clear to people that senator warren and markey meant what they were saying. lots of ways of getting on the bench. it was not easy. the american bar association's progress which is a very important process, they typically call big firm lawyers. if you are selecting somebody from a small firm or somebody who is not a prosecutor, you discover that the vetting process of the bar association does not know how to deal with this person. they wound up looking at the people who knew her work that came up with fabulous recommendations. the system has been structured in such a way that the people who get to the top of the list are only certain kinds of people. >> we have time for one or two

more questions. >> when senator kennedy chaired the judiciary, i did the nomination. luckily, we had a president who was as bit as kennedy on by diversifying the bench. and i've helped two other centers set up commissions. -- senators set up commissions. whether regards another supreme court vacancy are you potentially -- when there is a note of supreme court vacancy are you potentially available? back then which is 25 years ago, the aba's review despite familiarity was only big firm lawyers was that if you were a title vii lawyer or

environmental lawyer, you cannot possibly handle the great range of federal jurisdiction. if you were securities litigator on wall street, no problem. i wonder to the extent that you have a sense that that has abated or whether it is as much of a problem then becomes the role that the aba ratings play? >> i think it is as much of a problem as something we have to work on. i was asked after i'd been a criminal defense as civil rights lawyer how i could possibly be a judge and we do not ask prosecutors to those questions. everybody has to change on the bench. you have to move to neutral. everybody has to do it. i think the aba process has to be looked at more carefully. they have to understand the premium is as much on diverse the as we understand it.

really, if anything, i think it is an issue that defines my career as a judge. it is more that i have been a litigator than anything also stopped it did not matter which side. as a litigator, i saw things in the courtroom i am not sure that others would see. people who simply knows the courts, they could be labor litigators, civil rights litigators, corporate litigators or all of that. i am a massachusetts crazy sports fan. it is like basketball where some players see the court. i would see the court. i would understand what was going on and cared very much about everybody having access to justice. we have to begin to open up that discussion. in a way that we have not. the public sees only supreme court operation adherence which candidly are a kabuki ritual.

as to the other question if i am available for the supreme court, not after i have been speaking out as i have. one of the reasons i left the bench was in order to speak. as my husband likes to say, now that i can speak, i cannot seem to shut up. >> nancy, judge nancy, thank you for speaking today. [applause] thank you for your openness, for sharing your reflections, it really enriching the discussion that will be brought forward by all of the wonderful people in this room the people participating all live stream. wow. if your classes are anything like this morning, we are all signing up at law school. not really. i cannot do it again.

i would like to. thank you. we are so sorry that sherilyn could not join us. but, she has written extensively on this topic and we will make her writings and articles available on our website for all of us to look at. thank you all for coming. it has been a great morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the january unemployment figures were released this morning. on hundred 13,000 jobs were added. this drives the unemployment rate to a low of 6.6%. the council of economic adviser says that given the elevated long-term unemployment rate, extending benefits is critical. the president will continue to focus on action. pushing forward on priorities of congress and using his pen and phone to expand opportunity and growth. john boehner says that the american people continue to ask where are the jobs?

the president clearly has no answers. republicans are ready to improve job training and expand markets for exports. approve the keystone pipeline and more. the president and the party leaders are standing in the way. their failure to lead has resulted in the worst jobs recovery in history and, as we have learned, their health care law will drive millions out of a labor force. that is part of the statement from john boehner. on theany ways, we focus challenge of protecting credit cards into the carts. the real potential exposure that we have is that people can get into our bank accounts, online transactions that we all do. thereffers an area where are very few protections at this point. there's almost unlimited liability. >> in today's interconnected world, personal information is collected wherever you go.

from the workplace to shopping for groceries, from the smartphone, to browsing the web at home. virtually every action we take involves the collection of information. some of the very sensitive. many of these day uses have benefits. the recent spate of breaches are strong reminders that they also create risk for consumers. >> it is through proactive investigations where we are sometimes ahead, determining and looking at data as it relates to financial industries. it is through partnerships that we have in the sector that brings us data where we are able to go through that data. we can find out where the information is leaking into the criminal underground. way the journalists are able to get this information. >> this weekend, data breaches and cyber effects. lawmakers look at legislative options to secure personal data is. that is saturday at 10:00.

on book tv, executive power in times of crisis. in washington to bush, sunday evening at 7:00 on c-span 2. and on american history tv, travel back to see how confederate soldier spent the winter of 1864. join civil war reenactors from the grounds of james madison's montpelier. that is saturday at 11:00. homeland security secretary jeh johnson will make his first major address this morning, talking about his department's agenda and priorities. he will speak at the wilson center in washington. that is in about five minutes or so. we will have that live when it starts here on c-span. with the olympics getting underway at this hour, the issue of security and terrorism is among the organizational concerns. we talked more about that on this morning's "washington journal." we will show you that.

