importance. out information to state and local law enforcement. it is now increasingly routine whenwindows alerts -- those alerts go out to state and law enforcement, that information is going out to the private sector, that they are true partners in that national security effort. we do campaigns around significant issues. inouple of years ago ,alifornia, the metcalf attack we did a campaign all across the country to make sure that the electric utility companies across the country understood what had happened there, to share the best practices that were derived from that event, and to help make sure that we strengthened the security and resilience of the key hearts of

our electric grid. following the nairobi shooting in the shopping mall, we did a campaign across the country to enhance the security and resilience of shopping malls all across this country. that has continued with training exercises and regular interactions. particularly the attacks in paris, we recognize that the great work we were doing all across the country with owners and operators of commercial facilities -- we could perhaps taylor more effectively for smaller venues, like the cafés, the smaller venues like the 9. 30 club across the country appeared we went back to our mitigation efforts, and we set fordo we tailor this smaller entities that not have a big, robust security operations?

so we developed the homeland security -- hometown security initiative, and we developed handouts. report, plan, train, and , to encourage those entities, to make sure that they connects not only with the federal resources that we can bring to their disposal, which is at the national infrastructure coordinating center, but connect with those public safety folks in their own community. so this hand was developed in large part to give the state and local law enforcement come up their contact information on the back, and walk the beat, and handouts to those small venues so that the first contact is not one an incident happens, right? but to connect with those resources, to build plans for and preventing, detecting,

responding to security incidents , to train their folks, whether it is the bouncers, the ushers, whoever it might be who you are counting on, to make sure that they understand your plan and that they are trained and that they know where to report. those are the examples of the our of work primarily office of infrastructure protection undertakes every day to respond to that security environment. and our office of emergency communications makes sure working with those public safety folks all across this country, that they have communication to be the most effective response, to bring the most effective ,esponse to bear that they can such as the training they did prior to the boston marathon, around the boston marathon back in 2010, the training that was grants, to improve their communication, which made a major difference and save

lives on the day of the boston marathon bombing. serviceral protective is responsible for one of the key critical infrastructure sectors, which is federal facilities. they are responsible for protecting over 9000 federal facilities all caps the country every day. -- they stande guard and protect the facilities. increasingly, they have found that security cannot just be focused on physical security. increasingly, they have to bring cyber into their assessments and the protection activities into these facilities. controls,hese access the surveillance cameras that they rely upon our increasingly networked, which prevented a vulnerability, right, if the adversary can get into the systems and use them for their purposes. in addition, if they do not have good access controls to that

server room, then the potential for destruction in the cyber or information technology and communications network -- is also heightened. the same is true across our 16 critical infrastructure sectors. the cyber threat to those sectors into their functionality grows every single day. to read thed newspaper -- in fact, you only need to open your mailbox. particularly for these people in this room, you have gotten those letters, whether it is because or where youeach shop, almost every american now has free credit reporting as a result, right? as a result of some cyber intrusion into their information. is a critical mission for the national protection and programs director. to protectthe effort civilian.gov, and we do that by

promulgating best practices, particularly promoting the cyber security framework, providing baseline tools, intrusion, prevention, and protection, which we call einstein, and tools that go into your network and assess the health and well-being and security of your network configuration, and that is continuous diagnostic mitigation, private sector tools that we make available to departments and agencies. and then automated information sharing. kicgress has made the n cic thetral -- the n central hub. incredibly important initiative that we have launched to make it harder for the adversary to reuse the same stuff over and over again with different victims because we are now going to be sharing in real time, machine to machine.

so the adversary might be able to get away with something once, knows on this any system of systems, as soon as they detect something, it will go out in milliseconds to all of who will then have the technology in place to alert and prevent the harm from happening to them. this means the adversary is going to have to keep changing, and as we get more and more sophisticated and develop not just signature-based but attribute-based ways of alerting malicious activity, we will be able to stop things we have never seen before, and that is a key objective and a foreseeable goal that we can reach here. we then finally on cyber, are also first responders, so we come in when either a government

or private sector entity has affected malicious activity, and we help them figure out what is going on on this system, kick the bad guys out, and rebuild more security. the white house just issued presidential policy directive 41, pvd 41, which describes -- 41, which describes how the government is organized against cyber incidents. lead, which what we i just described, and we bring other departments and agencies into that effort as appropriate and as needed, and cindy threat threate -- thenhe response, which is who did this and let's bring them to justice, which is the fbi peace. and then the intelligence piece, which gives the broader context. , long-awaited,

describes the roles of the federal government feared the key to this really when i go out and talk to the private sector efforts iniew these stovepipes. physical security over here, cyber security over here. as i described the challenge that are federal protective across the 16, sectors, the electricity sector, for example, they have got to be looking at physical and cyber and cyberhysical vulnerabilities, physical and cyber consequences, and physical and cyber ways of mitigation. sometimes you are going to bounce back and forth on those. you cannot solve the cyber security challenge with just your i.t. specialists. you have got to bring your mission folks into the table, you have got to bring your program people to the table because it should start by figuring out what you most need to protect.

if you do basic cyber hygiene, that will give you a very important baseline level of protection, but then you have got to zero in on your high-value assets. what are those high-value assets? at what cank disrupt my continuity, my business, my mission, and you will look at what can affect data, confidentiality, and access to or you will look at industrial control systems, mechanical operational issues that are cyber dependent, and how can that be disrupted, and how would that affect the way in which i do business? so understanding consequences and physical consequences, interdependency, cascading consequences is a critical part of cyber security. it also means that if you look at -- how do i address the risk of a significant cyber incident? you might be looking not

at an i.t. solution but at a physical solution. you might be looking at putting in a handcrank, at having paper backup. thisave got to bring holistic, physical cyber approach. fortunate atibly nppd that we have them in one organization. some of you may have heard about nppd transition. it is really about breaking down the stovepipe, making sure we have true unity of efforts, and as we approach the state and local governments, private sector, our federal governments, we are bringing that holistic approach to bear and solving their security challenges and understanding the risks and developing effective mitigation. that is at the heart of this. we are an operational component of your engage in operational activities. we have not been recognized as such.

we have a name that is horrible, that no one can remember. that tells you nothing. national protection and programs directorate. i am on a crusade to change our name to something that tells you what we do. i would like us to be known as the cyber and infrastructure protection agency. to the lawyers in the room, not cipa, cip. this, thes looking at house homeland security committee has passed legislation the standup of a new operational element at dhs. i understand that many of you heard from mary beth schultz .esterday on the staff they are working closely with us to make this happen, and i am optimistic that we are going to get there.

it is about bringing a stronger sense of identity, a stronger sense of mission. very important for the department, very important for nppd. i'm going to close by talking about the secretary's effort for doing that for the whole ways.ment in lots of the unity effort initiative. but the one i want to leave with you today was the secretary's effort to craft a mission vision statement for the department that was simple, straightforward, and that spoke to the identity that has developed across the department, a sense of identity over the years of its existence. he started by soliciting ideas from the workforce, from all 250,000 employees at the department of homeland security, and he received thousands and thousands of e-mails with suggestions, and he read through a lot of them, and he looked at and paid attention to the words that kept coming up.

so this was again a sense of the of their's own sense identity and their sense of the mission. so the mission statement that he put out just a couple of months flects that sense of mission and identity -- "with honor and integrity, we safeguard the american people, the homeland, and our values are ." i want to thank all of you for the role that you play every day, as i said, in all of the ways in which you interact with these issues, in helping us accomplish every aspect of that mission, and thank you for inviting me to be here with you today to tell you a little bit and theat nppd is doing threat environment that we face. thank you. [applause]

youanne spaulding, thank for your service to our country. we appreciate it.

