crimes? grand theft auto and murder. should we reduce penalties because they are found to be racial disparities there? we nonsensecommend someone who has committed murder to prison because there is a potential racial bias. i think what we can say is that decriminalization has not had an impact -- >> that is an answer to a different question. look atfinitely need to if our criminal justice approach is making us safer. we need to look at just how many -- more than just how many people we are rest.

>> should we diminish enforcement and penalties for those other crimes that are far more serious? racialhere are disparities in the approach to criminal justice, we should seriously consider examining the types of sentences and approaches we take to dealing with those public safety issues. >> i take that as sort of a yes. do you agree that there is thatl bias or bigotry leads to these rates of arrests? people don't draw that conclusion based on analysis that is race alone. i think you have to look at other factors. i brought up one of the factors that we considered that calls for service.

there are more police in an area, there is likely to be more arrests. it is an issue that needs to be looked at carefully. worked on the metropolitan police department for 25 years. they would obviously be very at set to hear that they're being accused of biased enforcement. to reiterate a statement you you are notyou say affirmatively going into community seeking out criminals. you're getting calls. and your officers are responding to those calls and certainly reacting to the laws that are enforced? of the factors that i think needs to be looked

at. >> a drug counselor told me back in the 80's that if you see a pure alcoholic, take a picture because it is probably the last one you will see. nowadays when it comes to chemical addiction, it is an issue that you rarely see ifeone use just marijuana they have an addiction problem. someone thatsting uses marijuana use other drugs but those that use drugs frequently oftentimes use many different drugs. it would seem to me that while you may find marijuana, they could have been using other drugs to which it could have created a behavior that generated that call to service.

on the metropolitan police department, we enforce the laws that are in place. to suggest that a person is using one drug or another is really not what we do. i don't think anyone has said that there isn't going to be a consequence. it has changed from a notice of violation of less than an ounce from an arrest situation. the laws want there to be enforcement action. >> i yield back. >> miss norton, did you have

additional questions? >> just to clarify. i think it was an informative answer you gave this time and before about high crime areas. you said you receive a large number of calls. here's where want to speak about the consequence of the law. you received a number of calls before this law was passed. marijuana possession is against we have reason to believe a person is in , if youon of marijuana white orack or hispanic or asian, it is against the law.

>> i am agreeing. >> a policeman -- policeman would not be inclined to give a pass. they enforced the law in the same way that white officers do. >> i think that is accurate. if the law changes in areas where there may be more crime , and the officer believes that someone may possess marijuana, that same officer will act the opposite of how he acts today. >> i think the action will be different.

he would issue a notice of violation. there is still an enforcement action that will be taken. the person is subject to a fine. he does not get a record. the bill says the odor of marijuana or the smell is not enough. do you believe that there would be a decrease in the number of people arrested? >> there will certainly be a decrease in arrests. if you talk about a situation where enforcement is taken -- >> for possession only.

i understand looking for a number of different offenses. but where the officer suspects --t the person >> arrests will most certainly decrease. whether enforcement action will be taken is hard to say. >> there is some that is still possible. i suspect it would be more likely if the person were smoking openly. in that case, i would expect enforcement action to be taken. >> there will be. it will still be in arrests. i expect african-american police officers would be as likely to arrest for smoking marijuana openly as white officers. >> i think that is fair to say.

>> i want to thank each of our witnesses for appearing today and for their testimony and participation as we sort are some of these issues. we are seeking answers. madecision has been whether congress will contest or district law that has been passed. it is very clearly our responsibility when under the constitution under the creation of the district act in 1790. it gave us 60 legislative days to review these laws. and thatt be that, this is done but this particular affect 26 federal

agencies in the district of columbia that are charged with the responsibility of law enforcement. there are other factors and we're trying to sort to the position of the administration and the u.s. attorney and others that will help determine policy. we will continue the series at the next hearing and look at some of the other implications as far as the changing of the status of this particular level of narcotic which is now a schedule one narcotic. some of the contradictions between policy as in numerator to there were possible changes and numerator and by the president, the drug enforcement agency, the office of national

policy and the office under the president of the united states. it's an important issue, it's change and society's perception of the use and abuse of the narcotic. we will sort through this and organize and focus. everyone will have an opportunity to participate. i think the gentlelady for coming to participate as a -- without also objection, the record will be left open for 10 days for additional statements or questions that might be posed to the witnesses here today. being no further business before the subcommittee, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> tonight, a conversation from the university of southern california terrorism research center. we will hear from current and former security officials and the police commissioner.

>> we access and look at the food supply. --y will do a biological they sit around up at night while we are tossing and turning thinking about i need to kill people. streetso have the running with blood and the streets running and screaming. i'm not worried about causing a blackout. terrorism is theater that requires a story line. in the story arc, the big scene, the money shot involves blood and bodies. you can see this entire conversation. in addition to the deputy police commissioner, we will hear from

former homeland security secretary and the administrator of the transportation security agency. at eight." a collection of interviews with the nations stop -- top storytellers. parents migrated from the south to washington dc. without the great migration, i would not be here. i've lived with it all my life. and i was surrounded by the language, the food, the music. of the people that migrated from the south. a lot of competition of whose child will go to which school.

isabel wilkerson, 41 unique voices from 25 years on book notes and q&a conversations. >> in 2010, edith windsor sued the federal government after it refused to recognize her marriage to another woman and forced her to pay estate taxes when her wife died. the supreme court heard the case -- struck down but the struck down the defense of marriage act. hear from roberta kaplan, the lawyer that successfully argued the case >> goodhe court. afternoon. of thee president cleveland metropolitan bar association.

i am delighted to introduce our program today. yesterday may 1 was law day. we celebrated every year to andect on the rule of law recognize its importance in our society. what better place to have this conversation than the citadel of free speech? and what better topic to illustrate the importance of law than the fight for equal rights for the lgbt community. i wanted to give a little bit of context to today's conversation. since been almost a year the landmark decision striking down the defense of marriage act and bringing robbie kaplan to national attention. the constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage, a lawsuit for this week on behalf

of six ohio couples claims that that amendment violates the equal protection and due process clause. the issue of marriage aside, it is currently legal in ohio to be aned from your job, denied apartment, refused service at a movie theater, restaurant, or hotel because of your gender identity. ohio's hate crimes law does not address crimes motive but -- motivated by orientation or gender identity. robbie kaplan hails from cleveland and has become a hero to many in the fight for lgbt equality. windsorentation of the ohio,presenting quality intervening on a case to allow couples married in the state that recognizes same-sex

marriage to be put on the death certificates. this may seem like a minor point to many but this has significant implications when it comes to inheritance, insurance, and writes that deeply affect domestic life. she is a native of cleveland and before that attended with many people in this room. let me turn it over to steve to introduce robbie. thank you john and the city club for hosting a lot a program. kaplan was a native of shaker heights, ohio where she grew up and attended harvard college and columbia law school. after that, she clerked in highestcourt in the

court of the state of new york and went to practice where she now is harder. and a big-time new york litigator. practice commercial which would be the envy of any litigator of any city in the world representing fitch and jpmorgan chase. mostlso has one of the enviable and importance civil rights practices in the world. in 2006, it cause robbie to serve as counsel for 12 same-sex couples in the state of new york seeking to have the right to marry their state law. was unsuccessful where she clerked before.