>> joining us from so she now is lisa delpy neirotti from george washington university. professor neirotti, where are you now and share some of your physical environment and what it looks like? guest: i am getting ready for the opening ceremony. we are actually in a little bit of traffic heading toward the olympic park. but this morning i was in the park, and it was spectacular. the venues are shining. the look is just so colorful. there is a lot of olympic spirit here. it is just too bad that more people are not here to experience this. host: we heard a little bit of whining and complaining from journalists about certain hotel rooms, etc., and water conditions. what is your experience? guest: we are fortunate. we are in a guesthouse, which is not new but it is very comfortable, hot water. heat, internet.

so, it is just those few new hotels that are really causing the problem. media likes to blow things a little out of proportion so, yes, there were some sponsors and some guests that were put out because they took a risk on the hotels being built. but overall, i think the fan experience is going to be great. host: professor neirotti, why do you go to the olympic games? guest: this is my 17th, i went as a student and an intern and volunteer, and now since 1990 two i have been bringing students from george washington university and we study the management and marketing of the game so we understand the history, the organization, we get more into the details of everything from politics to the security, the transportation,

the accommodations, the ticketing. so, we really delve right into the nuts and bolts of how to put on an olympic games, what are the purposes and how they are used for marketing purposes as well. host: how many students do you have with us -- with you? guest: 26 students and they are all very amazed at how well organized and the beauty of the venues. we are volunteering for the u.s. a house and we had training today, so we got to go to the park early and their eyes were like, wow, this is amazing. you know, yes, there is controversy over should the olympic games be nationbuilding. kind of tired of using the olympic games to build infrastructure, to build a brand. so there is controversy about that. but when you are walking around the streets and you see the

faces of the people and you are engaging with them, there is so much intangible that i am not sure you can put a price tag on that. host: professor neirotti, what is the security like? guest: it is tight. they pat you down. every piece of your body. but that's good. i would much rather be patted down. two sets into each train station and security getting into the part. it is amazing how many security checkpoints. so i think the flow into the stadium is going to be not held up at all. it will flow pretty well. host: when you look at what you are seeing in sochi today, how does it compare to some of your past olympic experiences? guest: i was just sharing that with the students, that this is the first time that the only big part has been built for a winter games.

typically the venues in the winter games are spread across. here in sochi it purposely built a seven venues in a circle and they have all of the national houses and the sponsor house is all in one area, very much like the summer games. so, it is convenient and it is really exciting for the spectator to be able to experience all of that in one place and not have to run around to different venues. and then going up to the mountain, i was able to go up yesterday, and that was just you do full. but the train took a while, so up to the venue it took two hours. but it was a beautiful ride. it is very unique, these olympic games, in terms of the olympic park having the seven venues, and then taking a high-speed train up to the mountains and taking a gondola up to the

mountain venues. host: what is the temperature in sochi right now? guest: it is beautiful, i must say. probably 40-45 or so. you still need a coat. a little chilly but the sun is bright. no clouds in the sky. when you are in the sun, it is quite warm. getting ready, i am putting longjohns and covering up a lot for the opening because i hear it gets cold in the stadium. host: finally, professor neirotti, what is going to happen to these facilities after the game is over? we have talked a little bit about the economics of host hosting the olympics. guest: i came over a year ago, and i was pretty negative leaving.

i was like, my gosh, what are they ever going to do with these venues? now that i had been here and they develop so much, they call it the las vegas of russia. they have this amusement park that is supposed to open, and these different hotels. and the formula one track. if they promote appropriately, if they get a good tourism marketing strategy together, it could be a strong destination. especially for eastern europeans and the middle east. i am not thinking americans or western europe flocking over here. but i do think there is a good possibility for a popular tourism destination here. host: lisa delpy neirotti professor of sports management from george washington university, calling in from sochi, russia. guest: thank you, and go usa.