this is one of the more dangerous panels of the day, and then i'm going to be monitoring panel of general counsel's spirit all of them are very fine lawyers. the materials really outline exactly what we want to touch on in this panel, which is the role of the general counsel and the private sector as they interface with dhs. what are their responsibilities in terms of homeland security-related issues and their companies, how they deal with their boards of directors in their companies. three of the copies we will be talking about our publicly traded. how do they balance security and probability? you can have the most secure corporation in the world but not be profitable because of overreaching security apparatuses that could affect your company's profitability feared i'm going to introduce the panelists in the order that

they appeared on my left ear. angie chen is the chief compliance officer at siemens government technologies cured before that, she was the chief appliance officer at marinette marine, and she did serve earlier at general counsel at nsa, so we are delighted. angie, thank you for being here today. to angie's left is sheila chest ,on, the general counsel previously at bea systems. right, the next rapon is ira haelson, who is the executive vice president at the las vegas

sands corporation. from my time in the department of justice, and he has a long and distinguished career in the department of justice where i used to take his instructions, and i worked for him occasionally at las vegas sands. today is a great opportunity for me, ira, to get back at you. at the end of our panel is chris graham, a colleague and friend from atlanta. chris leaves the compliant safety and investigations group at georgia-pacific. he was previously the counsel for vista. he was in-house at coke wichita.s in panel has spent some time thinking over how we might so we have hour or with you this morning, and we

will leave sometime for questions and answers. i did learn that sheila has to leave us to go catch an airplane at 10:00, so if she gets up, it is not a process, it is because she has to get away to take care for duties, so i want to thank them, and i hope you will thank them in the way of applause times outor taking of their schedules to be here. but just a word or two about when i was general counsel at homeland security, one of my main missions i felt was reaching out to those general councils in the private sector to talk with him, to work with them, the organic statute that creates the department of homeland security talks about the private sector, and this was going to be some sort of new enterprise, some sort of new cabinet agency that would not seek to over regulate the private sector but would work with the private sector in a way that would capture the best of government and the best of the private sector in our

capitalistic system in the united states. certainly there are other countries around the world where the two are so incredibly blended you cannot tell where one begins and the other started -- ends. so it is a situation not very different from what you might see in china, for example. so what i thought i would do this morning is certainly welcome stories from the panel. sheila, one of the things that i think about in your role as general counsel in northrup is just sort of your interface that you have had with dhs and some of the thoughts and comments you might have for the group. sheila: can everyone hear me? thanks, joe, and my apologies for having to step out early. back when outside dhs, joe and i had lunch together every now and

then because of the importance of collaboration between the government and the private sector, and in a much earlier life, i was the general counsel at the air force and did the same thing with industry. i believe profoundly in the shared mission, and i was pleased to hear the undersecretary a few minutes ago talk about the true partnerships because i think it is the only way it works. nobody has enough resources to do it on their own, so it is only together that we do it. and i was thinking as i was driving in here this morning because i had a little bit of a heads-up that joe would ask me this question, about some of the concrete ways in which perhaps dhs and industry could progresste better to their shared mission, and if you look around the government, there are all sorts of government industry working groups that get together to

address common issues and to figure outside the context of any particular dispute or procurement, just sort of more generally how we work better together, and i think there are some opportunities for industry in dhs to do just that that have not yet been realized, and a couple of areas -- one is in the area of research. you look at dod, for example, which i know a little better, there are examples where darpa funds government-funded research and technology development that is a particular interest to the department, and then you have got industry-funded research, and while the industry-funded almost necessarily independent, there are conversations and dialogs and things like the clients board, and there are four in which

there is competition to help increase the probability that what research the government is funding and what research private industry is funding dovetail and complement each other and work together to help to create greater technological capacity to support the shared mission. so technology development and research is one area that comes to mind. another area, very different, is on the question of liability and protection from liability. dod just by way of example, they have something authority,0 four which many of you might be quite familiar with, where the government can provide indemnification to industry to somede an incentive and protection to undertake activities on behalf of the government that are extremely risky, and if you think about some of the areas that dhs is interested in -- one area that

comes to mind is nuclear and bio detection, where if it doesn't work and something goes wrong, the liability is really significant. so for industry and the government -- industry, dhs, and congress also, to work together, to think about whether there are role at dhs,d the like other parts of the government have done, to provide ,dditional liability protection again, to enable industry, to undertake the opportunity to serve the common mission. and then the third thing that came to mind, and then i will stop talking and let joe ask a question, is procurement. acquisition reform is a constant refrain, and i think the government and industry together and separately are constantly learning how to do it better. too, i thinkrea,

tore is opportunity for dhs work together to figure out some lessons learned and some ways to fine-tune and perhaps make slightly more sophisticated in a some areas the acquisition process, so to enable dhs to the goods and services they need in a more efficient and effective way that does not get bogged down with protests or whatever else there may be. so those are just a couple of areas that i thought were rip e for collaboration, greater partnership, to progress a shared mission. joe: thank you. any comments from the other panelists on sheila's remarks? onnot, i will move to angie your thoughts come angie, of working with dhs, some observations you have had that

might parallel with sheila's or maybe some different experiences. angie: thank you, joe, and thank all of you for coming out, and especially for the honor of being on the panel with my esteemed colleagues, particularly sheila. i want to mention that essentially she served as a role model and a mentor, and her a lot of think have the things i want to share today, joe, in terms of my perspective where -- i want to ratchet it back a little bit if query tofrain your me -- it is important to focus on the basics. i want to share my views with corporate governance and their involvement with general counsel because those two aspects are touchstones that are critical in terms of not just being able to engage successfully and meaningfully with agencies like the department, security, which carries such a tremendous burden in terms of its mission, but

also in terms of the role that general counsel plays. with respect to governance, the reason why i think that that is actually part of the foundational pillar -- it is not a particularly sexy topic. it is not one that people tend to want to spend a lot of time talking about, but ultimately, it is your government framework in your organization, be it a private corporation or a governmental organization, that provides the framework in which you can understand, essentially, your situational awareness, your rules of engagement, your ability to interface successfully with your internal and external stakeholders. i do have a couple of cheap sheets here. governance, essentially, i am referring to the deliberate and inherent order of the organization that establishes the authorities, duties, obligations, and rights that control and direct the organization.

what a governance framework provides for you is an appropriate and transparent distribution of responsibilities amongst the various functions and components of the organization, ranging from employees to your manager to leadership to the board of directors. when executed appropriately, provides the only hope of having a clear level of accountability across the organization and facilitates more efficient is this rhythms and productivity. i don't have to belabor the point that the market recognizes the importance of corporate governance in terms of shaping and providing a framework in which companies and industry engage with the government and with its workforce and management structures. there has been a tremendous increase of rules, regulations, directives that essentially force, if you will, the requirement for strong governance principles, but translating that into a reality from a practical standpoint, this is where general counsel's

essentially do play a key role. the role of the general counsel has changed over time. we live in a challenging world. not only do general counsels still have to pay attention to litigation, regulatory compliance, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, but now the companies, our client or very muchons, are changing in a dynamic world environment. it is not just macro and micro economic trends that are changing. it is also dealing with asymmetrical threats. we are dealing with risks that previously were only the purview of the government. national security come homeland security, these are things now that general counsels of all organizations and all sectors need to take into account and be aware of and understand how to affect our core responsibility providing advice and counsel to our clients.