and as john said, in the last two years, she represented ed windsor. and represented her in the case that caused the supreme court to strike down the defense of marriage act and i am proud to theyhe justice department, founded it indefensible in our constitutional system. me, robbie kaplan was quite literally the girl next-door. i grew up a block or so away from robbie. we graduated high school together. 7:00 in thetimes at morning, we wrote in the cramped backseat of a honda civic hatchback.

her brother peter is here. friends and i think they had a more interesting high school experience than we did. her parents lived down the street from me and her father played golf with my father for many years. it is a point of personal pride to welcome back not only a great litigator but a great leader to our city. bobby kaplan. [applause] chief justice ginsburg today was quoted in the wall street journal talking about the windsor case. something she said struck me. miss windsor was such a well-chosen plaintiff. can you tell us a little bit about that.

>> the lucky thing is that she chose me. the brief version of the story now 84.windsor is she grew up in philadelphia during the depression. her father lost his family business. during college, she realized she was lesbian. couldn't, time, she as she put it, she couldn't queer. being a the marriage, needless to say, didn't mat -- last very long.

flash forward many years and she met a woman and they were together for 44 years. they were married in canada. it's my fault. i lost the case and they had to go to canada. even though she realized she was going to have this problem, she had the pan enormous estate tax called of the statute the "so-called defense of their -- of marriage act." the marriages of straight people were. if you are a straight couple, you don't have to pay an estate tax. at if you are the member of gay couple you did because it

wasn't a marriage. the bill was huge. one of the many things that make her an ideal client is she said she was indignant. you don't get a lot of clients that use the word indignant on their own. and you haven't even seen one of my bills. she went around looking for a lawyer. some of the gay rights groups and they turned her down. dignity and she was looking around. if you were lesbian in new york, you knew who she was.

talk and heard her story. >> can you tell us about the --ht case told iterstand she was was not the appropriate case to be brought. concerned about the estate tax case in general. paid $363,000 to the

government, $275,000 to new york and there was a concern that she would be perceived as too rich. due to the fact that she had two apartments in new york city that they bought in the 70's, they appreciate it hugely over the years. it was really the reason for the estate tax bill. another problem is people were concerned about the tax element. knows what it is like to have to pay a tax bill. americans would understand that. the republicans don't like the estate tax either. i thought it was the perfect case and you have this incredibly beautiful and articulate woman who really had a marriage.

completely paralyzed by the time they died. i thought the american people would understand that, too. >> i read that you had a sticker that was on your desk or abouter and said it's all edie. >> to remind myself. much animated how we litigated this case. the case is always about my clients. that is just the way i do things. on top of that, i thought this noty would be so important only for the american people to hear but for the justices to hear.

many are essentially her contemporaries. justice kennedy, it's no surprise, the guy that matters. and he is around her age and would have shared or be aware of some of the things that she experienced. magazineported in time that they had a very good friend that was the dean of that law , and they were close. i thought some of the facts of her life would really be powerful. she was basically in the closet until 2007. she worked for ibm and rose to the highest ethical level and never told anyone she was gay. i thought justice kennedy would really be able to understand that.

>> different people that are lawyers and others work in different ways. sometimes it is collaborative. writing there brief you do good to extreme. greg's i am not known for my personality. team caredi and the about the brief. the arguments are important but what matters in the -- is what is said in the brief so we were focused on trying to persuade the justice to roll our way and this was the case to do it. sections a couple of literallyef i rewrote

hundreds of times. i walled myself off, i have a small room and i work from there because i -- there would not be any distractions. i do not think i took off my sweatpants for 16 days. by the time it was over i felt party hermit, i went to a that night and i did not know how to talk to people anymore. that was how important it was to me and to the team and it was truly collaborative. one of the things i did and i know and steve knows as well is when we realized this case was before the supreme court i wanted a local council to help me. this is my first argument. but she picked a good one for your first one. >> i did ok. stanforda professor at who is one of the greatest constitutional scholars of our time to help and she was going to go to italy. she was supposed to take it -- a sabbatical. she agreed and canceled her

sabbatical to do this case. between pam and the aclu team we were working very hard. >> i am sure that when become the -- when the case he came renowned people offered advice to you. my guess is some of it was on point and some of it you chose to not take. share with us the process of having a case that goes from being your case with your client to being a case that the whole world is watching you litigate and knows how do better than you . >> at least thought they did. [laughter] there is a little bit of pressure on me at this point. it was intense. after we got the brief and you thing whichdo this is essentially a go in front of we do itf lawyers, with supreme court law advocates and professors. we did some of us -- seven of

those formally. idid one with ted olson and sg's office.the court, people question me for 45 minutes and the spend an hour critiquing everything you say. , maybe cannot imagine rick cannell is worse but i cannot imagine worse that is -- worse than that. the advice we like as anyone doesn't reject the advice we did not like. there was some advice that was written about lately. "de-gay" this case. windsor and on like that advice and i do not blame her.

we felt this case is about the fact that the court could not possibly explain. be five justices would not able to explain any difference between a gay married couple. that could possibly justify the sweeping question. were alreadyfected married and already gay and there was nothing that the court could do that could change either one of those facts. >> that is not all you'd did say. what was it like taking the case to the court and awaiting for the decision. riodot the most relaxing pe of my life. we got the decision on june 26. unlike a lot of other supreme court's in other countries hours court has our supreme

a tradition of not telling you so all they do is say on a certain day they will be announcing cases but no one knows what cases those would be. they were 60's like that when -- six days like that where we lined up and we all had a part -- laptops and we had five or six false starts. edie was more stressed than i was. it was reported in "the new derogatory used a term about the supreme court. on the day that we got this decision we knew it would get it because it was the last day of the term. it was clear they would have to issue it that day. we were waiting for three things that were important for us. followers docourt

this analysis of company have written and how many opinions are left in based on that analysis the opinions to be announced to be written by chief justice roberts and by kennedy. there was the prop 8 case. be better off if kennedy wrote the opinion. they would announce the decision reversed because under supreme protocol, kennedy is junior. we were waiting to hear that our cases first and opinion by kennedy and when we saw dissent by justice scalia we knew that we one -- won. word, any one read a there was screaming and crying and incredible jubilation going on in my apartment. >> you have a practice where we talked about, we have large commercial clients involved in high-stakes important litigation. then you have individual

clients. many lawyers are taught in law school and law firms and places that we work that we should be detached. that we are not supposed to personal skin in the game. objectivity. bring obviously that cannot be true for you. there in your apartment with your wife rachel and your son jacob. >> on his ipad. >> that is what he was doing. this is something that cannot help but be personal for you to do. can you talk a little bit about the struggle between being an objective big stakes litigator and doing a case that must mean so much to you as a person also. >> i see both sides of this argument. i believe that we are part of a