>> we are welcoming your comments throughout the day. we're live at the wilson center in washington, waiting to hear from homeland security secretary jeh johnson. he will make his first major address about his department's agenda and priorities. he will be introduced by the former congresswoman and intelligence community chairwoman. we will have to live when it starts. back to the conversation on the olympics. we will look at the corporate influence over the years, particularly in sochi.

guest: i was in the luge competition in 2006. i thought that they last color -- >> good morning and welcome to the wilson center. here are some of the folks who are about to listen to this. there is a worldwide audience. there are overflow rooms written you are here for the right reasons. few of ourgnize a special guests in the front row. dr. susan demarco johnson is built secretary. she is right in front of me. some of the dhs leadership, including alejandro mallorcas. is julia pearson here? the forced director of the u.s. secret service, who happens to be a woman. the fema director -- a plot for

that. [applause] the met to rector craig few gate. and thomas michalski. -- he spoke here recently on strategy. a number of ambassadors and the aspen two groups, institute homeland security group is in the front rows, and the homeland security advisory council. these are folks who in various ways, including make, i am a cochair and i am on the other group, are trying to give our best advice. leading dhs is a tough job. some of us were the founding mothers and fathers.

blending the culture of 22 agencies reporting to more than 100 different congressional committees and subcommittees -- dod only reports to 36 -- and keeping americans safe is daunting. security is my bag, as i said. as a nine term member of congress who chaired the intelligence information sharing and risk assessment subcommittees, and who represented some of our most vulnerable infrastructure, including lax and the port of los angeles, i can tell you that one decade after its establishment, the department remains a work in progress. but, significant progress has been made. lots of it has been showcased here at the wilson center. in the past year, we have welcomed former secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, to discuss the efforts to include the private

sector in our cyber security efforts. a washington post columnist on government capacity against terror threats in a borderless world. and we hosted an event on the vince in north america. past three years, we have hosted the winter meeting of the aspen institute homeland security group. that is cochaired by former secretary michael chertoff. me and -- we met with the secretary this morning about a report we have produced to recommend some action he might take. we hope to be useful in the future. so, today, i am pleased to welcome secretary jeh johnson for his first major policy address since taking office on december 23. as a former assistant u.s. attorney, general counsel of the air force, and later dod, he has

been on the frontlines of counterterrorism policy, from desperately needed reform at guantánamo bay to our u.s. drone policy. more said later. the oxfordspeech at union in 2012, he said " we must be able to say to ourselves that our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict against al qaeda, rather, eight counterterrorism effort against individuals who are scattered remnants -- who are part of groups unaffiliated, for which the law enforcement and intelligence resources of our government are principally responsible in quad operation with the international community." that was his tryout speech for secretary. he is thoughtful and courageous and he will need be skills as he confronts the threats of today and those of the future. he will outline those threats in his speech, so i am skipping the

stuff that i have put here. i want to say that 2014 will be a pivotal year. it surely is as we speak. in syria, and in other places. the secretary is here to help us understand what is on his agenda. these welcome secretary jeh johnson. [applause] >> thank you, jane. before i begin with my remarks, i want to acknowledge to other people in the audience here today. the first is fema administrator e, who everyone agrees has done a wonderful job in leadership of that agency. --o not like to acknowledge the commandant of the coast guard. he is a strong, solid leader.

that a number of people are very proud of his leadership. he is retiring in may. after a distinguished career in public service in the defense of our nation. i begin by thanking the woodrow wilson center and the aspen homeland security group for inviting me to speak here today. i also want to thank jane harman for your leadership and continued service to our country. your willingness to be a supporter, mentor, an adviser to me, and to numerous others around this town. when jane harman advises, i listen. as many of you have heard me say beef or, september 11 is my birthday. was inember 11, 2001, i the private practice of law in new york city. like millions of others, i was an eyewitness to the events of

that day. i watched in shock as the beautiful, serene, and ordinary in anay was transformed instant to one of the worst days in american history. well thousands of people, and ultimately the nation, hosted a tragedy that their 24 was unimaginable. the department of homeland security was born. it was out of that day that my personal commitment to the mission of homeland security was born. for the next several minutes, i would've to take the opportunity to attain has provided me to spell out my vision for the department i am privileged to lead. too often used is that we are in a time of transition. the department of homeland security must always be any time of transition. we must be agile and vigilant in continually adapting to evolving

threats and hazards. we must stay one step ahead of the next terror attack, the next cyber attack, and the next natural disaster. the most important part of my day as secretary is the morning intel brief which ranges in scope from the latest terrorist plot to a weather map. we monitor world events in real time and take action when necessary to confront and respond to these threats. in support of russian authorities, we are keeping a close eye on the sochi olympics. they are beginning pretty much as i speak. within the last 48 hours, we have out of an abundance of caution, issued advisories to air carriers and others based on what we have learned. we have adjusted tsa security measures and are continually evaluating whether more is necessary. also, within the last 48 hours,

in response to a very efferent type of hazard, fema has issued 95 generators to the state of pennsylvania. several hundred thousand people are without power due to the snow and cold weather. in the homeland security world, no news is good news. no news is often the result of the hard work, vigilance, and dedication of people within our government. we prevent bad things that you never hear about, or at least help the public protect itself and recover from the storms we do not prevent. our overall challenge within the department of homeland security and within the homeland security learn from- is to and adapt the changing character of the evolving threats and hazards we face. in 2005,ricane katrina