how to care, how to detect, how to respond, and essentially mediate when any of these threats impact were potentially influence the aspects that drive our business or our business activity. essentially would come out, for instance, in terms of your ability to craft an appropriate and effective crisis management plan or disaster recovery plan, business continuity plan. you cannot do that unless you have a very broad and deep understanding of the government fran framework not just of your own organization but those of your partners. sheila mentioned a determined supply chain. you need only google very security, and you find many challenges with not only procuring reliable services but also incorporating into your products and services that you provide your customers. you cannot essentially have a strong, reliable framework for

your organization alone. you must have an understanding as how to push the same principle and practical effectiveness through all of your partners, including your supply chain, your subject matter experts, the people that you essentially reach out to to and, both internally externally. clear communication is key. how to and form board of directors so that they can affect their duties, to manage and oversee your corporation. these are all key touchstones. and in all of this, the general counsel can play again a critical role. so you need to realize that in all respects, there is an opportunity as much as there is risk with respect with enamel to address these things. closing, we heard from undersecretary spalding that it is a change in environment. we cannot do this alone. all of our interfaces, the dhs,

academia, need to be done community, and even as we try to adjust and be adaptable, you need to have a very strong governance, principal, and philosophy that will drive your compliance, your strategy, your interactions on a daily basis with your peers and your partners. so those would be my remarks in terms of how to try and be more effective. thank you. that is really helpful, and your background is really perfect for what you just described, dealing with compliance all the time, the corporations you have been a part of. it is very meaningful because so many in our office are people who serve in government and academic institutions, and we hope to grow to the private sector because it is so critical for this audience to hear your remarks.

ira, one of the areas you have ,ealt with and corporations gambling is a phenomenal that i have engaged in. i may have done one of those , and it is aards phenomenon that you think, well, what is controversial about that in terms of being something people like to do. talk about some of your interactions, if you could, with dhs and other security apparatus. ira: well, from your perspective , it is gambling. from e-house's perspective, it is just gaming because we set useddds -- or my employer to set the odds. one area that we do not set the odds, though, is vulnerability. most recently unfortunately experienced two of the kinds of episodes that were just referenced by my

fellow panelist. and theary 2014, i executive team woke up and turned on our computers, and rather than have the secure login screen show up, pictures of all of our properties on fire showed up. so we resorted to an older form of communication -- the phone. we quickly ascertained that we had been the victim of a cyber attack. we dealt with it. learned quickly, and then the public learned through the decision of the government to announce it that we had been the victim of a nationstate attack even before sony was. not know how helpful the announcement was, but it did raise a not know how helpful te announcement was, but it did raisequestion that i

think sheila raised in that you sort of have -- the challenges of the general counsel our preparation, and all of these very highly publicized attacks that were designed to gain customer data -- ours was designed to destroy rather than x filtrate data, but the ex filtrate and of personal data becomes the bugaboo of the discuss theave to level of preparedness, the board defense to an immediate brain game, the gentleman from the national association of attorneys general is gone now, but the attorneys general are very fond of jumping into the blame game, even if you are pcia compliant and have sent out the requisite notices to your customers -- not all retailers thought that was a good idea, but we sent out the requisite notices. they immediately want reports, and it becomes a little bit

difficult, even with a former law enforcement perspective, to understand why the victim is the act of afor nationstate, and yet we somehow were. there is a sense of a helplessness that you need to basically board. animately, three weeks ago, international consortium of including theing department we are talking about today, affected the rest of six individuals who across a narrow strait of water reporting a missile at one of our buildings in singapore. we learned about that in two ways. one way was to read about it in .he newspapers that was not particularly satisfying. the other way was for a very

small group of us to be aware of an ongoing investigation by governments because we have arrangements through our head of security, who is a former deputy director of the secret service, and who may still have clearances that i will him to communicate in a way with government that mere mortars are not -- mere mortals are not allowed to, he was aware. theread about this on newspaper, how can we be uninformed on the topic, and then you read about it, well, we were not entirely uninformed here to one of us knew, and another one sort of knew. who is the one who sort of knew? that would be me. how did you get to sort of know? i can sort of read and when i want to, and when the government and they are satisfied by the fact that i am

and thatish nor foul, is the agreement the government made with us. have any pfizer rules been rules been -- fiza violated? no. i agree wholeheartedly with sheila that we need more of that. we need mechanisms whereby the government allows business to do business in an informed way because we live in a country where the plaintiff's bar knows no bounds. liableome as victims, be , or whatever it is, we of private industry will be liable for whatever it is that cyber criminals or terrorists or our presen opportunistic criminals decide to do to our businesses and a way that violates the country's

sovereignty, the dignity of our businesses. nd so as much communication we can have between our head of security and law enforcement, that goes on. as much communication as we can get back -- we operate huge -- not just houses of gaming, but we operate huge hotels, huge shopping malls, and anderstanding that we are attractive target, we need as much information as we can as to how to train security in order to have the best chance at avoiding the next disaster in a public facility, so i think all of those are opportunities for communication with government in terms of communication with boards. boards get trained all the time right now, and it is your

responsibility to oversee the compliance program. they have all heard about caremark for 20 years, but they also are trained of late that they need to micromanage the cyber security risk, and at least in our house, there is, for the general counsel, and until sunday, i supervised the cyber security, a bit of schizophrenia because if you let any really good chief information security officer loose on a board of directors, you can have an incredibly humorous session whereby the cyber security officer speaks jargon, and the board board tends to speak english. so if you are a general counsel with a somewha twisted

sense of humor -- which i was -- he let it go. what the cyber sturdy officer is trying to say is he is on it. don't worry about it. i hope that helps a little, joe. "washington journal that is great. there are -- joe: that is great. there are many things you brought up that bring up other questions, but i will save that for later. chris graham, in terms of georgia-pacific, it is a different entity, a different sort of organizational process, i suppose, right? so i know you have experienced some different things, but also with dhs, iact know, and we were talking in an earlier meeting this morning about chemical facility protection. those are the things that some of us lose sleep about it night, knowing we are doing a great job, we are doing a better job, but there may be some gaps in the process. but anyway, without talking much more about my thoughts, what are yours on some of what you just

heard, and what could you add to the discussion? chris: what i thought i would do is offer maybe a cautionary tales to those in the private industry here and maybe an encouraging tale to those who are in the government and trying to get greater cooperation from the private sector. based on the experience that we had to i must say delicately, i am next to three general counsels who have companies who do really cool stuff, and we do toilet paper. [applause] [laughter] should all use angel soft, and it is really disappointed there are not any motion dispensers here, but i will leave that as it is. inhas about 35,000 employees 300 facilities, but i will talk about it until the in port hudson, louisiana, near baton rouge, which makes fine paper, toilet tissue, and paper towels.

it is kind of the flip of what you were talking about because sometimes we want to be included more. i am going to talk a little bit about reaching out to the government in getting assistance, which was very valuable to us. we worked with the fbi in the sense that the fbi was coordinating their reaction with dhs because port hudson, due to regulation, impacts chlorine dioxide. i am not a chemist. i will say some stuff that makes it clear i am not an i.t. specialist, either, but this is an i.t. case. our i.t. guys like to call it the "valentine's day massacre." as general counsels do not like people to talk in those terms, we have asked them to call it the "valentine's day unpleasantness," perhaps. [laughter] chris: but we had an instance on

the weekend, valentine's day 2014 was a friday, and over that weekend, starting on that friday night and into the weekend, we had our dhcp -- i have no idea what that means -- our dynamic wentconfiguration protocol down to the facility. and of course the i.t. folks who were working on it thought we just had a problem with our dh cp. the problem is it sends out leases to the ip facility, so anything that was tied into the our shipping protocols, in many instances our forklift trucks -- all of those things were down when they tried to re-login and could not get an ip address. that someonestion who does not know i've the always ask, "did you turn it off and turn it back on?" [laughter] chris: i was met with a stone cold response from i.t. folks. but what they thought was over the weekend, we just had a

problem with dhcp. they had hard ip addresses for all the entities, and while we had to shut down converting and shut down our shipping, everybody of course thought it was the weekend it was done. during the course of the next week, however, we started to --e access into our system firewalls were being shut down, connectors between the various internet systems of the facility were being either shut down or passwords were being changed, so thisarted to think, "hmm, is something more sinister, more problematic than just a system going down." what i did not say is also on #sage -- it was a -- on valentine's day, it was a friday, unfortunately, a 15-year i.t. employee with lego at 10:00 in the morning. at about 1:30, they shut down his access to the computers.