noble profession. i believe that as lawyers it is our job to tell the clients the truth, even sometimes when they do not want to hear it. that is our duty. any lawyer who disagrees i respectfully disagree with them. i think that is what lawyers do. on the other hand, my wife jokes about this. she says i have this incredible ability to convince myself that no matter who my client is they are right and they have done nothing wrong and that we absolutely should win the case and if the judges do not see it that way there is something wrong with them. she does not know how i'd do it every time but i clearly do. in this case i that was an easy thing to do. among other things there is edie. it is anot say mother-daughter relationship but it has parts of a mother-daughter relationship. in terms that she needs to take care of herself better and she tells me to stop being

controlling and does not listen. >> are you talking about edie or ur mother or both? rex both. i was married and i am a lesbian so doma had terrible implications for me as well. as a lawyer i was -- felt it was important to put that aside. that is one of the reasons. i did not want lawyers talking and going on press junket's and going on meet the press and talking about this case until we had a decision. i wanted to -- wanted it to be focused on her and that was a strategy that was important to us but there were times when it would seep through. on the argument, the chief justice started going after me on this question of why the world has changed so much. how is it today there are 17 states that allow gay couples to marry. when we argue the case there were nine and one we brought the

case there were five. his thesis was people were just following politicians, they were following president obama and following bill clinton who wrote an op-ed. there were people following politicians in i disagreed with that. just think americans ever follow politicians but i think on this it was very much politicians with all respect to the president following americans and we debated this point. you can hear if you listen to the transcript, you can hear in my voice that i was -- where's -- that is where the personal came through. it certainly came through when we won. after all bets were off and we could feel freer about what we said. things were different. i felt that all last summer you endings whenall the guy is floating above the world looking down at his life? chagallike the

painting. argumentg the justice ginsburg not only gave this great interview today, there is a website called notoriousrgb. we had spent a lot of time in the case really agonizing about how best to explain to the court kind ofa created a caste system. there was a second class this is jim where gay couples were treated one-way and straight couples who were married were treated another way. that kind of caste system is offensive and we debated it a lot of different ways. , justicee argument ginsburg was talking to him and was questioning him and said is

that the fact that what doma does is creates a kind of gambell -- skim milk marriage. thecouples get benefits of live-in certain states. she speaks very softly and she is short and it was hard to hear her. i turned to pam and said what did she just say and pam heard her and told me. i had to hold my arm down. i felt like doing this. which would not be good for supreme court protocol. captures the essence of what this is about. is -- truly a skim milk kind of citizenship. that is what the case was about. >> how do you view the case now that it is over and you're onto new things is sort of fading for the broader movement

fighting for of dbt rights and civil rights in general. where do you think this fits in the broader story? >> attorney general holder and the president would agree that this is an important case and the path our country is taking. the arc that history does bending toward justice as martin luther king said. one of the most surprising things that happened and you mention this was when the administration decided not to defend the statute. infelt -- we filed our case the second circuit which meant that we knew that they doj would have to take a position on doma should get heightened scrutiny. should courts look differently

at the law the same way they have to look differently at laws america --africans african-americans or women differently. the second circuit was wide open. we filed the case and edie was 80 at the time. case and this woman said we would like an extension. i do not normally like to represent plaintiffs. r.am representing edie windso the hospital with heart problems. i got a call from a more senior -- person. i get a call from tony west, currently the second in command at the department of justice and he said what is going on, here you will not give us an extension. i'm calling you to tell you that

we are asking for this extension because the president and the attorney general and i seriously want to consider and discuss what to do in this case. even then i said i will get back to you. [laughter] >> when you work at the department of justice to john have that option. >> i asked some of my partners and they said are you crazy, of course she will give the attorney general and extension. i ache we can be too cynical about things. i was cynical even then. i said i understand you and the president are going to be deliberating about this. i want you to know i will be praying for you as you deliberate. 30 days later i get an e-mail saying, i was on spring vacation and again e-mail save the attorney general and assistant attorney general look like a phone call. that is not an e-mail you get

very often. we knew what it was. we got on the call, tony explained how the president had decided they could not defend doma. tears running down my face. at the end of the call he said remember that thing you said about praying for me and the president? he said, sometimes prayer works thathe proof -- truth is [inaudible] is the plaintiff a member of a group that suffered discrimination? thehere anything about group that affects your ability to contribute to society. can your should you have to change be a member of this group in order not to be discriminated against and is this group so

politically powerful that they can get a daily want through the legislature and we do not need to intervene? those are the four factors. it is not a coincidence that it was three african-american men, the president, attorney general obama plan tony west to made that decision. i truly leave that when they were doing it, it was not politics, it was not msnbc versus fox, it was not any of that. they sat down and is three black guys they said we will not write that brief and that is what led to the decision. >> last question and we will go to the audience. this is law day. and we are talking about what law means and reflecting on it. so this is a case where one side, the courts vindicated the best aspirations of what the rule of law means. as you pointed out it was about a law that was democratically enacted which we now know

unconstitutionally burdened millions of americans for many years. when you reflect on what the law means and as a lawyer, whether the law sometimes bad laws or immoral laws have to be dealt with. how does this play into your worldview of -- as a person and as a lawyer? >> i give young lawyers advice. if you're doing some research and you think the cases do not make sense that you need to go back and do the research because they should make sense. i guess i am not as cynical as i think i am. the law should make sense and certainly the constitution should make sense. was passed there were opinions from very prominent constitutional law wasestors saying doma completely kosher. you can lose sense of who you are and live sense of what your gut tells you about what is right, and if your gut tells you

something is right to me you have to keep hiding for. i lost the first marriage case grade we got hosed by the new york court of appeals but i kept on fighting and ultimately, we won windsor and windsor will lead to victories throughout the rest of the country. >> today at the city club we are learning a ton with robbie kaplan, lead counsel in the windsor case that did -- overturned the defense of marriage act. we encourage you to formulate and best questions for our speaker and remind you that your question should be brief and to the point. we welcome all of you here and those joining us through our primary media partner. wviz, ideastream or

one of the radio stations that carry this program. our live webcast is supported by the university of akron. a, may 9, the city club welcomes dr. denise goldberg, author of koran."jefferson's pleasee information, refer to the website www.cityclub.org. we thank you all for your support. today is the annual forum on the american justice system made possible by a generous endowment fay andm robert j.