the underwear bomber in 2009, the deepwater horizon oil spill 201210, hurricane sandy in , the boston marathon bombing in 2013 -- they illustrate these evolving threats and hazards. the terrorist threat that we face is increasingly decentralized. it is self-motivated and may be harder to detect. the cyber threat we face is growing and poses a greater concern to a critical infrastructure that is becoming increasingly interdependent. natural disasters are becoming more severe and causing significant economic loss. there are more variable consequences driven by climate change and aging infrastructure. the basic missions of the department of homeland security are and should be and should continue to be preventing terrorism and enhancing security. securing and managing our

borders, and forcing and administering our administration cyberspace,arding safeguarding critical infrastructure, and preparing for and were to natural disasters. know, at the time dhs was created in 2003, it was the most substantial reorganization of our government since 1947. in my opinion, the creation of the department of homeland security in 2003 was long overdue. many other nations face threats similar to ours. they have ministries of the interior or home office with the same basic mission of bridging national and domestic security, counterterrorism, and border security. perhaps because our nation was fromcted by two big oceans many of the world hotspots, we thought that the one department -- we thought that one

department devoted to the mission of homeland security was unnecessary. that thinking obviously changed on 9/11. further, consider where all of the 22 components of homeland therity existed before creation of the department in 2003. scattered across the department of agriculture, energy, justice, treasury, transportation, defense, health and human services, and the general services administration, including departments that do not have national security or law-enforcement as their core mission. weeks, i have already seen the wisdom of combining a number of these capabilities within one department of government. ton i convene a meeting discuss how the latest terrorist threat might penetrate homeland, the participants include dhs's

intelligence and analysis office, border protection, tsa, immigration and customs enforcement, citizenship and immigration services, the coast guard, and the national protection program erector. theanother way, with creation of dhs, a terrorist searches for weaknesses along our air, land, and sea borders or ports of entry. there met with one of federal response from me. preventing terrorist attacks on the homeland is and should remain the cornerstone of homeland security. through our counterterrorism effort in both the bush and obama administrations, we have put al qaeda's core leadership on the path to defeat. the threat has evolved. since 2000 and nine, we saw the qaeda affiliates, such as al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. they have made repeated effor

ts to export terrorism to our homeland. working with others we must deny them a safe haven, a place to hide, training to launch attacks. we're focused on foreign fighters heading to syria right now. based on our work and the work of our international partners, we know individuals from the u.s., canada, and europe are traveling to syria to fight in the conflict. at the same time, extremists are actively trying to recruit westerners and indoctrinate them and see them return to their home countries with an extremist mission. last night, i returned from poland, where the attorney general and i met with my counterpart from the u k, france, italy, and poland. syria was the number one topic of conversation for them and for us.

syria has become a matter of homeland security. dhs, the fbi, and the intelligence community to continue to work closely to identify those foreign fighters that represent a threat to the homeland. we face threats from those who self radicalized, to violence of so-called lone wolf. they did not train overseas or became part of an enemy force. they may be inspired by radical ideology to do harm to americans. in many respects, this is the terrorist threat to the homeland. it was illustrated last year by the boston marathon bombing. i worry about this the most. it may be the hardest to detect. it involves independent actors living within our midst, with easy access to things that, in the wrong hands, you come to old of mass violence. vigilant inin

encountering all of these threats. at the department of defense, i was witness to the extraordinary efforts of our military and the other national security and intelligence components of our government encountering terrorist threats overseas. here at home, given the installing -- evolving threat, i believe it is critical over the next several years that dhs continue to build relationships with state and local governments. the first responders in those governments -- we must also continue to encourage public participation in our efforts on their behalf. through the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiatives and campaigns such as if you see something, say something. that was on prominent display at airports and even at the super bowl five days ago. homeland security is a team effort. border and port security is indispensable to homeland security.

good water security is a barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, and other threats to national security and public safety. in my first month in office, i visited our southwest borders. smuggling organizations are responsible for almost all of those across the border illegally. i saw the south texas border on the rio grande. the shallow places and that river were someone could walk about 200 feet across without getting their knees wet. by helicopter, isolators on the border. there's a fort isabel detention center near brownsville. i saw detainees, only 18% of whom were mexican. the rest represent over 30 different nationalities who migrated to mexico in an effort to get to the united states. in arizona, i visited the ranchers who live and work on the border, frustrated by damage

to their properties caused by those who cross the border illegally. i have met a number of groups and individuals who represent a wide range of views about the border. i will make it a practice to continue to do so. addition ofent funding for staffing and surveillance, we have made great progress in border and port security. there is now more manpower, technology, and infrastructure on our borders than ever before. we must remain vigilant. the answer is not simply to build longer or taller fences. my predecessor used to say, show me a 50 foot fence and i will show you a 51 foot ladder. ander patrol experts preach intelligence driven, risk-based approach that focuses resources on the places where our surveillance and intelligence tells us the threat exists. we must be prepared to move.