when he was let go, his access was taken away, his computer was -fob thaty, his keey would allow him access to the system was taken away, but was clear was during the very short window, he accessed the system, and he knew -- he was the guy who basically did the facility infrastructure architecture and set up the inside of the facility and knew how everything was going on in the facility from an i.t. perspective. said,his way out the door "you guys are going to want me back." , a fewo that instance weeks prior to his termination, told somebody, "hey, if i ever get fired, people are going to regret it." unfortunately from a general perspective, it was something that was not shared widely in the organization. handedly, we wish it had been. suspect began to

fell play, our i.t. does a great job of collecting logs, figuring things out, and trying to determine who was his oslo for this, and they had some specific ties that they could point to with this former i.t. professional, but -- and this is where the cooperation peace came in, i, like many in the private sector, sometimes reluctant to get the government involved because you think you can handle it yourself, and sometimes when you get the government involved, things are taken out of your hands. once we started to see real ties thoughtdividual and we someone was involved in it was becoming fairly costly for us, our shipping being shut down and other things being shut down, we contacted the fbi, local folks in atlanta, ultimately they pass it along to the new orleans cyber office, which i will admit it's very, very excellent. here is where it gets very sticky. the individual who was really seemingly just interested in causing some havoc -- back up.

we contacted the fbi on the 24th of february, so 10 days after this whole thing started here to three days later after we contacted them on the 27th, maybe because the habit was not significant enough, this process controls at our facility, so it went from just being i.t. infrastructure stuff and maybe some business continuity stuff to actually accessing a paper machine, the number six paper machine, which is about the size of a football field, and has a yankee drier, which is high-pressure and has significant potential from a catastrophic perspective if it is not run correctly. so basically the operators were for a period of time until they shut down, safely, the equipment, were flying blind -- no controls because he shut them down. so within 24 hours of that happening, because of the potential impact, the potential

arguably terroristic in fact, they serve a search warrant on and hentleman's house, is awaiting sentencing at this point and has artie pled guilty pled guilty in baton rouge. there are lots of lessons learned. i do not want to get al into all of them. one of the key things was that getting the government involved early -- and arguably we could have gotten them involved even earlier -- really put us in a good position because they were able to act quickly, particularly when something became evident that there was a potential catastrophe that was involved when they accessed the number six paper machine. the last thing i would say is critical to people in private insiders, i mean, clearly insiders can be just as potentially damning from a cyber security perspective as

outsiders, or insiders that are corrupted by outsiders, right? possibility.er sensitivity to collecting evidence. our i.t. did a good job. you hear all the time about being careful with the logs and other stuff because, to use my reclamation, "turn it off and turn it back on" could cause significant issues if not handled correctly. we had employee access to make things simpler that was not subject to the same controls as some of the other things and some of our firewalls. we also had backdoors that i.t. setup to make it easier for them to access the facility when they needed to do it remotely. so we have gone through a fairly significant process organizationally to make sure all of thoseclosed loops organizationally. if you think about it, 300 facilities, many rural throughout the united states where big paper mills are, we

had local i.t. guys that were in charge of a lot of this, so the mapping of our air t was not -- our i.t. was not done well at all facilities. some of it was done really well. we have worked to do that better so we can feel better about what we're doing. joe: thank you, chris. one thread that works through everything you all talked about is liability concerns and shareholder litigation, looking at ira a little bit right now, but each of you have encountered this class-action litigation, taking the right steps for business continuity purposes. what about that as a topic in maybe ira talking about litigation and how these things happen, maybe not per se in the homeland security context, but when something doesn't work, you have litigation as a result. ira: at the end of the day, there is going to be a business judgment defense on all of this. cents oft spend 100

every dollar on security. amount, to spend some reasonable, whatever that is going to be viewed as, and i think that is why it is important to have as much transparency internally as you can on the decision-making. to the extent you are getting input from the government, it is great. the government help we got during our cyber rehab was extraordinary. the fact that our building did not get blown up is really nice, too. i mean, really nice. end upthe same token, we in the crosshairs of the plaintiff's bar in the united states no matter what we do. we end up in the crosshairs unfortunately in conflicting standards of u.s. law. we had an incident in the week before the arrests -- and we knew something was going on in singapore -- but it week before

the arrests, an employee came forward that one of the security guards had posted on his facebook site the fact that he had gone to afghanistan, had gotten training, and had pledged himself to isis. and hr was concerned that this was a breach both of singapore limitationsand u.s. on the ability to use social media, the ability of employers to use social media. and the hr department and the security came to my office at overwe call loggerheads whether to use this information and pass it to u.s. international law enforcement or not. about three minutes into the presentation of hr, i said, "i am sorry, there is a practical aspect here, and that is

fundamentally we are not going to get sued for violating social media policy except by dol. we will deal with that. if, god for bid, this guy blows something up, we will deal with it on that basis." there are going to be conflicting sets of legal obligations out there. you have to deal with them, and you have to deal with them to matter what you do. at the end of the day, that is just the cost of doing business. joe: thank you, ira. angie, thoughts on what was just said? end,: as i reset, and the you just do the right thing, and in that case, the right thing first and foremost would be to protect the safety and security of the people, and then you deal with the consequences. in addition to financial liability for most is the issue

of reputation and the issue of trust, whether it is your employees, the community in which you operate, or your investors. question of taking appropriate precautions for all kinds of security, whether it is physical security or cyber protecting people, protecting our information and ability to do business, protecting our customers' information is usually paramount first and foremost. joe: thank you. angie, any thoughts? always,he key thing is first and foremost, to do the right thing and to cut through sort of the endless debate from .n analytical standpoint paramount is the protection of the people and making sure you get to the right place from a very practical standpoint. i would say that in addition to that, though, again, to echo the

comments that you have heard, is the necessity for being informed and making a sound decision and and where of risks -- and being here in theks united states but also internationally, particularly for larger corporations or even smaller rations that deal with international partners. aware ofto be an what laws may be competing or conflicting because ultimately you can stand up and make the right decision, but at some point, you will have to answer to it, be it to your order of directors, your management, or , in front of aly judge or a jury. you may win on the reputation fortune or you may not, regardless of what the intent might have been, with respect to doing the right thing, but you always want to be able to say that you made a sound and informed judgment call and provided sound, legal, and informed advice. employeesof your

travel internationally, and this is an area i have encountered recently, but in terms of international travel, they may be traveling with computers and other devices. for manyy tales there of you on advising your executives, carrying around trade secrets and things of that nature to be careful about? you know, things that might fall into the wrong hands or inside information that could result in , you know, someone with bad intentions, or a terrorist organization getting access to that information. angie? angie: from a logistical standpoint, one easy way is to travel -- if you can afford it -- with a clean laptop. particularly those of you familiar with u.s. laws, it is not just a commodity taking out of the country for personal business use but also the data you have going in. you have to have awareness, even if they go in trouble overseas,

if they are carrying -- and most executives and employees well -- a smart phone, the mere access to e-mail. you may have dealt with one of the more obvious risks, but used a have the risks in terms of accessing data overseas. we try to give very practical advice. you should just assume that in itemyou will have your open to potential compromise. leaving your laptop in a hotel safe is probably no guarantee when the back and probably just be flipped off for open. never use public wi-fi's. be aware of that. do the basics in terms of i.t. hygiene. make sure you have the ability to call your i.t. folks in case something does happen or you suspect anything happens. the risk is always there. you cannot really eliminate it, but try to come up with practical solutions because you cannot cut off your employees or your management from being able to be connected to the company. joe: thank you.. what sorteme that

of shared this morning by each of you come on the outside of looking in at dhs, and we will have a panel from dhs coming up, the dhs counsel's panel, which is always another highlight of our conference, so some of them have the benefit of listening and may talking about some of --r thoughts, but safety act there was a degree of liability protection that safety act affords. chris, has safety act touched you? or there are other regulatory apparatus, but is the safety act something? chris: it has not yet. i sat through the panel that talked about yesterday and found it very interesting. i thinkpany like gp, the only thing we would be looking at safety act for is the protocol that we have for active shooter, the protocols we have four security.