you for yourank support. we welcome students to today's form. participation is made possible by the development pipeline company. joining us are students from shaw and westlake high schools. with those students be -- please stand and be recognized? [applause] thank you all for being here. today's program is in partnership with the metropolitan law association. let's return to our speaker. with welcome questions from everyone including guest. holding the microphones are terry miller and marketing and outreach specialist kirsten. can we have our first question,

please western mark >> -- please? >> thank you for inviting us. earlier today i had the pleasure judge will dawson, and he said that he -- you your goals tot set a steady path for your future. goals orlan out your was a spontaneous? -- was it spontaneous? pleasure doing this program. back in high school steve was not exactly a morning person. quite frequently he would fall asleep on my shoulder as we were riding to school in this teeny little honda. this was a lot more fun and waking him up and saying set up.

car i ams in that scared to say how many years ago. would moveea that i to new york and become a partner that i would argue a case before the supreme court. it is impossible to plan your life that way. the one thing i learned in the lesson that was taught to me by my parents and it is true is that you have to take opportunities when they come your way. because you cannot plan life, you cannot plan when opportunities come your way. when someone like edie windsor comes into your life the answer is to say of course i will take on your case and i will do it for free, pro bono. you have to trust yourself and e theinstincts and lik advice gave me, that is the best

advice i can give anyone. >> what was the importance in your career as -- of mentors? >> very important. i got lucky in my career. i have a very good friend who is a partner who is now a judge. when the windsor decision was decided by the second circuit, callirst site -- person to me was colleen. when the supreme court decided, the first to be placed with two after my parents were judge kay and colleen. for advice onhem questions and it is important to find people like that. they are out there. >> on many cases that come before the supreme court now, it possible to predict in

advance a 5-4 vote. five conservative justices vote one way and four so-called liberal justices vote the other way. as a prominent attorney who has had a very successful career in andsupreme court arguments, this being law day, how do you feel about that division, do you there is certain amount of distrust or lack of confidence that the public will have when the results of the predictable?so proof --ot of the less high-profile cases, the supreme court, there really is not that division. it is 8-1 or 7-2.

uri. we thought we were, we had a chance of getting a six vote. .ased on the descent i would like to have a greater majority on my side. ishink part of that today the political process. the president cannot even get judicial nominees. the senate has been -- become so polarized and congress has become so polarized that nothing effective can get done in d.c. the 5-4 voting that you see is kind of an example of that.

it is a bad effect of that kind of polarization. >> hello. thank you for accepting our invitation to be here tonight. my question for you is look -- regarding the issue of same-sex marriage in the light of loving and full faith and credit. the run-up to the windsor case and the media analysis thereafter made very little if any mention of the loving president regarding miscegenation. comparing and contrasting the two. what is the role of loving with regard to setting president for same-sex marriage cases and secondly most of the wins we have had so far has been protectionon equal on due process clauses. i have not heard any issue brought up regarding fulfilling credit. we have recognized marriages, divorces, and adoptions done in

other jurisdictions. that would not normally be legal in ohio. the sixth circuit decision involving gay couples that had married on there tarmac and come back and eventually federal courts told the cincinnati recorder to include the same-sex spouse's name on the certificate. the issue of loving and full faith and credit as valid defenses [inaudible] >> let me take those separately. loving v virginia it was a case about an interracial couple who are being permitted to marry and virginia and the supreme court held that was unconstitutional. in windsor these couples were arty married. they were not seeking the fundamental right to marry.

they were already married in the point was can you treat couples who are married differently solely because they are gay. in the cases that are being brought today throughout the the loving line of analysis which is a due process fundamental light -- rights analysis of -- is being relied on quite heavily. it remains to be seen which way the court will go. they can do this on a mental rights theory or the equal protection theory. i was taught in my gut that these cases are about equal protection. doesn't it seem that not allowing gay people to have the same rights as straight people is about equal protection. i will take a win anyway i can get it. that is ok with me. in terms of full faith and credit it is very technical. have aates like ohio policy where they will recognize marriages from out-of-state unless the marriage contravenes

the public policy of the state. a is that issue whether contravenes the public policy of the state that blends in to the same question of whether there is a right to marry for gay couples in ohio. the reason you're not seeing it litigated is the issues combine. these recognition cases are -- it isigated as whether that public policy of ohio that says there's something so horrible about gay people marrying but there is -- ifing so horrible there is something about it that policy is constitutional. >> what is your opinion on whether judges should be elected or appointed? i live in new york where

judges are elected and appointed. we have it both ways new york. we have a family debate about this. my wife who is a very active person in the democratic party very much believes that judges should be elected. , sometimes iigator am on the judge of -- site of judges being appointed. both things are probably healthy and good. in the federal system i agree that federal judges should only be appointed. they should have lifetime tenure and only be appointed. there is value in both and value in people feeling they have a hand in who becomes a judge and have a say in it. what i do not like is what you saw in iowa where the iowa supreme court said gay couples have the right to marry and then most of the judges who rendered that decision were voted out of office. that is not the way this system should work.

want to say thank you for inviting us. do you feel that ohio should stop using the slogan we are a the example because of gay marriage. that is not technically free. >> ohio should keep the slogan but allow gay couples to marry. [laughter] [applause] thanks for being here. i would like to ask the question that you must have had sincedous pressure of you you were involved in trying to do this decision and it was mentioned that everyone in the world was looking. i happen to live more than half the year overseas and i know a ringf people, americans of overseas were unable to return to the u.s. because if you're theied to your spouse federal government did not allow

you to bring your spouse with you back to the u.s.. one of the members of the dnc has been in exile as an american abroad and is not able to return -- now a you turn so he can apply for citizenship. did you hear from any of these people and how did it -- did it affect you? >> yes. we heard from hundreds of people like that. the most erratic impact that the windsor decision had were these couples who were married, binational couples who were gay. the obama administration acted expeditiously on this and they started issuing green cards. i need someone to count the number of e-mails and phone calls but it is in the hundreds. i just spoke yesterday in new york at a wall street event at

one of the guys told me his story. he and his husband had been separated for that reason. it is an incredibly moving and important impact of the windsor decision. in terms of the pressure, the pressure was extreme. before the windsor case was argued, the prop eight case was argued. we watched the arguments after our team watched we went back to the office and talked about whether we needed to change anything what we were going to do and we decided we thought it was looking good for us. about -- in the afternoon. i go back and read cases, what should i do and i decided to go back to the hotel. we went up to the room with my son and we ordered milk and cookies and we watched johnny

test cartoons. that was the best thing i could have done to prepare for the oral argument. that is how i go with the pressure. when you get to the supreme court, they have a very formal process of the give you the, there is a pep talk they give you and they say things like if you need pencils, here's the thing that i love. if you need a sewing kit you can have a sewing kit. every time they say that i am like, what would i do with a sewing it? that just before the argument was incredibly stressful. >> you have also talked from time to time about the role that faith, your faith plays in your life and helps. i wonder if that also has been an aid in dealing with the kind of pressure you are on group -- you are under. >> i like to think so.