i believe in this approach. it is a smart, effective, efficient use of resources. i also believe in smart and effective use of our resources when it comes to removals. we must prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to national security, public safety, and border security. in the senate confirmation process, i pledged to continually evaluate our priorities to ensure that we get this right. i have already begun this process. we must also continually review conditions that test at our detention facilities to ensure that they are safe and humane. we are gratified by the support that congress has provided to our border and port security efforts. we need the additional border and port security resources that immigration reform, such as legislation, would provide. in this regard, the republicans

recent statement of principles on immigration is a serious step forward on reform and contains recognition that immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. this should not be an issue used in one way or another for political advantage. define commont sense solutions to a problem that we all know we have. business and, the labor communities, people of both parties and others, all recognize the immigration reform is a matter of economic growth. immigration reform is also a matter of homeland security. estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants living in this country. they are not going away. they're not going to self deport. most have been here for years. many have come here as children. as a matter of homeland security, we should encourage

these people to come out of the shadows of american society. pay taxes and fines. be held accountable and given the opportunity to get on a path to citizenship like others. this is not a special path to citizenship. opportunity to get online behind those who were here legally. this is not rewarding people for breaking the law. it is giving people the opportunity to get right with the loss and it is preferable to what we have now. when reform legislation is enacted, dhs must be prepared to implement reform. to prepare for this potential outcome, i have already directed the deputy secretary of homeland security to coordinate the process to ensure that we are ready to implement the law. effortss must continue to address the growing cyber threat. it is illustrated the real,

pervasive, ongoing series of attacks on things like stores, banks, e-mail services, power substations, and the public that defends on it. the key to the government efforts is to build trust with the private sector. we must attract the best and the bride -- brightness to come and work for us. people like our deputy undersecretary of cyber security who came to us six months ago from the position of chief technology officer at mcafee. i'm going on a talent search. next week, we are traveling to georgia tech. phyllis received her phd. we will recruit more like her. cyber studentn of volunteer initiatives, which allows volunteers to come and work for dhs in support of cyber security. it allows us to educate them for our mission. through the president's on cyber order,1636

security, and presidential policy on strengthening security and resilience of critical infrastructure, both issued a year ago, we are making good progress furthering our partnerships with the private sector. there is more to do. many have expressed a willingness to help in cyber security. we appreciate those efforts. our basic legislative goals are one, new hiring. two, modernizing the federal affirmation managing act to reflect new technology. three, additional clarity and codification of dhs responsibility to protect the federal government civilian networks. dhs canal clarity that provide assistance to the private sector when requested. five legal clarity that the

private sector may exchange security information with the federal government. six, enhanced criminal penalties for cyber crimes. we can also support some form of limitation on potential solo liabilities for private sector entities. provided it is narrow and targeted and away necessary to protect networks. we must continue to be vigilant in preparing for and responding to disasters. wildfires,loods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and, most recently, chemical leaks lick the one in west virginia. that threaten to the water supply of thousands of people. fema has come along way since the days of katrina. we have improved disaster planning for public and private sector. nonprofit organizations and the american people -- we have learned how to pre-position a greater number of resources.

we have strengthened the nation's ability to respond to disasters and a quick and robust fashion. we are helping communities and cities recover and rebuild faster. we will continue this progress. finally, we must be mindful of the environment in which we pursue these missions. we operate in a time of severe budget constraints. us inys when those of national and homeland security can expect more and more each year to our topline budgets are over. obligated toe identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of efforts and expenditures. while pursuing important missions, such as recapitalization of the coast guard fleet. operates at a time when the public's confidence in the government's ability to function and work for them is well written dhs is unique among

federal agencies for their long daily engagement with the public. in airports, seaports and lan ports of interest. the attitude toward the entire federal government can be shaped by we must be mindful of this as we seek to put support for our work. this is why i am pleased to announce that the commissioner of border protection will soon make the use of force policy public. we must do a better job of highlighting the good you do a half -- we do on behalf of the american. a new tsa rechecked application center at dulles airport. it illustrates the risk-based approach to homeland security that i talked about earlier. it is smart, effective, as an efficient use of resources and taxpayer dollars. in december