we are not -- at least at this in the innovation space where we would be making innovations where we would find applicability in that area, but i thought it very interesting to you know, about levi stadium and other locations which are doing it on a broader scale. so it has potential. joe: thank you. such as the other panelists, ira? ira: our head of security is with bothnvolved industry groups and law enforcement not only domestically but internationally because we are just a prime target for certain categories. we do innovate from time to time . they now innovate from time to time. it is just not announced. joe: right.

one of the things, and i found interesting about the travel piece, we are struggling with this as an organization in addition to the intellectual property that goes to form locations, we are working really hard to make sure we know where our people are. that is sometimes easier said than done when you have a lot of people who are traveling internationally on a regular basis. , you know, a potential location if there is a terrorist act. we had an employee who was in brussels when the explosions occurred. we have also had instances of virtual kidnapping in mexico. so really trying to track down that and make sure we know not only who is flying into mexico city but who is flying into el paso or san diego and crossing the border there. it is important to know where our folks are. joe: thank you. this has been a great panel, and we should have gone on for a

couple of hours, probably, but we do have a few moments left for questions. if not, i will address a couple more questions to the panel. but i would love to have some income to the microphone. andy? hi, it is a pleasure. following comments that angie made about cyber security, which is absolutely critical, and i remade comments, angie, it in terms of your strains with corporate governance, it seems to be lost on a lot of boards of directors and senior corporate executives that they own risks. they own risks of all kinds, cyber security, everything. one of the duties in this framework, is that something that can be used as a risk analytic tool by boards and ceo's, to have an idea of where they need to do about it? i want to do your comments. angie: i think it is true that it is something that boards

struggle with. the national association of corporate directors and another director-oriented thatizations highlight third most writers do understand that they have a fiduciary duty to understand and manage risk and to help management understand risks as well. as part of that toward good governance framework is to have that available to your director, , and i think that is why general counsels in particular -- because our understandingout and managing risk and providing advice on it, is we can serve as a translator of sorts, and if you cannot translate it, know who can. find someone who can take the technical jargon and the technical details that are paramount. because if you miss one piece, we get it wrong, no one is going to ask me, what do i do with this protocol, what have you. i know enough to know what i don't know. i think that is a key point to

absolutely empathize with your board. if your board does not have a risk committee or an audit committee, that does not mean that they can therefore sort of ignore the risk or put their heads in the sand. joe: sheila? sheila: i want to add to that because i think most, at least major corporations, have a fairly sophisticated enterprise risk management process. lot from oney a company to another, but in general, you have got everything from the host within the organization who owns whatever the risk is and the management of that risk, and then you have got your compliance officers, and then you have got executive teams that oversee the enterprise risk management, and then you have got board responsibilities and different committees and what goes to the full board, and then perhaps the final piece, which is how you communicate it to your shareholders.

and i think increasingly, most major publicly traded companies in the risk factors, there are the risks ofone of cc guidance that they talk about is cyber security. have maybe one more question from the audience, perhaps. thank you. >> so along those lines, what would your device before companies that don't have the resources that you guys have? ira: i can tell you that in my last company, which made about as much money in a year as was at lasesterday in macau vegas sands facilities, you really don't have a choice. some points,d at the general counsel just has to insert herself or himself into

the process with the cfo, with andhead of internal audit, you would be surprised between those three how sophisticated an enterprise risk management analysis you can come up with. you do not have a choice. if you are a public company, you have to conduct him periodically anyway. hardest part, at some point, the department or unit managers -- sophisticated or not, know it is a play for dollars. i.t. is riskier than physical security or is riskier than your anti-money laundering risks or your fcpa risk, then you will get more dollars to deal with that risk. i think that is where the general counsel, the cfo, the

head of internal audit have to be sensitive to filtering information to upper management, to the board, but happy and of the day come as a general counsel, i always wanted transparency to my board and to educate the board to be a little .it more security 100% of all after-tax dollars should be devoted to upgrading the i.t. system does not necessarily mean that that is what we need to do this year or that the head of physical security thought we not only need 100 cents bribery dollar, but we need to borrow money. so the process is critical. it can be done on a shoestring, but it is a wonderful analytic tool for businesses to go and frankly in this day and age, it does not matter how they were small the public company you are, you have to

devote energy to it. joe: angie? angie: i think larger luxury ofns have a having these types of resources, but the reason they have these resources is not just because there is some type of law or regulation that mandate that they have a certain position or title or function -- i think it is really a recognition of things that have transpired and evil over time. is thatest challenge that environment is changing so rapidly and in ways that are so much out of our control in terms of one business or one individual in a company, so i think for smaller, midsized companies that may not have a head of internal audit or may thehave a board that has luxury of being well-trained and having the resources or even being able to afford the membership, for instance, in two necd -- which is pretty hefty -- the best thing we can

do as a community is understand again -- and it is not just the general counsels. because we are trained, we play a key role to do exactly what all of you are doing today, which is to go out and learn, get smarter, troll the internet, find out, assess the information so that you can keep up to date, read all of the law firm blogs because law firms are often extremely helpful and motivated to try to get pertinent and current information out to you, but then make yourselves one of those individuals as thought leaders and change agents within your organization. large, thatze, or translate these risks so you can accelerate the ability to do what you and of having to do anyway, which is when something bad happens, whatever it is among you should be part of the team if not the leader in responding. if you are better prepared and better informed, and you have developed those relationships with the stakeholders that must act in the subject matters that must help, then you are going to

be in a much better place than you would be otherwise. so it is not particularly comforting, particularly for small businesses, that even on a shoestring, you are going to miss things. forthe fewer things he met the better prepared you are to figure out what to do when that one bad thing exceeded your probability assessment of this happening happens, then you will be far better off for it. joe: angie, thank you. chris, any final words? chris: no. i think the one thing i would add to what angie said is there are a lot of sole general counsels out there that are working hard to manage that risk as best they can, and unfortunately, i think they do the economic analysis of whether they need to outsource it to a law firm, which people like joe are always more than willing to help. and then they're trying to evaluate whether that means a headcount or not based on the amount of work they have in each

category. but when you meet with those i thinkctitioner gc's, they are always somewhat nervous because they do not have the resources that we are fortunate to have at our companies. but a lot of people with flash itertise in many areas, but is definitely something that i think probably keep those folks up at night, and literally i would be hopeful that regulators recognize that when they're dealing with companies that are trying really hard to manage with the resources that they have. joe: unfortunately, we are out of time and maybe beyond time. we have a break coming up. where want to do is ask each of you to give this panel a great round of applause. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> c-span's "washington journal ," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, brookings institution senior fellow michael o'hanlon discussed turkey's role in isis and kurds that are interested in procuring the area. , tracking rosenberg 15 detainees out of what on a monday and the number of those still being held at gitmo and the administration's plan for the present. c-span's "washington journal," live beginning at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> now, a look at how climate change affects building and landscape designs, with architects and the head of the georgetown climate center.

it was cohosted by the national building museum and the national park service. this is one hour and 25 minutes. >> good evening, and welcome. is chase, and i have the pleasure of being the director here at the national building and on your way to this auditorium, you may have noticed a large structure in the middle of our great hall. for the past five years, the museum has been presenting a series of interactive, immersive exhibitions as part of what we call our summer block party. some of you may recall we started with mini golf exhibitions, which were a huge hit.