i was very concerned in this case that our side of the movement had ceded the argument from the other side, religious arguments to one side. religious arguments should not only be on one side of this issue. there are many religions and many serious believers of many religions that believe that god requires us to recognize the dignity and everyone. that is what this case was about. it was about whether edie's dignity should be recognized under the law, regardless of what your church thinks about performing gay marriages for couples. we spent a lot of time thinking about that. we had a brief for the first time ever in one of these gay rights cases from a very mainstream religious group. i got the entire conservative jewish movement on board for the first time in history. with some friends. there was lobbying that went on. we had an orthodox rabbi, we had episcopal ships, we at

presbyterian. it was important for me to be in front of the corporate if you look at justice kennedy's opinion, i think he mentions the word dignity 10 times in 26 pages. what he keeps saying over and over in the opinion is that gay people have the same dignity as everyone else. i think that is obviously true. i think it is what led to all the decision sent when sort -- windsor. it is a secular view of the religious view, which i share. >> i am a recent graduate of hawken school and i am curious -- i know we are well represented here today and i'm curious about how hawken and your youth and upbringing and education influenced where you are today. i don't hawken really helped me come out of my shell in a lot of ways and i'm wondering if it did the same for you. >> definitely. i was in the closet until law school.

it was a very different world that people lived in. it is amazing the that there is a gay student organization at hawken. every time i say i was in the closet, they look at me like, who cares? that is an example of how the way -- how the world has changed that were inconceivable to me at hawken school and inconceivable to me five years ago in the world. i learned so much about myself at hawken. i had a latin teacher who has passed away that taught me how to think and those are skills i have with me for the rest of my life. >> i am an attorney the at the legal aid society of cleveland, pro bono services.

because it is law day, in addition to windsor, can you name another robot ok's that is one of your favorites -- another pro bono case that is one of your favorites? >> i have a lot. the truth is, there has been talk about this in the press. paul weiss did not charge a penny. we even paid for the fees from experts out of our pocket. that was not an issue. when i met edie at her apartment that day and she asked me -- first she was not sure i was qualified. she had a computer in the corner and i play the argument i did in new york. she watched it for a while and said, i think you're good enough. then she said, how much is this going to cost me? i did this with my hand. she said, i want to pay. and i said, you can't afford it. [laughter] the truth of the matter is, it never occurred to me that i would to go back to the firm and asked her permission to do this case.

i went to paulweiss -- i went to paul weiss in part because cases like this are in our dna. we believe that lawyers that are as fortunate as we are have an obligation to give back and really -- i think i called ahead of the firm and said i was doing this case, but it was a no-brainer for all of us. i think more -- i hope more lawyers do that. we do it at all -- paul weiss. >> hi. i am from westlake high school. i am a graduating senior. what is going on? i wanted to ask, since your morals help you win that case since you believe so strongly and were so passionate about it, have you had your morals

conflict with the case because you did not believe it? >> i have been very fortunate. my wife things that is impossible for me because i convinced myself i am right. i had never had that happen. i frankly don't know what i would do if it happened. i also believe that everyone has a right to a lawyer. there are criminal defense lawyers all the time who represent people who are the east accused of doing horrible things and it is a noble thing to defend a person incorporated that is part of being a lawyer. -- in court. that is part of being a lawyer. [applause] >> we are out of time, but i would like to say that on behalf of not only do legal community in cleveland but all clevelanders, robbie, we are very proud of you and delighted you are here today. [applause]

today at the city club, we have been listening to a friday forum with robbie kaplan. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. our forum is now adjourned. [bell tolls] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> politico is reporting that john boehner execs to be speaker that he may not serve an entire two-year term. the story quotes the house speaker is saying, i am going to be 65 years old in november. i never thought i would do to be 60 so i am living on borrowed time. spoke inohn boehner san antonio on a fund-raising trip to texas while the house is in recess this week.

the senate is in session and this week they will work on legislation to extend tax incentives for businesses. alan ota is joining us. can you give us some details of the bill? two-year extension of mainly business tax breaks. things that the business community cares about. things that encourage energy efficiency, energy conservation, wind energy, solar energy. there are things that encourage research and development. writef things companies off and help reduce their taxes. fore are a few things individuals including most importantly one of the most important things is the

deduction for sales taxes and people that live in seven states that have no income taxes. states like texas and florida. >> how would these tax breaks the whitend what is house's view on the bill? >> this is -- there are no offsets for this. a straight extension. i guess the main difference is that over in the house they're of --g for extension extensions of tax breaks. i think the white house and administration has been supportive of the idea of what we call a patch which is sort of a one-year, in this case it is a two-year extension of these tax breaks and generally in the past they have not been paid for and they will not be paid for this time either. >> who are some of the senators

inected to be involved leading the floor debate for and against it? >> the leader would be the finance chairman. he helped put this package together with senator orrin hatch, the ranking member on in utah. would the other side we probably find patrick toomey of tet -- pennsylvania who wants to have amendments offered to the package and he wants to strike, to delete several of the tax breaks for wind energy and energy conservation. he is going to insist on offering that amendment and people that support those tax breaks do not want to have that amendment offered. >> your latest article has the headline republicans press

effort on amendments to tax [inaudible] what are some of the key amendments to look for this week? >> the key one would be the amendment which would start the energy tax breaks but we might amendmentsber of that would be related to taxes. you could see things that would make permanent some of the things that would be extended in the package. the package would extend it for two years and people might want to have permanent extension such as the research and development tax credit. that was something that was passed by the house last week by bipartisan vote. generalink the conventional wisdom is that we will see a good debate in the senate this week. it is not clear whether there will be an agreement on

amendments. the thought is there probably would not be amendments and we would have to work it out later. >> what do you think would happen with the house? >> the house is proceeding with its strategy of offering of single permanent tax break extensions and the next one they of talking about is expense investments by small businesses. we might see that when the house returns from their one-week recess next week or possibly by the end of the month. alan ota onollow twitter. thanks for joining us today. you can take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smart phone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv

channels or c-span radio anytime and there is a schedule of each of our network so you can tune in when you want. play podcasts of recent shows from our signature programs like the communicators and q&a. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free up online for your iphone, android, or blackberry. >> at 8 p.m. eastern, the conversation from the university of southern california terrorism research center. we will hear from michael chertoff and the administrator of the transportation security agency. the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce said today the republicans in congress should approve an overhaul of immigration law or else risk losing the white house in 2016. his comments came at a conference on the effect of aging infrastructure on the u.s. economy.

>> good morning, everybody. welcome to infrastructure week 2014. i am the executive director of transportation and infrastructure. this morning on behalf of the council on competitiveness, the national association of manufacturers, the chamber, we are pleased to kick off a we hope will become an annual week of spotlighting the nation's public infrastructure that serves as a physical platform for our economy. in the fall of last year a man challenged to organizations, the chamber and counsel to work together to raise the profile of the nation's infrastructure new ceo's andruit

top-level voices and create more interest among the business committee for dressing the challenges we will discuss today and throughout the week. little did i know that a year later we would be here today with a week packed full of andts and a national regional media campaign. president -- thanks to your vision, your dedication to maintaining modernizing and expanding our roads, rails, rivers, runways, airways, and water pipes and your ability to put the chamber and counsel together for that all-important first meeting, we are here today. please accept my thanks and the infrastructure committee and steering committees gratitude. please join me in welcoming paul.

>> thank you. it seemed like a pretty easy idea to get this going and get this group together. and the right thing to do. introducingonor of a keynote speaker, tom donohue. a number of years ago the was courting them to join. number of visits and we were deciding what we were going to do. finally, i do not remember who visit tom.wanted to after 45 minutes with tom donohue i saw exactly why it was great for us to be part of the chamber of commerce. i saw everything that we are doing and everything that fit business needed in its

and influence in washington. more than that i saw a man with the vision for what america can be. and backed by an organization that was working to implement his ideas. since becoming president and ceo, tom built the chamber into a lobbying and political powerhouse with influence across the globe. chamberom's tenure, the experts,ts, political legal advocates, communications, wontechnical experts have business victories on capitol hill. in an air of economic and physical challenges, tom has aggressively advance the american jobs growth and

opportunity agenda. one of the key issues facing america today. leadership, the chamber has emerged as a major political force. a force that needs to be reckoned with and a force for business. with all those accolades and everybody knows what the chamber does emma i would like to kick off the infrastructure week i introducing tom donohue. -- by introducing tom donohue. [applause] >> thank you very much. i am pleased to be here. i am not sure how i feel. i got back from europe yesterday.

i am committed to the subject that we are going to discuss today this evening and tomorrow and the next day and that we are going to advance in every way we can to meet the challenges that we all face. paul, thank you for your introduction but more particularly, thank you for your support of the chamber and more specifically, thank you for your support of what is going on in the infrastructure world. i would like to also join janet , thelcoming our cohost more people you get in the room project, thee better we are going to be and appreciate working together with these folks. we have created a great program for today. it could not be more timely. as august, the highway trust fund is going to run short

of money. i predict it will be sooner than that. states will not begin in to get reimbursed on time for money willhave already spent and probably slow down their own commitments. by timber, projects will be interrupted, halted, or never launched in the first place because of the uncertainty over funding. further weaken and -- an already weak economy. i am talking about the economic recovery that will country to the slow deterioration of our system. it will undermine our global competitiveness and demonstrate to the world that america can't basic things done anymore. it will cost us a lot of jobs. well we are trying to create jobs, this will be taking the

most important types of jobs away. -- several members of congress have put forward plans that address our long-term funding issue and we applaud them for their efforts and i know there is going to be more discussion in town this week on .hose attempts others are suggesting that the political reality is we will have to settle for an infusion of cash into the highway trust measure. stopgap where are you going to get the cash? used to be there were ways to do it. i think it is a little tighter now than it was. be true that we can get an infusion but it is hardly a long-term solution we need if we want to maintain a world-class infrastructure system. this is like the movie "groundhog day." and have the same conversation over gas tax in the

same scramble for money. the only problem, we have not and doing very well. yearsround numbers, 20 since we increase the gas tax. did i get me wrong. money is important. can't make the -- don't have the cash. if you look at everything that is being discussed in recent around theeks environmental issues, many of those are somewhat in conflict not because they are wrong but in what we are trying to do and where we are trying to spend our money. what everybody would agree to is we need a comprehensive forward-looking program that meets the needs of a competitive 21st-century that embraces innovative approaches and instills confidence and earns the support of a jaded citizenry. whoever built that bridge did

not help us, did not go anywhere but we certainly heard a lot about it. today i would like to suggest a that might reach that objective. getting us past the stale and competitive -- repetitive debates, a plan that will appeal to the american people and our elected officials because it focuses on the benefits of a 21st-century infrastructure system. a plan that will emphasize transparency, accountability, technology, and innovation. it is a plan that relates to the lives of everyday americans and will help drive their enthusiasm for increased public investment in infrastructure. the plan is built on 5 -- built on five pillars. are built on five something, we decided on

pillars. the first is enhanced transparency and accountability. but get the american people to feel confident in what we are doing. americans will never buy into a long-term funding plan unless they are confident that their dollars will be spent wisely. the decades they have been fed stories of wasteful porkbarrel projects, bridges to nowhere and bring home the verb real bacon to win votes. not all those things are bad. i understand why we took away all the efforts to bring home a deal or bridge but maybe if we would all get together and we would make a professional list of what had to be done and after everything was funded and permitted, then they would let the members of the committee come in and in order of their seniority or good looks, they could pick one of those projects and we would let them say it is

theirs. the bottom line is, we have got to get people to trust what we are going to do. the public has a right to expect more business-minded financials dandridge in infrastructure projects. all new construction and major upgrade should be the subject of a rigorous economic analysis that indicates a strong return return ofent or a need that the community must take care of. the public has a right to expect once selected projects are subject to a strict management and are done in a timely fashion in a cost-effective way. bureaucracy so much

between the id and the conclusion we all forget what we started out to do in the first place. the public has a right to expect that congress keeps the promise and does not diverge the money to some other project. reforms willthese not only improve the efficiency of our system, deliver better benefits and keep the costs lower, they will instill the confidence we need to do this on a long-term basis. the second pillar is that streamlining of the regulatory system. the public needs to know once they commit the money, it will be put to work quickly and efficiently for jobs, growth, and opportunity. lawsuits -- losses are fine, not ones that go on for months and years and years. delays and bureaucracy can not only slow

projects, raise their costs, and outright kill them, but they can't discourage private-sector investment and prevent implementation of cost savings innovations. permitting is a good example. a federal permit is almost always necessary to build or lines, transmission nuclear power plants, ports, airports, chemical facilities, and any other number of projects. the problem is after the permit is filed know what is in charge. there's no one time line for toroval, and parties have up six years to sue after an agency makes his final decision. if me a break. -- wem the outset we have are all looking at more of a decade -- have been -- just to break ground, as well as long delays and costs from legal challenges. we have seen exceptions and seen them work. were -- remember

back to the horrific earthquake in san francisco, and what we did there was we got together like this country can and made it work. what we have now? we have the rapid act, working its way through congress. we put someone in charge of the the permit and ensuring coordination among agencies and put limits on reviews and legal challenges. it will speed up the development ojects so we can create jobs and growth. efforts to streamline the regulatory process had been part of each of the last three major service transportation acts. some progress has been made, but change has been slow. additional efforts like streamlining that permit system are needed. the third pillar is a more strategic multimodal approach. we need a seamless national connected system that links all the physical assets and all the

transportation modes together. we need intermodal connectors ports,nk railroads to ports the highways, high waist airports, and so on and so forth him a touch of which can be done by the private sector if the public sector is involved in the the way it should in a timely basis. this is where many of the greatest bottlenecks in freight transportation occur, on the last mile that connects one mode to another. our transportation and infrastructure planning system operates in silos across this nation and around this town. multiple levels of government and multiple industries that compete with one another. this lack of coordination raises costs and generates inefficiencies, which means the system remains fragmented and disjointed. oure are to maintain world-class infrastructure

system, we need to break down those silos, talk to one another, and consider the big which are. in short, we need a network, not a patchwork. states have an important role to play, but we can all agree that the federal government must take a leading role in making sure that the infrastructure system introduced to a strong economy, national security, and works in a seamless way. devolving responsibilities to the states as some has suggested means we will lose national connectivity that is essential to moving american goods, economic growth, and global competitiveness. that is a big price to pay. we sure states are actively involved in raising their own money and aggressively going ahead and fixing their own infrastructure, but they know we need a national system. the fourth pillar is integrating technology into the surface transportation system.