this was followed by two innovative large-scale installations in the great hall. the big maze designed by the danish firm and the beach designed by the brooklyn-based architects. this summer, we present "icebergs" designed by james corner field operations who builds public places around the world that include new york and santa monica. i should note it is sponsored by the american institute architects. tonight program allows us to examine one of the key themes behind the design of "icebergs." climate change and its effects on the designed and built places where we live, work, and play. at the conclusion of the program, we invite you to join us in the panelists inside the icebergs to continue the conversation informally over snacks and drinks while exploring the exhibition. and don't miss the slides, which are faster than you might think.

this program is presented in partnership with the national park services in celebration of its centennial. happy birthday, yesterday. please allow me to it is wendy o'sullivan, the associate regional director for community engagements for the national park service. she has been with the park service for 20 years serving in three regions and at the park service national headquarters. she has extensive background in partnerships and community engagements. welcome, wendy. [applause] wendy: thank you. thank you for hosting us tonight. the national park service is thrilled to join in partnership with the national building museum during our centennial year. the national building museum advances the quality of our built environment by educating people about its impacts on all our lives. the national park service preserves the natural and

cultural identity of our nation for the benefit and enjoyment of this and future generations. combining these two great entities will educate all ages about the relevance and importance of the environment we live in. while everyone loved the beach last year, i would say and in my opinion, the design and experience of your "iceberg" exhibit has more people talking. talking about design and talking about climate change. as the national park service director has publicly stated, climate change is the biggest threat we have ever faced in terms of the integrity of our

national park system. the national park service is working with partners and collaborating with partners like the national building museum to do educational events like tonight to work on ways we can better position the park service to address the challenges we face and leverage the opportunities presented during the second century of america's national parks. we look forward to hearing the dialogue tonight about design, to hear the dialogue tonight from our experts on the panel, and hear how the discussion goes about how climate change is impacting the built environment and all of our worlds. i am pleased to introduce our first panel expert. aaron huertas is a science

communicator. he hosts nerd night dc. on the second saturday of every month. and he works as a senior washington director at cater communications. please come up, aaron. [applause] aaron: thank you so much. i am a science communicator. i worked a lot with climate scientists over the past 10 years. the thing i love about working with scientists is they each have this little piece of the puzzle for whatever they work on. they are always cracking away at that little piece of the puzzle. when it comes time to publicly communicate about the science, they often want to talk about the little puzzle piece. tell people what the puzzle is first, and then tell me about your puzzle piece. climate change, the thing i encourage scientists to emphasize are the following.

one is simply that climate change is occurring. it is already here and observable in all of the records we keep about the history of our planet. a lot of people think climate change is often the future someday. and it is. it is also here right now. we can see it in temperatures increasing, precipitation patterns changing. we can see it in sea levels rising. climate change naturally occurs over a long time. climate change today is different. the story of climate change is longer than people think. it is not recent history. one of the first scientists who proposed the idea that burning trees could trap heat and cause the temperature to rise was in 1896, so the climate science story is longer than people think. it is kind of a detective story. we noticed temperatures are increasing. there is a theoretical basis for how they could be increasing.

let's figure out what is going on. is it volcanoes? what has changed? carbon dioxide levels have gone up. why are they going up? largely because of burning gas, coal, and tropical degradation. those are the three big leading sources of carbon emissions. and they have been building up in the atmosphere. what does that mean for the future? when scientists talk about climate change, for them it is a scientific endeavor. it is very technical. they get into the details. for the rest of us, we have a couple of different reactions to that. one is to feel overwhelmed because it is huge. the other reaction people often have is to feel despondant. what can we do about it? that is the question scientists get asked most. the thing i ask scientists to emphasize is we face a lot of

choices around climate change. we also face choices for climate adaptation. we know some climate change is already happening. there is a latent heat effect for carbon dioxide. it traps heat for a long time. it degrades and comes back down to the earth's system. we face choices. it is not something happening to us. it is something we have agency over. we can make choices at the individual level and globally. we have an international climate agreement which speakers will talk about later. specifically, the last thing i ask scientists to emphasize is we talk about climate change in terms of global warming.

i get the picture in my head of the iconic nasa photo of earth from space. that is like a lot of the images you see when we talk about climate change. or you see polar bears. has anyone ever met a polar bear? i have not. you met a polar bear? that is awesome. a lot of times we talk about climate change, it is seen as this big, far away thing. i translate a lot of social science for natural scientists. they talk about this as a terrarium problem. a terrarium is one of those little miniature glass boxes where you can create a tiny ecosystem on a tabletop. it is the idea environmental changes happening in a box outside. it is not. i had an environmental justice expert explain this to me simply several years ago. she said environment is not something out there. the environment is where we

live, play, work, and worship. we are part of the environment. we can change our environment very rapidly. when we think about that big picture environmental change, we've got to make it local. even as we realize all these changes globally, what is super interesting is that has local effects we can look at right now. especially for washington, d.c., we are connected to the coasts in a way we do not think about all the time. we will get into that with the speakers. i was establishing the climate baseline before we get into the climate talk. i appreciate everyone being here. has anybody been to a glacier or an iceberg? very cool. we have a crowd that has had in-depth, personal experience with icebergs. i love it.

during the reception later, i am blown away by what we have pulled together with this exhibit. we will have each of the speakers give a short presentation with slides. and then we will have a discussion and take questions from the audience. please think of great questions for the panelists. i will introduce our speakers and they will stand up briefly. our first speaker is vicki arroyo. say hello. vicki is the executive director of the georgetown climate center she oversees the center's work on climate change mitigation, dealing with the climate change baked into the system. she does it at the state and federal level. the georgetown climate center serves as a leading resource for state energy policy. she teaches classes on climate change law and policy and serves as assistant dean for centers and institutes. she is also taught at catholic, george mason, and tulane law

school. she has served as the environment and program director and launched the new environmental law degree program. what is llm? vicki: you can get your master's and specialize in environment to law. aaron: excellent. so many opportunities. and this is alexis goggans. she is a program analyst in the department of energy and the environment, urban sustainability administration, in d.c. she coordinates stakeholders to advance programs and policies in our wonderful home, the district of columbia. our final speaker is sanjukta sen, a landscape and architectural designer at james corner field operations, design firm that created "icebergs." they are responsible for the incredible space and slides. her core interest in expertise lie at the intersection of urban resiliency and place making,

which are evident in all of her projects. with that, vicki, please. thank you. [applause] vicki: thank you for being here on a friday night late in august, a hot day. thank you to the building museum for putting this exhibit on. i am one of the lucky people in that i have seen "icebergs," including in antarctica earlier this year. it was stunning and beautiful to see them in person. as big as this building, if you can believe it. it is sobering when you think about it and the implications of those icebergs and what it means to all of us and around the world. i have a few slides. one that makes this point that already our government accountability office down the street has identified climate change is a top financial threat to the united states.

don't hear about this a lot. you often hear about entitlement programs, terrorism, and things like that. but it is right up there because the park service that we heard about today and other u.s. government entities, including the military, own a lot of land and infrastructure that will be affected by things like sea level rise. that are already affected by heavy storms like we saw in my home state of louisiana. the government often has to bail out people in times of disaster here and abroad, sometimes been called into international conflicts as well. we also serve as an insurer for flood insurance. it really does have very high financial stakes in addition to human stakes and stakes to our environment if we don't get this under control. the good news is as of 2013 when president obama gave his climate speech at georgetown, the u.s. started to move forward with standards for reducing emissions contribute into climate change from our major sectors such as

transportation. the cars we drive are becoming more efficient. it is on the way up to 54.5 miles per gallon per the rules of this administration. we have for the first time seeing the administration finalize rules that finally regulate co2 greenhouse gas emissions for the first time from power plants, both new and existing. those have been held up temporarily we hope in court. watch this space because those arguments are happening next month. we hope to see some real resolution and movement on that large sector of emissions. we at the climate center at georgetown focus a lot of our energy on state and local actions. we work with some of the states

who have formed a cap and trade program. we also have a transportation and climate initiative in this region. california has partnered with other jurisdictions including provinces like québec in canada and has been a leader on these issues for years. the majority of states have renewable portfolio standards, trying to get a certain amount of renewable energy to power our homes and buildings, schools, etc. that goes to show these changes are happening, but they don't necessarily have to paint a bad picture of what life will be in the future. we can invest in new technologies like tesla and volt, new cars, new renewables, and cheaper renewables coming onto the market with wind and solar. thousands of cities are standing as leaders. you will hear from one of them in d.c. we are preparing for the impacts of climate change because we are already seeing those impacts.