gadgetss revolve around these days, it seems to be. we expect that information at our fingertips to make decisions to changingto adapt situations, and the american thate are going to expect relationships with the infrastructure is no different. it is time to make sure that our steel, airsphalt, traffic control system, and other infrastructure are smart. they will tell us when they are wearing out and then we can worry about it. this is what americans do. we innovate, create them in caps on the rocks, make the absolute most out of the resources we have. there are some exceptions. one might look at the u.s. infrastructure system. the private sector know-how is already alleviating injection, helping travelers plan ahead,

unlocking good luck at airports, and improving safety. and if using more technology and infrastructure planning construction and maintenance has a potential to be a game changer for the infrastructure system in the 21st century. acrossogy implemented transportation modes and industries is uneven across governments and often much lower than the pace of technological evolution. build systemof the does not yet incorporate these elements. it might not be cost effective to add every new bell and whistle to the every structure, but business should decide on which technologies how, andupport, where, who pays for them. i've been talking about all that because i have been trying to warm up to the fifth pillar, because this is what is about. the fifth pillar is our business

,lan, is creating a predictable stable, and growing funding mechanism for infrastructure. here is some old news free. the simplest, most straightforward way to fix the highway trust fund and buy some time to develop a new funding system is to raise the federal gasoline tax, or the user fee. you do not want a user, you do not have to pay for. but if you want to use it, you have to pay for it. truckers are for it, the construction industry is for it, labor is for it, and the chamber is fort. that is one hell of a start. if congress were serious about ensuring money goes to the most essential projects, most motorists would be for it, too. a researcher found out that 58% of the public would support a

gas tax increase if they knew it would be applied to building and maintaining roads, bridges, and transit systems. pretty good. he have watched in six states, three of each flavor, that state taxes he raised with the support of the citizens. voters want to know where the money is going, and that it is going to be used well and not wasted. that is how you get the votes. increasing the gas tax is going to require some coverage, which seems in short supply in washington these days. said when those six states did it, they thought the current was there. now we have got to get it here in the capital city. this guy did not fall. their economies did not collapse. both republican and democratic presidents have approved modest gas tax increases, and even ronald reagan had a message on telling the people on the house

side. increasing the gas tax is the right answer. it is the one thing we can do in the short order. we've got to do the same thing for our inland waterways. the barge guys support raising the barge diesel tax so that the locks and dams and levees can be replaced and upgraded. if we are going to export american energy and agriculture, which we are doing more and more, we have got to take care of that, as well as stop holding back the money already collected for the harbor maintenance to trust fund. let's keep in mind that public money is only part of the equation. we must increase private investment as well. the private sector is prepared $250 billion in public-private partnerships if only certain barriers would be

removed and if we could demonstrate we knew how to pay back what we acquired. although 33 states have passed 3's, onlyon allowing p a handful have taken advantage of it, and only a handful have established offices that can facilitate projects and help navigate legal, financial, and technical complexities. governors and mayors need to 's as a way of doing business. we need to seize every opportunity to tap every possible source of capital so that that difficult projects and get done and done quickly. this also includes expanding tifia private activity bonds and state infrastructure eggs. i listen to that stuff up on the hill all the time, and you can do it and it will work, but you cannot do it until you lay the foundation touches a highway trust fund.

today best estimates put the atal u.s. spending on p3's nine percent of the global total, by taking some common sense steps we can drive that number up. let me conclude because you have been patient listening to me. it is clear that the united states need a new path forward on transportation infrastructure. hard time we all push very to create a contemporary and innovative infrastructure strategy, one that embraces the private sector and its resources and invites the introduction of desperately he needed -- desperately needed ideas and rather thanerity holding it back. jobs, opportunity, and growth -- we need them all. a successful plan would prove to the american people that our thated officials

infrastructure investment is a smart bet for our people, our companies, and our economy. congress and the obama administration have their role to play. they need to own up to the responsibility of implementing a ,mart, forward-looking transparent, and accountable infrastructure program with the necessary funding, please u nderline. the private sector has a role to play in a significant way as well. we need to come up with solutions, we need to craft a plan, and we need to sell it far and wide. today i am pleased to announce that the incoming chairman of will help us lead a national roundtable dialogue which will take place in five or six cities on each of the five pillars we discussed today. and fivebe more cities

pillars. we will then transmit a report ,o the president, the congress and everyone else that will listen with their principles and recommendations. ane have accused me of being optimist. i cannot help myself. i am irish for the most part. --e people think -- well [laughter] time to start viewing this issue as an opportunity, not only as a challenge. if we are smart, we can set a path that will ensure adequate funding for years to come. we can create jobs and we really need them. we can spur economic growth the country needs. we can promote cooperation among all levels of government and private sector. we can ensure that money is spent wisely on projects with the greatest national and if it. and we can build trust and confidence in the american

people and make clear all of the benefits this investment will bring. the chamber is committed. i colleagues supporting this effort are committed, and we look forward to working with you to get it done. you go to every event this week and then just go home and do not do anything, nothing is going to happen. so somebody, all of us have toten go up and explain it our representatives that we are so glad to have them and we need the money. or we might not keep them. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, tom. our is straight talk about transportation problems which is one of the reasons i like to

work at the chamber. please do not be shy. there is a whole other side of the room here. i was unable to construct a new entrants this morning, so you've got to help me out and walk all the way over there. today hearingtart from tom, but also hearing from top-notch real business organizations, each with a slightly different mission and approach, but all of which emphasize the concept of competitiveness, which the world economic forum defined as the institutions, policies, and factors that determine a level of productivity of a country, which sounds very serious. that is a pretty big set of trade,s -- education, tax policy, immigration, foreign policy. i could keep going on if it takes them longer to mike them up. what each of these association ceo's want is the best platform

upon which businesses can succeed and the united states can compete him and to help us big into how infrastructure relates to competitiveness, today we are pleased to welcome javers.amon did i say that right? yeyes. he has worked at businessweek and politico, appeared as an analyst on all the major broadcast networks, and if you watch "washington week," you'll will often see him on the panel. he is the author of a book you might want to pick up. so i will turn things over to you. thank you, and thank you to our panel. much, andou very thank you very much for the plug for the book. this is a fascinating time to have this conversation. i want to introduce the panel.

time forave plenty of questions. i hope that your questions will be more insightful than mine. i want to get to that as quickly as we can. starting here, you all know tom. thank you for being here. we also have jay timmons. smith.h wince- nancy mclernon. thank you all for being here. let me start out with a statistic that i read last week that i thought was fascinating. so much of this conversation focuses on big businesses and what their needs are. that is important, but this is also a conversation about american jobs and the overall economy. the s&p did a study by their andf economist last week said that there estimates show that investing $1.3 billion in

infrastructure creates 20,000 u.s. jobs and adds $2 billion to with potentially larger gains over the long term. if we could, starting with jay, give us your thoughts on what infrastructure needs for jobs first and then the broader economy. >> thanks, and it is great to be here with such a diverse group of people. it is great to have tom kick this off as usual. tom gave us some good things to and has really presented a challenge as we all know it here. the fact that we are so diverse and that the sponsors are so diverse, is a testament to the fact that we can get something done here. andn, it is about jobs manufacturers. it is about competitiveness. if you look at our competitors around the world and what they

are doing good infrastructure, you realize they are not stuck in the 20th century. they are moving forward to the 21st and planning for the 22nd century. that means if we are going to keep up with our competitors we have got to do the same thing here. for manufacturers, it matters in every step of the process, whether it is receiving input for our goods or being able to deliver our products to our customers here in the united states or to customers abroad. you mentioned the statistic for every 1.3 billion invested in infrastructure spending it creates 22,000 jobs. pretty basic figure, and that is borne out. for manufacturers, for every dollar invested in infrastructure spending, results cents for0 manufacturers. when we look at all the different research products that have been done, studies that have been done, everybody

agrees, we've got to do something. i brought with me a little hint here of the studies that have been done in the last five years. this is just five years worth, -- >> have you read all those? >> she has. sample, not a everything that is come out, but a lot of this is from the federal government, states, think tanks and our group here, and the conclusion is all the same. we have a problem and we have got to do something about it. we have partnered with building future, one of the sponsors today, and we surveyed manufacturers. john mclaughlin and alice redmond will give you more information on this poll. 70% of manufacturers, the people that his country relies on to generate the lifeblood of the economy, 70% of manufacturers think our infrastructure is in poor or fair shape. manufacturers believe

that every single possible funding solution needs to be put on the table for discussion. it does not mean that we are all what the outcome of every one of those potential solutions, but at least we should be talking about it. and we do need a multi-year long-term strategy for transportation so that we are protecting america's mantle of economic leadership. jobs, but alsot politics. i wonder if the politics of this infrastructure conversation have been damaged from your perspective by the obama stimulus, the question of whether or not government spending can create jobs, having become so controversial? does that make your job going out and selling infrastructure investment the congress harder? have not increased

the federal fuel tax in 20 years. has been inident town for five and change. so we still had a 15-year head start of not doing what we should have done. say think that you could because of the crisis we had economically, because -- and the chamber supported the program he put in -- we disagree with a lot of the stuff in it, but america had to do something. -- butld was watching what we have been saying the whole time, and we have the big sign on our building about jobs, by the way, 20 some thousand $1 billion one -plus, but i do not think the named names here.

here is a chance to put people to work, save lives, because a --kills a lot of people, and to our national security and which is why the roads were built in the first into staterun funds and federal coffers by people and institutions that are doing this work. and i think it is time to say, ok, enough is enough for my now do it. there may be and we get ready to run out of money halfway through this year it will be a little easier to get their attention. in your streets do you think people are more willing to hear that argument this year than in past years? eness?s the receptiv >> they're willing to hear the argument, but if you put into the broader context of u.s.

global exports and leadership as economy, we and could clearly make the case very easily, we have the data, and think group that has tinkered together and i am proud to be with them, has documented our work, not only do we have a federal deficit, we have an infrastructure deficit. the amount we are under investing compared to our peers and competitors is staggering, and we are seeing the impact on that on the competitiveness of our firms. we need to relate this to what we would call at the u.s. council on competitiveness and innovation deficit, because so much of the opportunity and the costs and what we are going to do to really take america into infrastructurery journey is an innovation journey. when you think of the new material some of the i.t. systems, the sensors, the whole

-- all the things that will enable our firms to be the leaders in the 21st century manufacturing -- just think of the infrastructure opportunities now that relate to the energy transformation. and the discussion right now about the keystone pipeline and all that going on, you think of the old pipes in the ground, but get this one, hopefully it will get approved, is going to be the state-of-the-art. no country in the world will have that. jobs.he high-skilled i would like to put on the table that the competitiveness agenda for this country is about talent, technology, investment, and infrastructure, but all of that takes us to an innovation economy where we are going to have high-skilled jobs him and this whole infrastructure rebuilding and what it means for america really is freeing all those things together. in many ways, the infrastructure challenge becomes the systems integrator for all the things we need to do as a nation, and he clearly needs to be bipartisan and it needs to have a

book-private art ships. and i want to call out our friend and colleague of all of because atable, paul, lot of his leadership has gotten us here to this infrastructure week. it is a tremendous opportunity for america's future. , talk a little bit about the perspective of those companies that are coming here to the united states, looking to do some of this work. what are they looking to do and what are the challenges that your group faces? >> thanks so much, and thank you all for having us on this panel. a distinguished group here. it is very diverse, but it is good to be here to talk about a topic that so many of us agree somewhaty company's different perspective than those we've talked about today. they are not homegrown companies. they have made a deliberate decision to come to the u.s., source here, in

jobs to the u.s.. it is a good thing for our economy. we did a study that said in sourcing companies over a decade period raise their industry average in almost every relevant economic indicator. they increased gdp by 25%. they pay a 22% premium in terms of wages and compensation to their u.s. workers, over 5.6 million americans. they invest heavily in u.s. r and d, buy locally, and they produce here not only to serve u.s. customers, but to serve the world as well. they produce about 20% of u.s. exports. infrastructure is very important. these companies are very diverse. i represent sony, siemens, basf, nestlé, so they are very diverse. of our companies

in a recent survey said quality of infrastructure is one of the top factors in choosing a location for investment. it is not a quince at its that the quality of the u.s. infrastructure has declined so has our shared of cross-border investment. 37% of alle u.s. won cross-border investment. in 2012, it is 17%. countries are improving their infrastructure. >> where are those companies going? who are our biggest competitors as a nation in terms of the infrastructure and resources? what are the other options if you're a big global company saying the united states crumbling, i'm going to go to x or y? >> i would jump in and say china is making huge investments. i have a long way to go. we did a study at the council with deloitte looking at what

global ceo's around the world think about manufacturing competitiveness. in terms of infrastructure, the u.s. was ranked number 19. , where customers and markets are. they are having huge problems right now with the world cup. brazil has a very sophisticated strategy with their brazilian international economic development bank. it is being leveraged for infrastructure. obviously, i will let my colleagues speak. clearly, the emerging markets in asia, but also recently in the middle east, another part of the world that is ensuring that they will have a state of the art infrastructure, whether it is