i do want to talk a little bit about the national and international stage at paris. you might have heard last year in december, there was a big climate conference. we had more heads of state gathered to talk about reducing emissions than were gathered for any other purpose before. it was a successful outcome as you can see in the middle with almost 200 countries banding together to make their own individual commitments to cut their emissions. money flowing to help support the poor countries adapt and move toward cleaner energy solutions. a target of getting our emissions down so our observed increase in temperature will not go above two degrees ideally and we will decarbonize our economy by the second half of the

century. we will put adaptation on equal footing for the first time with mitigation. having gone to climate conferences for 15 years, i was happy to see it and with a wonderful resolution and not the usual finger-pointing of you go first or you are the culprit. china, india, the united states, brazil, all of these countries taking up their own leadership mantle and holding up the leadership of states. these are governors with me from washington and california. i want to point out while we are all focused on federal politics in d.c., what happens in the local communities is also very important. states and cities can lead on this. for more information on our work and what is happening in your state on renewable power or adaptation, you can go to these websites. thanks for the opportunity. [applause]

alexis: my name is alexis goggans. i am a program analyst at the department of energy and environment. i am excited to speak with you today. not just because we have an incredible opportunity to address some issues i think may have been missed in previous environmental movements, but i am excited because we have recently taken big steps in releasing the city adaptation plan to prepare for and adapt to our changing climate. not only do i get to share the impacts through the research we have done, but we can move the conversation to real solutions. i want to talk about the studies we have done, what we have seen, and what we project will happen to d.c. across planning horizons. the impacts on our infrastructure and vulnerable populations and residents. i will talk more specifically about the plan and some of the challenges we are facing with

the city. i am new to doee. my colleague did an incredible amount of work, working closely with consultants and leading scientists. it is a little doom and gloom. we have a lot of issues in d.c. most recently, the heat. i think we can all say we have survived the heatwave of 2016. hottest year on record for d.c. i'm sure you have seen the headlines. it is pretty intense. we have looked not just at the average summer daytime high temperatures but also at the nighttime temperatures. what we have done is we have taken climate data from international and global models and had the match with data points from d.c. if we look back to 1950's but

also projecting out, it is getting hot. it is going up and to the right, more extreme and more severe. what is so hard is we are not also seeing alleviation of the dangerously hot days. we are seeing heatwaves longer but also not seeing them stop at night. we have a big challenge. precipitation is another challenge we have here. this is not just storm and rain events. we also have to think about snow. you may have been impacted with the 2011 snowmageddon and hurricane jonas. across the nation, we are seeing 1000 year flood events when people were talking about the 500 year floodplain being the new 100 year floodplain. the impacts are intense.

we obviously are trending up and to the right with the other data. we look at storm events spatially. we are seeing shorter events with twice the rainfall. extreme weather is another big one and falls on the back of what we have been talking about with precipitation. the 2012 derecho was a big wake-up call the impacts on power supply and the stress it puts on vulnerable populations. this is looking at some of the data looking at design storms that look at the spatial distribution and intensity of water. when we think about sizing our stormwater infrastructure long-range, a lot of our pipe systems are not able to take what we know will be the new storm events in the future. of the other hand, we have sea

level rise. our rivers are rising and falling with the tides. the chesapeake bay is also sinking. not only do we have sinkage from pumping and glacial retreat from years ago, we have sea levels rising. it is kind of unfair for us because we have both of these processes against us. the impacts are incredibly important. this is looking at some of the army corps of engineers projections depending on how we are factoring in the warming of the ocean and considering the historical projections. whether you are picking a more modest projection, it is all going up and to the right. we are entering into hurricane season now. we will continue to experience more intense storms. that has been a big challenge when we think about moving people around, providing

services and goods. and the impact on businesses. this is the picture of a storm surge map showing areas along the potomac and anacostia, where we are at today, right here, in a flood zone. this is where the creek is to come down. this is just looking at storm surges. pretty challenging when we think about where we are going with this. a lot of waterfront development happening in the city. it is hard to imagine what the impacts are. when we can say to people is by the time i am in my 70's, we are going to see an average 10-degree increase in average temperatures. that is like adding another calendar month on to summer. when we think about precipitation, we know days with two or more inches of rain are expected to more than double by 2080. same thing with extreme weather. all of the events are going to be more intense and more

frequent. sea level rise has increased about 11 inches. that is almost one foot since 1924. with storm surges, we know nuisance flooding has increased 373% since 1950. a grim reality here. but i am excited about this report and it will inform how we look at the data and what it means for our infrastructure. the second piece of what we have done was looking at the impact on not just infrastructure but also vulnerable populations. we used the projections to look at the impact on infrastructure. thinking about trains and metro slowed down because of the heat, causing derailments. a big issue. we have to upgrade and think about materials in the future.

same thing with flooding. a lot of major infrastructure work being done. this is a picture of flooding recently. this is a picture from hurricane sandy in new york, looking at a substation that is flooded. we have two of our three substations in 500 year flood plains. they are not ready to handle a major storm event. we did a lot of mapping exercises but we wanted to know where and who will be most impacted. most of the emergency services are concentrated downtown. we have a lot of services in ward 7. other areas we have got areas around the blue plains facility built below sea level for gravity to help with the filtration system. we have flooding from the creek.

the southwest waterfront, we talked about that. we talked about federal triangle and historic flooding in bloomingdale. you can see we have a lot at risk and a lot at stake. we have these images of polar bears standing sad on iceberg melting away. i am happy we have shifted the conversation to thinking about the people, the first nation indigenous people, our populations here. we have thought about our elderly. we have looked at capacity and sensitivity, identifying age, mobility, community connectedness. are you able to survive a $400 emergency event? what about our children and youth or people with existing medical conditions? we know that is probably what is most at risk. identifying those communities are concentrated in wards 7 and

8 is separated by the anacostia river. delivering services is a big challenge. climate ready d.c. is maybe not the solution to everything but a good step in the right direction. the plan is identifying some actions we can take on the mitigation side and adaptation side as well to address impacts. we have also identified partner agencies who will be involved in the decision-making process were coordinating their own studies. lastly, identifying whether actions are short, medium, or long-term. some of the solutions will span the things we will hear about today. treeplanting to increase carbon sequestration happening naturally, offering shade, assisting with filtration.

low-impact development. all these wonderful things that will help us deal with rain events. and also things like green infrastructure. looking at micro-grids, the golden sachs building left up on the rest of new york was out. thinking about modernizing the grid. these are all great solutions. we still have lots of challenges. thinking about the intense amount of interagency involvement, stakeholder involvement, congressional oversight over land use policies, it is tough. one of the other challenges we have to think smart about is how we look at the landscape and start to think about things like finance and our failing infrastructure. this is where we have gone today. we are looking forward to implementing solutions and having conversations with people ready to implement them. thank you. [applause]

sanjukta: hi, everyone. i think they set up the conversation perfectly to set up all the problems. when the number crunching is done and the policies are made, what happens on the drawing board? what happens when a landscape architect is handed an acre or a mile? how do we translate those sites into meaningful opportunities in dealing with issues of climate change? as landscape architects who work in complex urban environments, our projects have to respond to multiple mandates. we have social mandates relating to public space. we have an aesthetic mandate. and we have the environmental mandate which is the most pertinent aspect of today's conversation.

a firm like ours is fortunate in the concept of the "icebergs" exhibit. we have work that is primarily in the public realm. it is mostly at a scale that permits us to make some of these issues related to climate change really visible. issues like flooding, water management systems, and habitat enhancement, etc. i assumed we would be in that space so i decided to open with this slide which shows the relationship of the icebergs. this is where you are right now. that space is a great place to start because along with the aspiration to create this sort of surreal, underwater world of

glacial fields, i think one of the best hopes we have from this installation was it would really invoke these important topical conversations. make the issue really visible. and that it would instigate forums of this nature. that is one of the bigger goals of things like this. i am also going to show a couple of projects that deal with issues of resiliency and climate change but at a slightly different scale. this is a project we did in new york in the harlem river and columbia university. it is a small, constrained urban site. it is only one acre but it has both a saltwater marsh system and a freshwater wetland system.

the plantings filter a lot of the rainwater and help to improve the water quality of the harlem river. in a manner of the strategies you were talking about. if you could imagine this one acre being done in many places, many universities funding and park departments picking up initiatives like this, you can imagine a lot of these issues starting to get abated. lastly, i wanted to talk about this project we have in seattle. it is part of the ongoing project for the seattle central waterfront.

the city of seattle is utilizing this infrastructural overhaul of rebuilding their seawall as an opportunity for ecological improvement and recovery. the light penetrating surface you see over here is made of transparent material. it lets light through. the light let's the salmon migrate with ease. that is something they need to migrate. this is one of the ways in which we overlaid a public space with a migration corridor for the salmon. the textured surfaces, this is an underside of the same place people are walking on. these textured surfaces aid the

marine habitat to grow. a great public space and great enhancer of marine environment. what is really exciting to me is the juxtaposition of the public realm and the necessary infrastructure being used to make the environment of the bay visible and pleasant again. in conclusion, what i would like to get to is using these projects to make these issues really visible and engage the public is something we see to do through all of our projects. i hope it is one of the ways to engage the public. thank you. [applause] aaron: great.

cool. vicki, i wanted to start with you and ask, for a city like d.c. to pull together an adaptation plan, how common has that become? are other cities doing well that d.c. should be looking toward as they implement this plan? vicki: in recent years, we have seen more interest. one thing we do is share city examples. d.c. operates as a state and city. there are about 14 states that have comprehensive adaptation plans. more are in the works. there are a lot of other states if you look at our maps and the research our team has done,

there are efforts to start to incorporate changes we have been talking about today. you might not call it climate adaptation or climate ready d.c. they might talk about sea level rise and coping with coastal changes like my home state of louisiana where the politics of climate change are not what they are in other places. but they are starting to incorporate sea level rise into planning. that is fine with me. i would rather them call it climate change adaptation, but as long as they are starting to incorporate changes and start to mainstream them and plan whether it is transportation, zoning or other policies, i think that is a good thing. and that is happening more around the country. aaron: alexis, when you look at the city's plan, how do you see implementation going forward? is there a way people can help to shape the plan? are you working with businesses or our neighbors in virginia and

maryland? alexis: stakeholder engagement has been at the forefront of all planning initiatives. community driven planning and consensus-building are common themes. there are questions around accountability and transparency. i think we made a good effort in engaging agencies who are engaging in similar initiatives and extended that to the private sector working with business districts, great streets initiatives, and providing technical assistance. i think there is this big question around community engagement. we have a lot of vulnerable populations who are not going to be able to make it to the 7:00 p.m. meeting. we have done a lot of traditional community meetings. we recently held our first webinar that had 81 people talking about science. i think the key is going to be incorporating the feedback and also thinking about setting up a framework.

whether we are identifying performance indicators, i think a framework and setting up some type of advisory committee to guide and ensure ongoing there are multiple points to touch with our most at risk residents. aaron: you said something interesting about what happens when people are implementing projects. i wonder if you both might address to what degree these plans make sustainability and climate planning part of what we do every day. how does that translate for you? do you find yourself working with communities that have bought into this? are you going to other cities that are not there yet? what does it look like when you're bringing it down to the

granular level of a new thing your building in the world? sanjukta: a lot of our projects have finite boundaries. i think the best we can do -- we do a lot of larger projects. we do a lot of outreach with them. i think there is obviously buying into the idea of protecting homes and communities and the notion of combining those efforts with public space because that is something most communities really want. in most cities, you can combine most of these. i think the frustration i have had is perhaps the neighboring property and a different developer may not have the same incentives to do the things we

are doing. i think there are efforts. new york started a great program in the mayor's office for resiliency to try to tie together some projects so they would meet the same standards to some degree. it is not as much of a mandate as i would like it to be. vicki: i think we face similar challenges. you're trying to put up something. we need permits, stakeholders, notice. we have issues internally. we have to be champions to talk to organizations that already have a legacy of challenges they are working through and have a strategic plan. we have to go, this is the new science. we are trying to get you to recycle and compost.

we also need you to retrofit your facilities at the same time. make sure you have also are on your roof. for the most part, everyone in d.c. his ready to talk about climate change. but having those conversations, you have to be very specific about which puzzle piece you are talking about. not everyone wants to hear about equity. not everyone wants to hear about ecology. but they want to know about the bottom line. shifting is definitely necessary. sanjukta: incentivization models have worked. not everybody has those. i think creating those models. it is a constantly shifting target of what is the best practice and next best thing to do. that is the struggle. you may be doing the right thing but your neighbor is not.

aaron: i want to open it up to the audience in a second. vicki, you talked about the macro changes we are seeing in fuel economy and energy. for a lot of years, it was policy driving a lot of technology and design choices. over the past couple of years, we have started to see economics drive more of this. i'm thinking of how solar prices have come down and a lot of fuel efficiency technology is cheaper than expected. what are some of the macro economic trends? is this becoming something easier people can do? vicki: i think it is getting easier. i don't want to suggest policy is not important. a lot of leadership of the state and local level along with federal tax incentive policies for solar and wind have played a role in being able to bring down the cost over time. i think it will be a combination. the fossil fuel industry has been subsidized in various ways

for some time. i think we need both a policy perspective but also to take advantage of market opportunities. there are benefits to having solar power from a resilient perspective. you're not just doing it because you are bringing down your cost or not contribute to climate change. you are also doing it because you will have power if and when the grid fails with a storm. there are all kinds of reasons. it is helpful to package the narrative so it is not like we are wanting you to go back to the caveman era and sacrifice. you have technologies that will be win-win. they are getting more

affordable. with government policies and incentives, we can tilt the balance in that direction. aaron: let's open it up to questions from the audience. >> if folks can raise their hand, we will bring the microphone to you. we are also recording this, so we want to hear your questions. aaron: right up here. >> i did not catch her name. vicki: vicki arroyo. >> thank you. i think it is clear a lot of us realize the global warming you are talking about is a partisan thing and most of us realize if in fact the white house changes over in a couple of months, all the global warming funding you are talking about will pretty much disappear. my question is to alexis. the number one issue i hear about all the time like black lives matter, how do you talk about money that white people want to spend on global warming is money that does not go to black lives matter? how do you justify that? alexis: i think that is a great

question. that is what i love about climate change. even though it is horrible, when we address climate change issues we literally address first nation community rights, vulnerable populations, systematic oppression. for me, it is not just about this or that. it is about creating a culture shift and change that allows us to evaluate our policies and programs in a way that will lift all of us. i'm interested in this intersection of equity. d.c. is number one in leed certified buildings per capita. if we don't have black and brown people in the buildings, why are we building? buildings are 25% occupied because federal workers are at home and don't want to come in.

it is a challenge for us. we don't want just to plant trees. we want them in black people's front yards. i don't want to talk more with communities about bouncing back when we have not had conversations about bringing the we need you to have food in your refrigerator now. our ability to say we don't have the right tools to engage in these organizations. it behooves us to have this conversation but with the activists who are in there. eventually they become support levels. i don't think that's an either/or. is at theimate change root of the problem.